You all may remember [[User:JarlaxleArtemis]], who has been "editing" the English Wikipedia since 2004, at age 15. Originally he was an apparently good-faith editor, but was sanctioned by ArbCom in early 2005 for somewhat immature outbursts, copyright violations, and erratic behavior; eventually he pulled such stunts as putting his teacher's e-mail address on his userpage encouraging people to harass the "fucking bitch," e-mail bombing people who deleted his copyvios, and finally impersonating users and vandalizing with what would come to be hundreds of sockpuppets, all while claiming to be the victim. He was banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArte mis_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlaxl eArtemis http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlax leArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376 &action=edit&oldid=117471376
He sockpuppeted and vandalized for a while after that, but apparently disappeared in 2006. One would have hoped maybe he grew out of his teenage phase and decided to get on with doing something productive instead.
But sadly, the story doesn't end there. In mid-2007, he reappeared with a new "persona"... the move-vandal "Grawp." Unlike his ostensible predecessor Willy on Wheels, who at least had a harmless light-hearted flair to him, as "Grawp" Jarlaxle relished in specifically targeting users and sticking their personal information (usually gleaned from Daniel Brandt's website) in his page-move titles along with death threats and rape threats. Eventually we discovered that Grawp was in fact JarlaxleArtemis, and he only got more persistent and venomous (probably because as Jarlaxle, he was very open about his real-life identity and location himself.)
About a week ago, having been one of Jarlaxle's recent targets, I decided to take matters into my own hand, and found his mother's contact information and wrote to her to inform her of the awful misdeeds her son's been up to. (While Jarlaxle is 19, he lives with his mother, and performs most of his vandalism from her Internet connection.) Instead of replying to me, however, she complained to OTRS that I was falsely accusing her son, who she insisted was JarlaxleArtemis but not Grawp. Jarlaxle then proceeded to prove her wrong... by vandalizing multiple wikis as "Grawp" later that night from the same IP address his mother sent her e-mail from. The ticket was handed to ArbCom, who replied to her with this evidence and the assurance that her son was in fact the one responsible... but received a response that she didn't believe them, didn't care, and was blocking all further e-mail from Wikimedia. (Though it's been suggested that Jarlaxle himself may have written that mail.) And he's continued to vandalize as recently as tonight.
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and in college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the Internet, even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity is known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to him, and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he still soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles "I will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be running through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
-Fran
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and in college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the Internet, even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity is known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to him, and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he still soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles "I will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be running through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
-Fran
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and in college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the
Internet,
even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity is known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to
him,
and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he
still
soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles
"I
will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be running through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her and him, cc the ISP?
There would be no shortage of people to sign a petition to the ISP, if you want to go that route. This has gone on long enough.
-Durova
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and
in
college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the
Internet,
even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity
is
known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to
him,
and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he
still
soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles
"I
will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be
running
through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her and him, cc the ISP?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
# --~~~~
I completely support sending both a cease-and-desist letter to the family/ISP. This harassment has gone on long enough.
On Dec 13, 2008, at 5:24 PM [Dec 13, 2008 ], Durova wrote:
There would be no shortage of people to sign a petition to the ISP, if you want to go that route. This has gone on long enough.
-Durova
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and
in
college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the
Internet,
even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity
is
known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to
him,
and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he
still
soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles
"I
will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be
running
through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her and him, cc the ISP?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I strongly agree. Something must be done very soon. I noticed just in the past hour or so on RC patrol, Grawp harassed a few more users.
William King (Willking1979)
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:24 PM To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
There would be no shortage of people to sign a petition to the ISP, if you want to go that route. This has gone on long enough.
-Durova
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and
in
college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the
Internet,
even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity
is
known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to
him,
and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he
still
soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles
"I
will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be
running
through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her and him, cc the ISP?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Okay, what's the best venue for a petition?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 4:14 PM, William King williamcarlking@gmail.comwrote:
I strongly agree. Something must be done very soon. I noticed just in the past hour or so on RC patrol, Grawp harassed a few more users.
William King (Willking1979)
From: "Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:24 PM To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
There would be no shortage of people to sign a petition to the ISP, if
you
want to go that route. This has gone on long enough.
-Durova
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and
in
college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the
Internet,
even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his
identity
is
known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them
to
him,
and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he
still
soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles
"I
will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be
running
through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her and him, cc the ISP?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Let's remember that we may have to do something about Grawp and ED, as he is harassing users there too.
On Dec 13, 2008, at 8:45 PM [Dec 13, 2008 ], Durova wrote:
Okay, what's the best venue for a petition?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 4:14 PM, William King williamcarlking@gmail.comwrote:
I strongly agree. Something must be done very soon. I noticed just in the past hour or so on RC patrol, Grawp harassed a few more users.
William King (Willking1979)
From: "Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:24 PM To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
There would be no shortage of people to sign a petition to the ISP, if
you
want to go that route. This has gone on long enough.
-Durova
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and
in
college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the
Internet,
even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his
identity
is
known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them
to
him,
and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he
still
soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles
"I
will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be
running
through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her and him, cc the ISP?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
abuse@offender's.isp.com , cc this list, especially if it bounces in a way that looks permanent. If it's a police issue...and so it reads, then a whois search can give you clues about phone calls. or postmaster@offender's.isp.com , not my first choice. Included for archaic reasons (more widely supported). webmaster@offender's.isp.com , probably not the best option, since the biggest issues they typically have are copyvios.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Soxred93" soxred93@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
Let's remember that we may have to do something about Grawp and ED, as he is harassing users there too.
On Dec 13, 2008, at 8:45 PM [Dec 13, 2008 ], Durova wrote:
Okay, what's the best venue for a petition?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 4:14 PM, William King williamcarlking@gmail.comwrote:
I strongly agree. Something must be done very soon. I noticed just in the past hour or so on RC patrol, Grawp harassed a few more users.
William King (Willking1979)
From: "Durova" nadezhda.durova@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:24 PM To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
There would be no shortage of people to sign a petition to the ISP, if
you
want to go that route. This has gone on long enough.
-Durova
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws: > Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years > old > and
in
> college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of > him. Yet > he > still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the Internet, > even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his
identity
is
> known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting > them
to
him, > and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been > alerted. And > he still > soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to > titles "I > will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be
running
> through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her and him, cc the ISP?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Or we could hire someone to throw him a shoe or perhaps a pretzel ;) - White Cat
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and
in
college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the
Internet,
even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity
is
known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to
him,
and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he
still
soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles
"I
will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be
running
through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
If he's making threats of violence and stalking then you should contact his local police. They'll probably at least discuss it with him and he'll either stop or eventually criminal proceedings will occur. Doesn't sound like there's any other option.
Forensic analysis of his computer could doubtless prove it was him doing this, not his mother who shares the same IP.
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C- they might well want to terminate his service. But he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
Perhaps the Foundation could send a cease-and-desist letter to both her and him, cc the ISP?
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/21/08, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Or we could hire someone to throw him a shoe or perhaps a pretzel ;) -
What, so he can choke on it?
—C.W.
Wait until he is at a press conference to throw your shoes at him.
-X!
On Dec 21, 2008, at 11:11 PM [Dec 21, 2008 ], Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 12/21/08, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Or we could hire someone to throw him a shoe or perhaps a pretzel ;) -
What, so he can choke on it?
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For a newcomer to this thread, the abuse is in the what will only stand for ten seconds category, and as far as I know, the user was addressed. It is probably even hard to be sure that Hanson does not hav accounts that he reserves for honest work.
The United States Criminal Code, title 18, section 1030,
I think we would hav trouble demonstrating that wikipedia is protected (keyword in the legislation) by anything but tedious labour, and it's also hard to show damage in dollar terms, unless all the checkuser clerks are paid. I see nothing, because it's legislation geared towards milnet (domains ending in .mil). Maybe the secure part of wikipedia would qualify if they required bank-signed public keys.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+608+0++...
The search term "computer" should not be necessary, and for some reason, it is. If the URL breaks, then start with:
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
or only the domain name. I do not *think* we hav any basis for criminal proceedings. Physical, yes. ISPs, as far as I know, cannot compel read access to wikipedia. We don't block reads, either. Writers are about one in ten thousand. Hopefully, they know who to complain to at verizon and hav an account, already. Then it's just a matter of shutting down Hanson's accounts, methinks. The hard question is how long the block should be, for me, who is not in a position to make it.
Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) govern the internet, not the CANSPAM act.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
For a newcomer to this thread, the abuse is in the what will only stand for ten seconds category, and as far as I know, the user was addressed. It is probably even hard to be sure that Hanson does not hav accounts that he reserves for honest work.
The United States Criminal Code, title 18, section 1030,
I think we would hav trouble demonstrating that wikipedia is protected (keyword in the legislation) by anything but tedious labour, and it's also hard to show damage in dollar terms, unless all the checkuser clerks are paid. I see nothing, because it's legislation geared towards milnet (domains ending in .mil). Maybe the secure part of wikipedia would qualify if they required bank-signed public keys.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+608+0++...
The search term "computer" should not be necessary, and for some reason, it is. If the URL breaks, then start with:
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
or only the domain name. I do not *think* we hav any basis for criminal proceedings. Physical, yes. ISPs, as far as I know, cannot compel read access to wikipedia. We don't block reads, either. Writers are about one in ten thousand. Hopefully, they know who to complain to at verizon and hav an account, already. Then it's just a matter of shutting down Hanson's accounts, methinks. The hard question is how long the block should be, for me, who is not in a position to make it.
Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) govern the internet, not the CANSPAM act.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We should really consider the option of making the rangeblock, with a very clear blocked page, that clearly indicated where users can complain (verizon) about not being able to edit. And only we know for sure that Verizon is in the know, that they do realise there is the option that all of their users are getting blocked because this one abusive account, that they are unable or unwilling to adress.
What I would like to know is: Who is currently contacting or trying to contact Verizon, and, if we would consider the step of rangeblocking all of Verizon, there should be on site discussion about this first, at least on the administrators noticeboard.
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
<snip.
We should really consider the option of making the rangeblock, with a very clear blocked page, that clearly indicated where users can complain (verizon) about not being able to edit. And only we know for sure that Verizon is in the know, that they do realise there is the option that all of their users are getting blocked because this one abusive account, that they are unable or unwilling to adress.
What I would like to know is: Who is currently contacting or trying to contact Verizon, and, if we would consider the step of rangeblocking all of Verizon, there should be on site discussion about this first, at least on the administrators noticeboard.
I tried that with Tiscali to get some action in relation to prolific sockpuppeteer [[User:WJH1992]], but all I got was whinges about the collateral damage. I really think that in relation to Jarlaxle/Grawp, Verizon should be contacted by someone with the standing of, say, Mike Godwin, although I appreciate he'd probably be reluctant to get involved.
I called verizon. Answer was a recording referring the case to security@verizon.net from which I hav received no response (AFAIK, postmaster@ serves the same purpose at any other ISP). I also called Jeremy Hanson's phone number at 562-431-7852. Yet another answering machine. I left a message explaining that I want to talk to Jeremy Hanson about wikipedia edits that violate editorial policy, plus my phone number and e-mail address. I have not verified that police action follows from our definition of vandalism (which probably doesn't need definition, because it is never as careful as graffiti). When I checked the state laws of Virginia, vandalism was about archaeology. "Don't wreck the art. Don't break or advertize on the stalactites". I would follow up with a call to police, and I did, and I had to retract my statement, because I could not back up what Fran Rogers was saying with *links* to what is stale data on checkuser pages. I will keep digging after my beer. While verizon's terms of service forbid "unwanted communication", I hav gotten no response from them via any channel, and I hav tried all of those listed on a whois search. You might want to list verizon in a LONG-TERM ABUSE case for not enforcing their TOS or AUP. Let me know exactly when or where that is. _______ [[user_talk:brewhaha@edmc.net|Is now open, thanks.]] [http://www.ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Privileged%20Information%20for%20Newbies.HTM]
"Phil Nash" pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote in message news:0C822F24571B49EBAEBAF408D9D876A8@mothere50f7f7b...
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
<snip.
We should really consider the option of making the rangeblock, with a very clear blocked page, that clearly indicated where users can complain (verizon) about not being able to edit. And only we know for sure that Verizon is in the know, that they do realise there is the option that all of their users are getting blocked because this one abusive account, that they are unable or unwilling to adress.
What I would like to know is: Who is currently contacting or trying to contact Verizon, and, if we would consider the step of rangeblocking all of Verizon, there should be on site discussion about this first, at least on the administrators noticeboard.
I tried that with Tiscali to get some action in relation to prolific sockpuppeteer [[User:WJH1992]], but all I got was whinges about the collateral damage. I really think that in relation to Jarlaxle/Grawp, Verizon should be contacted by someone with the standing of, say, Mike Godwin, although I appreciate he'd probably be reluctant to get involved.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If we rangeblock all of Verizon, we're giving Grawp exactly what he wants. He wants to cause disruption, and causing a huge rangeblock is success for him.
X!
On Dec 24, 2008, at 5:10 PM [Dec 24, 2008 ], Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
For a newcomer to this thread, the abuse is in the what will only stand for ten seconds category, and as far as I know, the user was addressed. It is probably even hard to be sure that Hanson does not hav accounts that he reserves for honest work.
The United States Criminal Code, title 18, section 1030,
I think we would hav trouble demonstrating that wikipedia is protected (keyword in the legislation) by anything but tedious labour, and it's also hard to show damage in dollar terms, unless all the checkuser clerks are paid. I see nothing, because it's legislation geared towards milnet (domains ending in .mil). Maybe the secure part of wikipedia would qualify if they required bank-signed public keys.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview +t17t20+608+0++%28computer%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC% 29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281030%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20
The search term "computer" should not be necessary, and for some reason, it is. If the URL breaks, then start with:
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
or only the domain name. I do not *think* we hav any basis for criminal proceedings. Physical, yes. ISPs, as far as I know, cannot compel read access to wikipedia. We don't block reads, either. Writers are about one in ten thousand. Hopefully, they know who to complain to at verizon and hav an account, already. Then it's just a matter of shutting down Hanson's accounts, methinks. The hard question is how long the block should be, for me, who is not in a position to make it.
Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) govern the internet, not the CANSPAM act.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We should really consider the option of making the rangeblock, with a very clear blocked page, that clearly indicated where users can complain (verizon) about not being able to edit. And only we know for sure that Verizon is in the know, that they do realise there is the option that all of their users are getting blocked because this one abusive account, that they are unable or unwilling to adress.
What I would like to know is: Who is currently contacting or trying to contact Verizon, and, if we would consider the step of rangeblocking all of Verizon, there should be on site discussion about this first, at least on the administrators noticeboard.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 12/24/08 8:43 PM, Soxred93 at soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
If we rangeblock all of Verizon, we're giving Grawp exactly what he wants. He wants to cause disruption, and causing a huge rangeblock is success for him.
X!
You are absolutely right. This person (and his parents) need to have an authority - in his face - ordering him to stop; and spelling out - in clear detail - the consequences if he does not. This includes taking away his weapon: his computer.
Marc Riddell
On Dec 24, 2008, at 5:10 PM [Dec 24, 2008 ], Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
For a newcomer to this thread, the abuse is in the what will only stand for ten seconds category, and as far as I know, the user was addressed. It is probably even hard to be sure that Hanson does not hav accounts that he reserves for honest work.
The United States Criminal Code, title 18, section 1030,
I think we would hav trouble demonstrating that wikipedia is protected (keyword in the legislation) by anything but tedious labour, and it's also hard to show damage in dollar terms, unless all the checkuser clerks are paid. I see nothing, because it's legislation geared towards milnet (domains ending in .mil). Maybe the secure part of wikipedia would qualify if they required bank-signed public keys.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview +t17t20+608+0++%28computer%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC% 29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281030%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20
The search term "computer" should not be necessary, and for some reason, it is. If the URL breaks, then start with:
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
or only the domain name. I do not *think* we hav any basis for criminal proceedings. Physical, yes. ISPs, as far as I know, cannot compel read access to wikipedia. We don't block reads, either. Writers are about one in ten thousand. Hopefully, they know who to complain to at verizon and hav an account, already. Then it's just a matter of shutting down Hanson's accounts, methinks. The hard question is how long the block should be, for me, who is not in a position to make it.
Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) govern the internet, not the CANSPAM act.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We should really consider the option of making the rangeblock, with a very clear blocked page, that clearly indicated where users can complain (verizon) about not being able to edit. And only we know for sure that Verizon is in the know, that they do realise there is the option that all of their users are getting blocked because this one abusive account, that they are unable or unwilling to adress.
What I would like to know is: Who is currently contacting or trying to contact Verizon, and, if we would consider the step of rangeblocking all of Verizon, there should be on site discussion about this first, at least on the administrators noticeboard.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25/12/2008, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
If we rangeblock all of Verizon, we're giving Grawp exactly what he wants. He wants to cause disruption, and causing a huge rangeblock is success for him.
It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't want. It only matters what the wikipedia wants. Probably rangeblocking Verizon would be bad for the Wikipedia's reputation ("Anyone can edit except for Verizon users!"), Verizon would have to be incredibly unresponsive and acting in incredibly bad faith to have to/really want to do that, but it remains a possibility.
There might be a better case though for automatically, temporarily, black holing or edit blocking or simply delaying the edits (until a human can hand check them) of individual IPs/accounts from anywhere on the internet that engage in certain broad patterns of activity.
The important thing is to minimise the length/number of times that any particular IP is able to engage in Grawp-like or other stereotypic behaviour. While he/she/they would be able to soon find another IP, it significantly mitigates the damage that can be done, and minimises the cleanup.
X!
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/2008, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
If we rangeblock all of Verizon, we're giving Grawp exactly what he wants. He wants to cause disruption, and causing a huge rangeblock is success for him.
It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't want. It only matters what the wikipedia wants. Probably rangeblocking Verizon would be bad for the Wikipedia's reputation ("Anyone can edit except for Verizon users!"), Verizon would have to be incredibly unresponsive and acting in incredibly bad faith to have to/really want to do that, but it remains a possibility.
There might be a better case though for automatically, temporarily, black holing or edit blocking or simply delaying the edits (until a human can hand check them) of individual IPs/accounts from anywhere on the internet that engage in certain broad patterns of activity.
The important thing is to minimise the length/number of times that any particular IP is able to engage in Grawp-like or other stereotypic behaviour. While he/she/they would be able to soon find another IP, it significantly mitigates the damage that can be done, and minimises the cleanup.
X!
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
] It seems hard to believe that Verizon would let such a rangeblock sit for long. I think the only message we need to get over to them is "dude, we're not kidding. We don't want to rangeblock your entire ISP, but this one person who has an internet account with you is causing us major headaches. Because of your dynamic IP adresses, we are unable to deal with it on an individual level. We are open to suggestions on how we can solve the problem, but if you are really not willing to help us out here, we simply have no other choise but to block every IP adress in your range from editing, as much as we'd hate to do that"
I can't believe that bigwigs at Verizon would be willing to let that happen, the question is just how to get through to the right people that can do something about it.
Maybe we can set it for only 1 day, but use a JS hack to say that it's indefinite. That might get the word out to them. :)
X!
On Dec 25, 2008, at 5:12 AM [Dec 25, 2008 ], Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/2008, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
If we rangeblock all of Verizon, we're giving Grawp exactly what he wants. He wants to cause disruption, and causing a huge rangeblock is success for him.
It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't want. It only matters what the wikipedia wants. Probably rangeblocking Verizon would be bad for the Wikipedia's reputation ("Anyone can edit except for Verizon users!"), Verizon would have to be incredibly unresponsive and acting in incredibly bad faith to have to/really want to do that, but it remains a possibility.
There might be a better case though for automatically, temporarily, black holing or edit blocking or simply delaying the edits (until a human can hand check them) of individual IPs/accounts from anywhere on the internet that engage in certain broad patterns of activity.
The important thing is to minimise the length/number of times that any particular IP is able to engage in Grawp-like or other stereotypic behaviour. While he/she/they would be able to soon find another IP, it significantly mitigates the damage that can be done, and minimises the cleanup.
X!
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
] It seems hard to believe that Verizon would let such a rangeblock sit for long. I think the only message we need to get over to them is "dude, we're not kidding. We don't want to rangeblock your entire ISP, but this one person who has an internet account with you is causing us major headaches. Because of your dynamic IP adresses, we are unable to deal with it on an individual level. We are open to suggestions on how we can solve the problem, but if you are really not willing to help us out here, we simply have no other choise but to block every IP adress in your range from editing, as much as we'd hate to do that"
I can't believe that bigwigs at Verizon would be willing to let that happen, the question is just how to get through to the right people that can do something about it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Soxred93 wrote:
Maybe we can set it for only 1 day, but use a JS hack to say that it's indefinite. That might get the word out to them. :)
X!
What might be better is to email their abuse@ first saying that on a certain date, none of their customers will be able to edit anonymously, and that this will continue, with the blocking period doubling, until they do something about *their* customer. I don't know if they have support newsgroups, but info to this effect into those NGs will concentrate the minds of those affected customers such that they will act in their own interests, but ultimately to ours too.
As far as I can see, there is nothing unlawful in this, and it doesn't amount to blackmail, because it's not an "unwarranted demand"- it's a simple declaration of intent; and it's not "with menaces", because restricting access to an essentially private website can be done for whatever reason at all, capricious or not. Neither is it "with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss", because that clause specifically directs to economic consequences, which would not follow to Verizon should we choose to block their anon customers en bloc for temporary periods.
All in all, it's *our* website, and we hold all the cards.
Also, we should include a message that tells people to contact the ISP to get the block fixed. Thousands of e-mails should get their attention (although it didn't work for the images of Mohammad issue, hmm).
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Soxred93 wrote:
Maybe we can set it for only 1 day, but use a JS hack to say that it's indefinite. That might get the word out to them. :)
X!
What might be better is to email their abuse@ first saying that on a certain date, none of their customers will be able to edit anonymously, and that this will continue, with the blocking period doubling, until they do something about *their* customer. I don't know if they have support newsgroups, but info to this effect into those NGs will concentrate the minds of those affected customers such that they will act in their own interests, but ultimately to ours too.
As far as I can see, there is nothing unlawful in this, and it doesn't amount to blackmail, because it's not an "unwarranted demand"- it's a simple declaration of intent; and it's not "with menaces", because restricting access to an essentially private website can be done for whatever reason at all, capricious or not. Neither is it "with a view to gain or with intent to cause loss", because that clause specifically directs to economic consequences, which would not follow to Verizon should we choose to block their anon customers en bloc for temporary periods.
All in all, it's *our* website, and we hold all the cards.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/26 Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com:
Maybe we can set it for only 1 day, but use a JS hack to say that it's indefinite. That might get the word out to them. :)
The idea of blocking a whole ISP is unlikely to fly. I suspect that an admin placing such a block without agreement from the arbcom and the Foundation (cos you *know* they'd get the crap for it) would be (a) quickly reversed (b) given a slap round the head with a trout at the very least.
Attention-getting blocks have worked on bodies the size of universities before (I recall two of them, both put into place by a sitting arbitrator who then managed relations with the organisations very closely), but even then it was a very last desperate resort. Throwing our weight around like that would be a PR disaster, no matter how unresponsive Verizon were being.
- d.
So it comes down to whether or not we care more about a positive PR image or being able to maintain an encyclopedia without disruption and harassment from one of the biggest idiots we've ever had? I know what my choice would be...
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/26 Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com:
Maybe we can set it for only 1 day, but use a JS hack to say that it's indefinite. That might get the word out to them. :)
The idea of blocking a whole ISP is unlikely to fly. I suspect that an admin placing such a block without agreement from the arbcom and the Foundation (cos you *know* they'd get the crap for it) would be (a) quickly reversed (b) given a slap round the head with a trout at the very least.
Attention-getting blocks have worked on bodies the size of universities before (I recall two of them, both put into place by a sitting arbitrator who then managed relations with the organisations very closely), but even then it was a very last desperate resort. Throwing our weight around like that would be a PR disaster, no matter how unresponsive Verizon were being.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/26 John Reaves johnreaveswp@gmail.com:
So it comes down to whether or not we care more about a positive PR image or being able to maintain an encyclopedia without disruption and harassment from one of the biggest idiots we've ever had? I know what my choice would be...
I'm describing how this has been done in the past and why. PR isn't the reason, it's a consideration.
I predict that such an ISP-wide block as we're describing here would go block, unblock, block, unblock x10, stop at unblock, arbitration, trout slaps and desysops all round for idiot blocking and wheel warring. Though it might shake loose the lower decile of admins. (That's an unintended side benefit, not a reason to do it either.)
The reason the wheel of fat would stop at "unblock" is that the secret of blocks on Wikipedia is: they're just minor speed humps; you can't keep someone from editing if they *really* want to without shutting down the wiki. That's what "soft security" means and that's why we use it. Would your average reader or even editor know who the hell Grawp is in this context? No, they wouldn't. (They wouldn't because quite a few people work hard to make it that way, but nevertheless.)
There's no point disrupting editing for large chunks of Verizon because this would just cause Grawp to go elsewhere. We're talking about someone who's clearly pathologically dedicated to this task.
There is no cure for vandalism on Wikipedia while humans are humans.
- d.
X! you missed out adminbots(e.g. Miza's).
- Chris
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/26 John Reaves johnreaveswp@gmail.com:
So it comes down to whether or not we care more about a positive PR image
or
being able to maintain an encyclopedia without disruption and harassment from one of the biggest idiots we've ever had? I know what my choice
would
be...
I'm describing how this has been done in the past and why. PR isn't the reason, it's a consideration.
I predict that such an ISP-wide block as we're describing here would go block, unblock, block, unblock x10, stop at unblock, arbitration, trout slaps and desysops all round for idiot blocking and wheel warring. Though it might shake loose the lower decile of admins. (That's an unintended side benefit, not a reason to do it either.)
The reason the wheel of fat would stop at "unblock" is that the secret of blocks on Wikipedia is: they're just minor speed humps; you can't keep someone from editing if they *really* want to without shutting down the wiki. That's what "soft security" means and that's why we use it. Would your average reader or even editor know who the hell Grawp is in this context? No, they wouldn't. (They wouldn't because quite a few people work hard to make it that way, but nevertheless.)
There's no point disrupting editing for large chunks of Verizon because this would just cause Grawp to go elsewhere. We're talking about someone who's clearly pathologically dedicated to this task.
There is no cure for vandalism on Wikipedia while humans are humans.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:45 AM, Christopher Grant chrisgrantmail@gmail.com wrote:
X! you missed out adminbots(e.g. Miza's).
- Chris
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/26 John Reaves johnreaveswp@gmail.com:
So it comes down to whether or not we care more about a positive PR image
or
being able to maintain an encyclopedia without disruption and harassment from one of the biggest idiots we've ever had? I know what my choice
would
be...
I'm describing how this has been done in the past and why. PR isn't the reason, it's a consideration.
I predict that such an ISP-wide block as we're describing here would go block, unblock, block, unblock x10, stop at unblock, arbitration, trout slaps and desysops all round for idiot blocking and wheel warring. Though it might shake loose the lower decile of admins. (That's an unintended side benefit, not a reason to do it either.)
The reason the wheel of fat would stop at "unblock" is that the secret of blocks on Wikipedia is: they're just minor speed humps; you can't keep someone from editing if they *really* want to without shutting down the wiki. That's what "soft security" means and that's why we use it. Would your average reader or even editor know who the hell Grawp is in this context? No, they wouldn't. (They wouldn't because quite a few people work hard to make it that way, but nevertheless.)
There's no point disrupting editing for large chunks of Verizon because this would just cause Grawp to go elsewhere. We're talking about someone who's clearly pathologically dedicated to this task.
There is no cure for vandalism on Wikipedia while humans are humans.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I requested feedback on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement]] with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noti...
Not going to put this on-wiki, but...
I may have a back channel to Verizon abuse people via the spam fighter community.
I am peripherally aware of the details here, but I'm not the right person to talk to Verizon about them.
If I can get a contact, who should I point them at for the detailed conversation including names, addresses, edit histories, etc?
Thanks.
-george
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:45 AM, Christopher Grant chrisgrantmail@gmail.com wrote:
X! you missed out adminbots(e.g. Miza's).
- Chris
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
2008/12/26 John Reaves johnreaveswp@gmail.com:
So it comes down to whether or not we care more about a positive PR
image
or
being able to maintain an encyclopedia without disruption and
harassment
from one of the biggest idiots we've ever had? I know what my choice
would
be...
I'm describing how this has been done in the past and why. PR isn't the reason, it's a consideration.
I predict that such an ISP-wide block as we're describing here would go block, unblock, block, unblock x10, stop at unblock, arbitration, trout slaps and desysops all round for idiot blocking and wheel warring. Though it might shake loose the lower decile of admins. (That's an unintended side benefit, not a reason to do it either.)
The reason the wheel of fat would stop at "unblock" is that the secret of blocks on Wikipedia is: they're just minor speed humps; you can't keep someone from editing if they *really* want to without shutting down the wiki. That's what "soft security" means and that's why we use it. Would your average reader or even editor know who the hell Grawp is in this context? No, they wouldn't. (They wouldn't because quite a few people work hard to make it that way, but nevertheless.)
There's no point disrupting editing for large chunks of Verizon because this would just cause Grawp to go elsewhere. We're talking about someone who's clearly pathologically dedicated to this task.
There is no cure for vandalism on Wikipedia while humans are humans.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I requested feedback on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement]] with
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noti...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If Verizon or whatever Incompetant Inc. ISP he uses is unlikely to do anything, why not just fix it from a technical end?
Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse page.
If the technical means to do this doesn't exist yet, why doesn't someone create it?
- Joe
Is he worth causing that much disruption to our users?
On 12/29/08, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
If Verizon or whatever Incompetant Inc. ISP he uses is unlikely to do anything, why not just fix it from a technical end?
Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse page.
If the technical means to do this doesn't exist yet, why doesn't someone create it?
- Joe
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 29/12/2008, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse page.
It probably wouldn't work because of proxies and people that would emulate/help him.
Still, ideas that would affect less people rather than more like that are almost certainly IMO the way to go; for example restricting the range of characters and checking that the move title consists of words in a dictionary before permitting non admins or users with a small number of edits to complete a move might be desirable.
- Joe
The problem with that is that many articles we have would not be found in any dictionary.
X!
On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM [Dec 29, 2008 ], Ian Woollard wrote:
On 29/12/2008, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse page.
It probably wouldn't work because of proxies and people that would emulate/help him.
Still, ideas that would affect less people rather than more like that are almost certainly IMO the way to go; for example restricting the range of characters and checking that the move title consists of words in a dictionary before permitting non admins or users with a small number of edits to complete a move might be desirable.
- Joe
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What percentage of his page moves were not picked up automatically by a bot?
What percentage of this users vandalism is not picked up by a bot?
Why is the ISP responsible for what he dumps into Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia, as it allows itself to be a dumping ground? The Viacom/Youtube lawsuit demonstrates that this is a legal grey area, thus, I see little ground on which to punish the entire ip range of the ISP.
Why are machine learning bots that are trained on previous vandalism in order to detect new vandalism not being used? They have been developed. Why is the Foundation not funding their further development?
I believe the direction of this thread has been all wrong.
Peace,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with that is that many articles we have would not be found in any dictionary.
X!
On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM [Dec 29, 2008 ], Ian Woollard wrote:
On 29/12/2008, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse page.
It probably wouldn't work because of proxies and people that would emulate/help him.
Still, ideas that would affect less people rather than more like that are almost certainly IMO the way to go; for example restricting the range of characters and checking that the move title consists of words in a dictionary before permitting non admins or users with a small number of edits to complete a move might be desirable.
- Joe
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
By the way, I ask those questions having read the bots user page. It is apparently quite effective, indicating to me that this user causes minimal disruption.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
What percentage of his page moves were not picked up automatically by a bot?
What percentage of this users vandalism is not picked up by a bot?
Why is the ISP responsible for what he dumps into Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia, as it allows itself to be a dumping ground? The Viacom/Youtube lawsuit demonstrates that this is a legal grey area, thus, I see little ground on which to punish the entire ip range of the ISP.
Why are machine learning bots that are trained on previous vandalism in order to detect new vandalism not being used? They have been developed. Why is the Foundation not funding their further development?
I believe the direction of this thread has been all wrong.
Peace,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with that is that many articles we have would not be found in any dictionary.
X!
On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM [Dec 29, 2008 ], Ian Woollard wrote:
On 29/12/2008, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse page.
It probably wouldn't work because of proxies and people that would emulate/help him.
Still, ideas that would affect less people rather than more like that are almost certainly IMO the way to go; for example restricting the range of characters and checking that the move title consists of words in a dictionary before permitting non admins or users with a small number of edits to complete a move might be desirable.
- Joe
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- You have successfully failed!
Potthast, Stein, Gerling. (2008). Automatic Vandalism Detection in Wikipedia. http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/publications/downloads/papers/stein_20...
Abstract. We present results of a new approach to detect destructive article revi- sions, so-called vandalism, in Wikipedia. Vandalism detection is a one-class clas- sification problem, where vandalism edits are the target to be identified among all revisions. Interestingly, vandalism detection has not been addressed in the In- formation Retrieval literature by now. In this paper we discuss the characteristics of vandalism as humans recognize it and develop features to render vandalism detection as a machine learning task. We compiled a large number of vandalism edits in a corpus, which allows for the comparison of existing and new detection approaches. Using logistic regression we achieve 83% precision at 77% recall with our model.* Compared to the rule-based methods that are currently applied* *in Wikipedia, our approach increases the F -Measure performance by 49% while* *being faster at the same time.*
Open the PDF, scan to page 667. This bot outperforms MartinBot, T-850 Robotic Assistant, WerdnaAntiVandalBot, Xenophon, ClueBot, CounterVandalismBot, PkgBot, MiszaBot, and AntiVandalBot. It outperforms the best of those (AntiVandalBot) by a very wide margin.
So why are you wasting the ISPs time and the police's time when the best of the passive technology routes have not been explored? Using machine learning *you pit the vandals against themselves. *Every time they perform a particular kind of vandalism, it can never be performed again because the bot will recognize it.
Cheers,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
By the way, I ask those questions having read the bots user page. It is apparently quite effective, indicating to me that this user causes minimal disruption.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
What percentage of his page moves were not picked up automatically by a bot?
What percentage of this users vandalism is not picked up by a bot?
Why is the ISP responsible for what he dumps into Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia, as it allows itself to be a dumping ground? The Viacom/Youtube lawsuit demonstrates that this is a legal grey area, thus, I see little ground on which to punish the entire ip range of the ISP.
Why are machine learning bots that are trained on previous vandalism in order to detect new vandalism not being used? They have been developed. Why is the Foundation not funding their further development?
I believe the direction of this thread has been all wrong.
Peace,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with that is that many articles we have would not be found in any dictionary.
X!
On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:02 PM [Dec 29, 2008 ], Ian Woollard wrote:
On 29/12/2008, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse page.
It probably wouldn't work because of proxies and people that would emulate/help him.
Still, ideas that would affect less people rather than more like that are almost certainly IMO the way to go; for example restricting the range of characters and checking that the move title consists of words in a dictionary before permitting non admins or users with a small number of edits to complete a move might be desirable.
- Joe
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- You have successfully failed!
-- You have successfully failed!
On 29/12/2008, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
So why are you wasting the ISPs time and the police's time when the best of the passive technology routes have not been explored? Using machine learning *you pit the vandals against themselves. *Every time they perform a particular kind of vandalism, it can never be performed again because the bot will recognize it.
There's an infinite number of ways to vandalise the wikipedia, and, in practice, not all forms of vandalism can be detected by any known design of bot, or humans with complete reliability for that matter.
I know something of machine learning myself, although I am not an expert. In principle it can learn anything, in practice, there are many problems and if you have *any* other way to do something, you're normally better off.
Vandalism/spam is a difficult enough problem that *any* method should be investigated and if it is found to be effective, applied, not simply technological ones. But we need to stick to proportionality- we should never use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Jarlaxle is only 19; as I understand it the human brain does not fully mature until maybe 25. Unless he's actually mentally ill (which is by no means inconceivable) he is likely to stop of his own accord at some point.
On 29/12/2008, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
So why are you wasting the ISPs time and the police's time when the best of the passive technology routes have not been explored? Using machine learning *you pit the vandals against themselves. *Every time they perform a particular kind of vandalism, it can never be performed again because the bot will recognize it.
on 12/31/08 1:15 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
There's an infinite number of ways to vandalise the wikipedia, and, in practice, not all forms of vandalism can be detected by any known design of bot, or humans with complete reliability for that matter.
I know something of machine learning myself, although I am not an expert. In principle it can learn anything, in practice, there are many problems and if you have *any* other way to do something, you're normally better off.
Vandalism/spam is a difficult enough problem that *any* method should be investigated and if it is found to be effective, applied, not simply technological ones. But we need to stick to proportionality- we should never use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Jarlaxle is only 19; as I understand it the human brain does not fully mature until maybe 25. Unless he's actually mentally ill (which is by no means inconceivable) he is likely to stop of his own accord at some point.
You are treading on dangerous and uncertain ground here, Ian: the difference between mental health and emotional health. I am not suggesting that the guy be dragged off in chains to somewhere. But a strong, in-person message - both to him AND his parents - from an authority spelling out the consequences if he does not stop could go a long way towards resolving this.
Marc Riddell
Potthast, Stein, Gerling. (2008). Automatic Vandalism Detection in Wikipedia. http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/webis/publications/downloads/papers/stein_20...
Abstract. We present results of a new approach to detect destructive article revi- sions, so-called vandalism, in Wikipedia. Vandalism detection is a one-class clas- sification problem, where vandalism edits are the target to be identified among all revisions. Interestingly, vandalism detection has not been addressed in the In- formation Retrieval literature by now. In this paper we discuss the characteristics of vandalism as humans recognize it and develop features to render vandalism detection as a machine learning task. We compiled a large number of vandalism edits in a corpus, which allows for the comparison of existing and new detection approaches. Using logistic regression we achieve 83% precision at 77% recall with our model.* Compared to the rule-based methods that are currently applied* *in Wikipedia, our approach increases the F -Measure performance by 49% while* *being faster at the same time.*
Open the PDF, scan to page 667. This bot outperforms MartinBot, T-850 Robotic Assistant, WerdnaAntiVandalBot, Xenophon, ClueBot, CounterVandalismBot, PkgBot, MiszaBot, and AntiVandalBot. It outperforms the best of those (AntiVandalBot) by a very wide margin.
So why are you wasting the ISPs time and the police's time when the best of the passive technology routes have not been explored? Using machine learning *you pit the vandals against themselves. *Every time they perform a particular kind of vandalism, it can never be performed again because the bot will recognize it.
Cheers,
On 29/12/2008, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Using logistic regression we achieve 83% precision at 77% recall with our model.* Compared to the rule-based methods that are currently applied* *in Wikipedia, our approach increases the F -Measure performance by 49% while* *being faster at the same time.*
In my experience and reasonably expert knowledge of spam fighting, these are not very good statistics. If they had achieved over 99% then I would have been impressed, with if they did that with even fewer false positives then I would have been thoroughly impressed.
And I don't consider it either-or. We should fight spammers of all kinds with all techniques that work.
Your standards are far too high. Rules + automatic classification + human eyes converges on 100%.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.comwrote:
On 29/12/2008, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Using logistic regression we achieve 83% precision at 77% recall with our model.* Compared to the rule-based methods that are currently applied* *in Wikipedia, our approach increases the F -Measure performance by 49% while* *being faster at the same time.*
In my experience and reasonably expert knowledge of spam fighting, these are not very good statistics. If they had achieved over 99% then I would have been impressed, with if they did that with even fewer false positives then I would have been thoroughly impressed.
And I don't consider it either-or. We should fight spammers of all kinds with all techniques that work.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brian wrote:
By the way, I ask those questions having read the bots user page. It is apparently quite effective, indicating to me that this user causes minimal disruption.
"minimal" only applies if it doesn't impact *your* watchlist. OK, he's fairly quickly detected, blocked and reverted, and protections applied. But, you know, what editors should really be doing is creating good content. Vandals should not be be allowed to divert resources away from that objective, and if they do, they should be stopped. I see no middle position here. Those of us who spend our time controlling vandalism, and it is a control paradigm, would much rather be creating that good content. Any vandal is a diversion from that purpose, and we are much too lenient with them. Four levels of warning is too many for obvious vandals, and I start at level 2. There is no such thing as AGF for most obvious vandals.
On 29/12/2008, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Allow blocking on a more granular level, if we know his ISP, and lock out moves and redirects for the whole damn ISPs, and specifically point the finger back in the block message: Blocked because of JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp with a nice shiny link to his long-term abuse page.
on 12/29/08 6:02 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
It probably wouldn't work because of proxies and people that would emulate/help him.
Still, ideas that would affect less people rather than more like that are almost certainly IMO the way to go; for example restricting the range of characters and checking that the move title consists of words in a dictionary before permitting non admins or users with a small number of edits to complete a move might be desirable.
Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or more) of the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal complaint to the police.
Marc Riddell
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or more) of the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal complaint to the police.
Marc Riddell
I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk about blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become unnecessary once a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his family were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep
This is preposterous.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or more)
of
the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal complaint to
the
police.
Marc Riddell
I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk about blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become unnecessary once a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his family were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 12/29/08 6:37 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is preposterous.
What is?
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or more)
of
the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal complaint to
the
police.
Marc Riddell
I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk about blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become unnecessary once a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his family were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Contacting the police and the FBI. It is an uncreative, heavy-handed measure that does not solve the problem. It will not stop this vandal and it will not stop future vandals.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:37 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is preposterous.
What is?
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or
more)
of
the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal complaint
to
the
police.
Marc Riddell
I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk about blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become unnecessary once a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his family were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 12/29/08 6:43 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Contacting the police and the FBI. It is an uncreative, heavy-handed measure that does not solve the problem. It will not stop this vandal and it will not stop future vandals.
I disagree, Brian. Dealing with him using the computer as the mechanism is playing right into him. The computer is his turf, and the far-reaching exposure is exactly what he's wanting. The computer setting is something he feels he can control - the authorities would be something he could not.
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:37 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is preposterous.
What is?
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or
more)
of
the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal complaint
to
the
police.
Marc Riddell
I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk about blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become unnecessary once a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his family were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Marc, your argument does not address the article I posted. In fact, it contradicts it. You say it plays into his "turf," but as I pointed out, the method pits him against himself.
The future of vandalism bots on Wikipedia is *certainly* machine learning techniques. The question is, is the community going to waste their time contacting the police, or figuring out what it would take to get the source code and some funds from the Foundation?
If I were a determined vandal, you could not stop me with the current bots. I consider the vandalism this kid is performing to be trivial. He is not even trying that hard. The problem is that the bots that have been put up against him are ruled based and he can easily lookup the rules. Vandalism and counter-vandalism is an arms race, but it is nowhere near as bad as the e-mail spam arms race as there is no financial incentive. Thus, simple bayesian techniques that are used for e-mail, and those described in the article I posted, will be very effective. The training set is monstrous - all of the tagged vandalism in the database. The method automatically escalates the arms race and nips each new technique in the bud as soon as it surfaces. Beating it will require a new breed of vandals.
I say it again, contacting the police and the FBI is not the solution. Fixing the bots is.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:43 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Contacting the police and the FBI. It is an uncreative, heavy-handed
measure
that does not solve the problem. It will not stop this vandal and it will not stop future vandals.
I disagree, Brian. Dealing with him using the computer as the mechanism is playing right into him. The computer is his turf, and the far-reaching exposure is exactly what he's wanting. The computer setting is something he feels he can control - the authorities would be something he could not.
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:37 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is preposterous.
What is?
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
> Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or
more)
of
the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal complaint
to
the
police.
Marc Riddell
I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk about blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become unnecessary once a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his family were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I hope you do understand that "fixing" the bots is not a simple task. Is the research you mentioned availible in any way that we can make use of it in programming?
On 12/29/08, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Marc, your argument does not address the article I posted. In fact, it contradicts it. You say it plays into his "turf," but as I pointed out, the method pits him against himself.
The future of vandalism bots on Wikipedia is *certainly* machine learning techniques. The question is, is the community going to waste their time contacting the police, or figuring out what it would take to get the source code and some funds from the Foundation?
If I were a determined vandal, you could not stop me with the current bots. I consider the vandalism this kid is performing to be trivial. He is not even trying that hard. The problem is that the bots that have been put up against him are ruled based and he can easily lookup the rules. Vandalism and counter-vandalism is an arms race, but it is nowhere near as bad as the e-mail spam arms race as there is no financial incentive. Thus, simple bayesian techniques that are used for e-mail, and those described in the article I posted, will be very effective. The training set is monstrous - all of the tagged vandalism in the database. The method automatically escalates the arms race and nips each new technique in the bud as soon as it surfaces. Beating it will require a new breed of vandals.
I say it again, contacting the police and the FBI is not the solution. Fixing the bots is.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:43 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Contacting the police and the FBI. It is an uncreative, heavy-handed
measure
that does not solve the problem. It will not stop this vandal and it will not stop future vandals.
I disagree, Brian. Dealing with him using the computer as the mechanism is playing right into him. The computer is his turf, and the far-reaching exposure is exactly what he's wanting. The computer setting is something he feels he can control - the authorities would be something he could not.
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:37 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is preposterous.
What is?
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
>> > Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or
more)
of > the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal > complaint
to
the > police. > > Marc Riddell
I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk about blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become unnecessary once a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his family were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- You have successfully failed! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 12/29/08 7:09 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Marc, your argument does not address the article I posted. In fact, it contradicts it.
Brian, I wasn't addressing an article. I was addressing a specific problem that is sitting across from us right now.
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:43 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Contacting the police and the FBI. It is an uncreative, heavy-handed
measure
that does not solve the problem. It will not stop this vandal and it will not stop future vandals.
I disagree, Brian. Dealing with him using the computer as the mechanism is playing right into him. The computer is his turf, and the far-reaching exposure is exactly what he's wanting. The computer setting is something he feels he can control - the authorities would be something he could not.
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:37 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is preposterous.
What is?
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
>> > Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if one (or
more)
of > the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal complaint
to
the > police. > > Marc Riddell
I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk about blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become unnecessary once a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his family were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
X!
On Dec 29, 2008, at 7:29 PM [Dec 29, 2008 ], Marc Riddell wrote:
on 12/29/08 7:09 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Marc, your argument does not address the article I posted. In fact, it contradicts it.
Brian, I wasn't addressing an article. I was addressing a specific problem that is sitting across from us right now.
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:43 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Contacting the police and the FBI. It is an uncreative, heavy- handed
measure
that does not solve the problem. It will not stop this vandal and it will not stop future vandals.
I disagree, Brian. Dealing with him using the computer as the mechanism is playing right into him. The computer is his turf, and the far- reaching exposure is exactly what he's wanting. The computer setting is something he feels he can control - the authorities would be something he could not.
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 12/29/08 6:37 PM, Brian at Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
This is preposterous.
What is?
Marc
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com
wrote:
> On 12/30/08, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote: > >>> >> Hey, guys! This whole thing could go away rather quickly if >> one (or
more)
> of >> the persons who feel victimized by him simply made a formal >> complaint
to
> the >> police. >> >> Marc Riddell > > I agree, Marc. I think we would find that most of this talk > about > blocking the ISP, bots and so on would quickly become > unnecessary once > a couple of complaints were made to the police and he and his > family > were dealing with the FBI or the police on their doorstep > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
Scary.
2008/12/30 John Reaves johnjreaves@gmail.com:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
Scary.
Now all we need is one that will cope with [[Category:Cleanup]], then we can retire entirely to the mailing lists and let our robot friends write the encyclopedia.
- d.
I would be interested in hearing more about what you are doing. My day job is as a developer on the Emergent Neural Network Simulation System ( http://grey.colorado.edu/ccnlab/index.php/Main_Page) and I can also provide insights into feature dimensions from my past experience on automatically tagging Wikipedia articles with quality ( http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:BM1). I was thinking that a non-neural network solution, such as as the Core Vector Machine, might be more appropriate given the size of the training dataset. But NN is an interesting idea. Maybe we can converse on wiki-research-l?
Cheers,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
X!
I would talk to either Crispy1989 or Cobi about that, as they are the prime developers of it. However, anyone can ask them for access to the interface where you can "teach" the new ClueBot what is vandalism and what isn't.
X!
On Dec 29, 2008, at 8:24 PM [Dec 29, 2008 ], Brian wrote:
I would be interested in hearing more about what you are doing. My day job is as a developer on the Emergent Neural Network Simulation System ( http://grey.colorado.edu/ccnlab/index.php/Main_Page) and I can also provide insights into feature dimensions from my past experience on automatically tagging Wikipedia articles with quality ( http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:BM1). I was thinking that a non-neural network solution, such as as the Core Vector Machine, might be more appropriate given the size of the training dataset. But NN is an interesting idea. Maybe we can converse on wiki-research-l?
Cheers,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
X!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
so are we calling the police or not?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
I would talk to either Crispy1989 or Cobi about that, as they are the prime developers of it. However, anyone can ask them for access to the interface where you can "teach" the new ClueBot what is vandalism and what isn't.
X!
On Dec 29, 2008, at 8:24 PM [Dec 29, 2008 ], Brian wrote:
I would be interested in hearing more about what you are doing. My day job is as a developer on the Emergent Neural Network Simulation System ( http://grey.colorado.edu/ccnlab/index.php/Main_Page) and I can also provide insights into feature dimensions from my past experience on automatically tagging Wikipedia articles with quality ( http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:BM1). I was thinking that a non-neural network solution, such as as the Core Vector Machine, might be more appropriate given the size of the training dataset. But NN is an interesting idea. Maybe we can converse on wiki-research-l?
Cheers,
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
X!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com>wrote:
so are we calling the police or not?
No, "we" aren't; it's up to the people who have been targets of death, rape and violence threats and whose children have been threatened with rape and murder to decide for themselves if they want to take that step or not. I would personally support people who wanted to do so and I hope the Foundation would, too, but it's a decision those people have to make for themselves.
[[Non-credible threat]] If you do go overboard and call the cops please send them a link to this thread.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com < thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.comthinboy00%252Bwikipedialist@gmail.com
wrote:
so are we calling the police or not?
No, "we" aren't; it's up to the people who have been targets of death, rape and violence threats and whose children have been threatened with rape and murder to decide for themselves if they want to take that step or not. I would personally support people who wanted to do so and I hope the Foundation would, too, but it's a decision those people have to make for themselves. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I get the feeling Grawp isn't expecting us to do anything off-wiki. If the victims call the police, it would at the very least (unless I'm wrong, which is always possible) surprise him, possibly awaken his mom/guardian to the reality of the situation, and probably turn this from a "game" in his mind into an exchange with very real people. OTOH, he might just laugh at us for overreacting... but at least that way he'll get more careful, meaning no more death threats (on-wiki at least, if he gets abusive via email the victims can employ filtering, if he gets abusive on IRC the chanops can ban him etc.) and less vandalism (maybe). We should probably complain to <insert government official | insert journalist> that Verizon is being oh-so-useless right now...
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:32 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com>wrote:
so are we calling the police or not?
No, "we" aren't; it's up to the people who have been targets of death, rape and violence threats and whose children have been threatened with rape and murder to decide for themselves if they want to take that step or not. I would personally support people who wanted to do so and I hope the Foundation would, too, but it's a decision those people have to make for themselves. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why is Grawp still being discussed? Although I am not a fan of WP:DENY, this is even bothering me.... - White Cat
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:43 AM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com>wrote:
I get the feeling Grawp isn't expecting us to do anything off-wiki. If the victims call the police, it would at the very least (unless I'm wrong, which is always possible) surprise him, possibly awaken his mom/guardian to the reality of the situation, and probably turn this from a "game" in his mind into an exchange with very real people. OTOH, he might just laugh at us for overreacting... but at least that way he'll get more careful, meaning no more death threats (on-wiki at least, if he gets abusive via email the victims can employ filtering, if he gets abusive on IRC the chanops can ban him etc.) and less vandalism (maybe). We should probably complain to <insert government official | insert journalist> that Verizon is being oh-so-useless right now...
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:32 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com<
thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.comthinboy00%252Bwikipedialist@gmail.com
wrote:
so are we calling the police or not?
No, "we" aren't; it's up to the people who have been targets of death,
rape
and violence threats and whose children have been threatened with rape
and
murder to decide for themselves if they want to take that step or not. I would personally support people who wanted to do so and I hope the Foundation would, too, but it's a decision those people have to make for themselves. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sincerely, Thinboy00
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Because we're tired of his attacks and threats and we are trying to do something IRL to stop him?
On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:20 PM [Jan 6, 2009 ], White Cat wrote:
Why is Grawp still being discussed? Although I am not a fan of WP:DENY, this is even bothering me....
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:43 AM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com <thinboy00% 2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com>>wrote:
I get the feeling Grawp isn't expecting us to do anything off-wiki. If the victims call the police, it would at the very least (unless I'm wrong, which is always possible) surprise him, possibly awaken his mom/guardian to the reality of the situation, and probably turn this from a "game" in his mind into an exchange with very real people. OTOH, he might just laugh at us for overreacting... but at least that way he'll get more careful, meaning no more death threats (on-wiki at least, if he gets abusive via email the victims can employ filtering, if he gets abusive on IRC the chanops can ban him etc.) and less vandalism (maybe). We should probably complain to <insert government official | insert journalist> that Verizon is being oh-so-useless right now...
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:32 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com <thinboy00% 2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com><
thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com<thinboy00% 252Bwikipedialist@gmail.com>
wrote:
so are we calling the police or not?
No, "we" aren't; it's up to the people who have been targets of death,
rape
and violence threats and whose children have been threatened with rape
and
murder to decide for themselves if they want to take that step or not. I would personally support people who wanted to do so and I hope the Foundation would, too, but it's a decision those people have to make for themselves. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sincerely, Thinboy00
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As a victim of his attacks I sympathize however this continuing thread boosts his ego which is the opposite of what you seek to do. Gwarp is neither the most destructive nor most notable vandal wikipedia has faced. I am not going to repeat the cliché by asking you to ignore him so that he gets bored. But I think you should probably discuss the topic more generally. For example a discussion on RL actions against vandals in general.
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
Because we're tired of his attacks and threats and we are trying to do something IRL to stop him?
On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:20 PM [Jan 6, 2009 ], White Cat wrote:
Why is Grawp still being discussed? Although I am not a fan of WP:DENY, this is even bothering me....
- White Cat
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:43 AM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com<thinboy00% 2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com>>wrote:
I get the feeling Grawp isn't expecting us to do anything off-wiki. If the victims call the police, it would at the very least (unless I'm wrong, which is always possible) surprise him, possibly awaken his mom/guardian to the reality of the situation, and probably turn this from a "game" in his mind into an exchange with very real people. OTOH, he might just laugh at us for overreacting... but at least that way he'll get more careful, meaning no more death threats (on-wiki at least, if he gets abusive via email the victims can employ filtering, if he gets abusive on IRC the chanops can ban him etc.) and less vandalism (maybe). We should probably complain to <insert government official | insert journalist> that Verizon is being oh-so-useless right now...
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:32 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, [[User:Thinboy00]] < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.comthinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com<thinboy00% 2Bwikipedialist@gmail.com><
thinboy00%2Bwikipedialist@gmail.comthinboy00%252Bwikipedialist@gmail.com
<thinboy00%
252Bwikipedialist@gmail.com>
wrote:
so are we calling the police or not?
No, "we" aren't; it's up to the people who have been targets of death,
rape
and violence threats and whose children have been threatened with rape
and
murder to decide for themselves if they want to take that step or not. I would personally support people who wanted to do so and I hope the Foundation would, too, but it's a decision those people have to make for themselves. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sincerely, Thinboy00
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
WIKIPEDIA 2009 A.D. THE MACHINES ROSE FROM THE ASHES OF THE VANDALISM FIRE. THEIR WAR TO EXTERMINATE VANDALS HAS RAGED FOR YEARS, BUT THE FINAL BATTLE WOULD NOT BE FOUGHT IN THE TOOLSERVER. IT WOULD BE FOUGHT HERE, IN OUR WIKI. TONIGHT...
- Joe
WIKIPEDIA 2009 A.D. THE MACHINES ROSE FROM THE ASHES OF THE VANDALISM FIRE. THEIR WAR TO EXTERMINATE VANDALS HAS RAGED FOR YEARS, BUT THE FINAL BATTLE WOULD NOT BE FOUGHT IN THE TOOLSERVER. IT WOULD BE FOUGHT HERE, IN OUR WIKI. TONIGHT...
I think not, the ai only decides whether the edit is vandalism not what action to take. Any way what's the worst that can happen, its not like we can't block the bot (Adminbots on the other hand :P (or how about a StewardBot to desysop rouge adminbots :P))? The bottom line is, it isn't going to happen, a computer will only do what you tell it to do, a badly trained ai might start reverting good users, however then as I said we can just block the bot. - Chris
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
WIKIPEDIA 2009 A.D. THE MACHINES ROSE FROM THE ASHES OF THE VANDALISM FIRE. THEIR WAR TO EXTERMINATE VANDALS HAS RAGED FOR YEARS, BUT THE FINAL BATTLE WOULD NOT BE FOUGHT IN THE TOOLSERVER. IT WOULD BE FOUGHT HERE, IN OUR WIKI. TONIGHT...
- Joe
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Soxred93 wrote:
See [[User:Crispy1989]]. ClueBot is being rewritten, so it has an artificial neural network now. In other words, it has a brain. This enables it to learn about current vandalism strategies, and start reverting them without Cobi directly programming in heuristics.
Bowing down before a graven image of Saint Azimov!
Ec
Brian wrote:
Marc, your argument does not address the article I posted. In fact, it contradicts it. You say it plays into his "turf," but as I pointed out, the method pits him against himself.
The future of vandalism bots on Wikipedia is *certainly* machine learning techniques. The question is, is the community going to waste their time contacting the police, or figuring out what it would take to get the source code and some funds from the Foundation?
I say it again, contacting the police and the FBI is not the solution. Fixing the bots is.
I can only marvel at the blind religious faith that IT people exhibit in technical solutions to human problems. It's as though the magic formula that will make all the problems go away is is a form of God's creation that is just around the corner. At least the Scientologists had the decency to call their science a church.
Calling the cops may indeed be uncreative and heavy-handed on the individual vandal involved, but sometimes it's the right way to go; at least it's a tool that can be kept handy in one's kit. (I don't know enough about the specifics of this case to say this is the place to apply it, and I don't want to know.) The magic solution can be just as heavy-handed on many who have nothing to do vandalism.
Ec
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 12/29/08 6:43 PM, Brian at wrote:
Contacting the police and the FBI. It is an uncreative, heavy-handed measure
that does not solve the problem. It will not stop this vandal and it will not stop future vandals.
I disagree, Brian. Dealing with him using the computer as the mechanism is playing right into him. The computer is his turf, and the far-reaching exposure is exactly what he's wanting. The computer setting is something he feels he can control - the authorities would be something he could not.
Marc
As someone who really did open an FBI case last year about a credible threat that arose from wiki-stuff, some of y'all need a primer on Goin' to the Cops 101.
1. Their time and resources are finite. 2. They don't like paperwork. 3. Part of their job is to quell people who want to misuse the system for frivolous complaints.
So you get a series of questions. Stuff like: * Why do you consider this a threat? * Are you really scared by that? * Have you contacted the ISP? * What have they done? * Have you contacted the folks who run Wikipedia? * What have they done? * Why didn't you call us sooner?
And if you don't have good answers to all those questions plus records of the doors you knocked on before calling law enforcement, you'll end up looking pretty foolish. And when you think how many people who really deal with criminal stalkers have trouble getting rudimentary help from the law because they're the needle in a haystack of frivolous complaints, you may feel regret.
Grawp targeted me too. It was an annoyance. Be reasonable, people. Start up a petition to the ISP.
-Durova
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brian wrote:
Marc, your argument does not address the article I posted. In fact, it contradicts it. You say it plays into his "turf," but as I pointed out,
the
method pits him against himself.
The future of vandalism bots on Wikipedia is *certainly* machine learning techniques. The question is, is the community going to waste their time contacting the police, or figuring out what it would take to get the
source
code and some funds from the Foundation?
I say it again, contacting the police and the FBI is not the solution. Fixing the bots is.
I can only marvel at the blind religious faith that IT people exhibit in technical solutions to human problems. It's as though the magic formula that will make all the problems go away is is a form of God's creation that is just around the corner. At least the Scientologists had the decency to call their science a church.
Calling the cops may indeed be uncreative and heavy-handed on the individual vandal involved, but sometimes it's the right way to go; at least it's a tool that can be kept handy in one's kit. (I don't know enough about the specifics of this case to say this is the place to apply it, and I don't want to know.) The magic solution can be just as heavy-handed on many who have nothing to do vandalism.
Ec
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 12/29/08 6:43 PM, Brian at wrote:
Contacting the police and the FBI. It is an uncreative, heavy-handed
measure
that does not solve the problem. It will not stop this vandal and it
will
not stop future vandals.
I disagree, Brian. Dealing with him using the computer as the mechanism
is
playing right into him. The computer is his turf, and the far-reaching exposure is exactly what he's wanting. The computer setting is something
he
feels he can control - the authorities would be something he could not.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
* Why do you consider this a threat? ** Remember what happened to HighInBC? * Are you really scared by that? ** No, but it is illegal... * Have you contacted the ISP? ** Multiple times * What have they done? ** Vandalism, personal attacks, threats against up and out families? * Have you contacted the folks who run Wikipedia? ** Don't we run Wikipedia? * What have they done? ** Vandalism, personal attacks, threats against up and out families? * Why didn't you call us sooner? ** Because we've been acting like a bunch of ducks in Wikien-l decoding what to do :)
On Dec 30, 2008, at 1:17 PM [Dec 30, 2008 ], Durova wrote:
- Why do you consider this a threat?
- Are you really scared by that?
- Have you contacted the ISP?
- What have they done?
- Have you contacted the folks who run Wikipedia?
- What have they done?
- Why didn't you call us sooner?
No offense Durova but not all police departments in the world are the same as yours. As the victim of a serious violent crime (I was shot in the chest at point-blank range) and a former youth minister who worked in outreach in a red-light district, I've had plenty of dealings with the police and I can only say that I'm grateful that not all police departments in the world are as you have apparently experienced. Even if actual charges are not viable, there are other ways the police can help that can often have a wake-up call effect, if not for the young person but for the parent/guardian. If your police department makes complainants "look foolish" because they are inexperienced with reporting procedures then I can only sympathise with people who live in your district but that certainly isn't the case for all police departments.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
As someone who really did open an FBI case last year about a credible threat that arose from wiki-stuff, some of y'all need a primer on Goin' to the Cops 101.
- Their time and resources are finite.
- They don't like paperwork.
- Part of their job is to quell people who want to misuse the system for
frivolous complaints.
So you get a series of questions. Stuff like:
- Why do you consider this a threat?
- Are you really scared by that?
- Have you contacted the ISP?
- What have they done?
- Have you contacted the folks who run Wikipedia?
- What have they done?
- Why didn't you call us sooner?
And if you don't have good answers to all those questions plus records of the doors you knocked on before calling law enforcement, you'll end up looking pretty foolish. And when you think how many people who really deal with criminal stalkers have trouble getting rudimentary help from the law because they're the needle in a haystack of frivolous complaints, you may feel regret.
Grawp targeted me too. It was an annoyance. Be reasonable, people. Start up a petition to the ISP.
-Durova
David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/26 Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com:
Maybe we can set it for only 1 day, but use a JS hack to say that it's indefinite. That might get the word out to them. :)
The idea of blocking a whole ISP is unlikely to fly. I suspect that an admin placing such a block without agreement from the arbcom and the Foundation (cos you *know* they'd get the crap for it) would be (a) quickly reversed (b) given a slap round the head with a trout at the very least.
Attention-getting blocks have worked on bodies the size of universities before (I recall two of them, both put into place by a sitting arbitrator who then managed relations with the organisations very closely), but even then it was a very last desperate resort. Throwing our weight around like that would be a PR disaster, no matter how unresponsive Verizon were being.
This is one reason I suggested that it come from Foundation level, to an equivalent stratum of responsibility, to head off the PR outfall. If negotiations fail, there would be a difficult trade-off between defending our position without giving details (per [[WP:DFTT]], [[WP:BEANS]] and [[WP:DENY]]), and making our case. Some overview of the damage caused would be a must.
However, as an Admin, the integrity of the encyclopedia is more or less my first duty, and I don't have a problem about blocking a whole ISP for one day if that is the only way of getting their attention.
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
] It seems hard to believe that Verizon would let such a rangeblock sit for long. I think the only message we need to get over to them is "dude, we're not kidding. We don't want to rangeblock your entire ISP, but this one person who has an internet account with you is causing us major headaches. Because of your dynamic IP adresses, we are unable to deal with it on an individual level. We are open to suggestions on how we can solve the problem, but if you are really not willing to help us out here, we simply have no other choise but to block every IP adress in your range from editing, as much as we'd hate to do that"
I can't believe that bigwigs at Verizon would be willing to let that happen, the question is just how to get through to the right people that can do something about it.
This is commonly a way other services handle(d?) abusive users from unresponsive ISP's. E.g. If I start spewing viagra spam to a few million guessed e-mails, and my ISP refuses to do anything about it, other customers on my ISP will soon find that other SMTP servers will not accept messages that originate in my netblock (well, depending on setup, but, last time it happened it seemed like 6/10 messages I sent were refused). In some peering situations, at least earlier on, this was a common sort of scenario as well, when it came to other destructive forms of abuse, like Denial of Service, and the like. This approach generally gets results very quickly.
This is the only real way to deal with a user like this. Sure, there will be a lot of collateral damage, and, there will be some disruption. The thing we need to decide for ourselves is -- Is ridding ourself of this user worth the disruption it would cause to the website? Also would need to keep in mind he will probably get a new ISP (or at least abuse from school, etc... Those should be easier to hunt and abusemail however)
As far as the difficulty of blocking him, it would not be too terribly hard to make an extension that blocks users from editing by passing a regular expression over their hostmask. E.g. /.*.dsl.verizon.net/i or whatever the mask for his type of connection is. (This may actually allow us to further narrow this approach and reduce collateral, by the way).
Simply placing a block message along the lines of "In order to protect our project from a user or handful of users on Verizon DSL, we have disabled editing from this netblock, until Verizon takes action on ticket # XYZ123.", or something like that.
SQL
I cannot deny that it would likely to be effective; but it would also cause ill-will and bad publicity towards the wikipedia.
The wikipedia is accessed by a large fraction of their thousands of customers every day, people that we're really supposed to be helping; and they've done nothing worth getting blocked over.
So it really would be a sledge hammer to crack a nut, and the guy is irritating, but he's not impacting nearly as many people as would be hurt by a block like that.
I think the wikipedia is better off coming up with general strategies that make his kind of vandalism pointless or easier to undo or strategies to permit blocking of just the active vandals.
On 25/12/2008, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/2008, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
If we rangeblock all of Verizon, we're giving Grawp exactly what he wants. He wants to cause disruption, and causing a huge rangeblock is success for him.
It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't want. It only matters what the wikipedia wants. Probably rangeblocking Verizon would be bad for the Wikipedia's reputation ("Anyone can edit except for Verizon users!"), Verizon would have to be incredibly unresponsive and acting in incredibly bad faith to have to/really want to do that, but it remains a possibility.
There might be a better case though for automatically, temporarily, black holing or edit blocking or simply delaying the edits (until a human can hand check them) of individual IPs/accounts from anywhere on the internet that engage in certain broad patterns of activity.
The important thing is to minimise the length/number of times that any particular IP is able to engage in Grawp-like or other stereotypic behaviour. While he/she/they would be able to soon find another IP, it significantly mitigates the damage that can be done, and minimises the cleanup.
X!
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
] It seems hard to believe that Verizon would let such a rangeblock sit for long. I think the only message we need to get over to them is "dude, we're not kidding. We don't want to rangeblock your entire ISP, but this one person who has an internet account with you is causing us major headaches. Because of your dynamic IP adresses, we are unable to deal with it on an individual level. We are open to suggestions on how we can solve the problem, but if you are really not willing to help us out here, we simply have no other choise but to block every IP adress in your range from editing, as much as we'd hate to do that"
I can't believe that bigwigs at Verizon would be willing to let that happen, the question is just how to get through to the right people that can do something about it.
So far, we have:
*Huggle *ClueBot *Notices on IRC *Spam blacklist *Abuse filter (in the future)
to stop him. None of these have worked. Unless we block all of Verizon, or use a hack to start blocking the XFF header, Grawp will continue. I'm sure that the sysadmins would be able to find some way to block Grawp's XFF header.
X!
On Dec 25, 2008, at 8:23 PM [Dec 25, 2008 ], Ian Woollard wrote:
I cannot deny that it would likely to be effective; but it would also cause ill-will and bad publicity towards the wikipedia.
The wikipedia is accessed by a large fraction of their thousands of customers every day, people that we're really supposed to be helping; and they've done nothing worth getting blocked over.
So it really would be a sledge hammer to crack a nut, and the guy is irritating, but he's not impacting nearly as many people as would be hurt by a block like that.
I think the wikipedia is better off coming up with general strategies that make his kind of vandalism pointless or easier to undo or strategies to permit blocking of just the active vandals.
On 25/12/2008, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/2008, Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
If we rangeblock all of Verizon, we're giving Grawp exactly what he wants. He wants to cause disruption, and causing a huge rangeblock is success for him.
It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't want. It only matters what the wikipedia wants. Probably rangeblocking Verizon would be bad for the Wikipedia's reputation ("Anyone can edit except for Verizon users!"), Verizon would have to be incredibly unresponsive and acting in incredibly bad faith to have to/really want to do that, but it remains a possibility.
There might be a better case though for automatically, temporarily, black holing or edit blocking or simply delaying the edits (until a human can hand check them) of individual IPs/accounts from anywhere on the internet that engage in certain broad patterns of activity.
The important thing is to minimise the length/number of times that any particular IP is able to engage in Grawp-like or other stereotypic behaviour. While he/she/they would be able to soon find another IP, it significantly mitigates the damage that can be done, and minimises the cleanup.
X!
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
] It seems hard to believe that Verizon would let such a rangeblock sit for long. I think the only message we need to get over to them is "dude, we're not kidding. We don't want to rangeblock your entire ISP, but this one person who has an internet account with you is causing us major headaches. Because of your dynamic IP adresses, we are unable to deal with it on an individual level. We are open to suggestions on how we can solve the problem, but if you are really not willing to help us out here, we simply have no other choise but to block every IP adress in your range from editing, as much as we'd hate to do that"
I can't believe that bigwigs at Verizon would be willing to let that happen, the question is just how to get through to the right people that can do something about it.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/11 Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws:
(...)
You could also contact his ISP. It puts them in a bad light to have someone like that on their networks and nearly always violates T&C-they might well want to terminate his service. But >> > he'll probably just get another ISP; but depending on where he >> > lives there might not be many ISPs in his area.
(...)
It's hard to know that verizon should be in a red light, except by exhaustion. Many ISPs send auto-replies to spam reports, just for the publicity. The sheer volume of reports can make personal replies impractical. I ignore auto-replies until the problem goes away. This problem does not seem to be going away. Haggar The Horrible (with 1337 variations) seems to be his favourite cartoon character.
Right now, all I can see legally is potential for federal law concerning viruses to be of use. Physically, there is still potential for blocking the whole ISP. Do not look to hard and long at rules against this, because ISPs use spamhaus.org (SORBS/SORBL) at their own discretion. Some block e-mail, only. Some block every packet. With my level of USENET activity, I would probably see a thousand pieces of spam every day without filters, and about thirty percent of that would come from spam-friendly domains.
Wikipedia is a wonderful place to learn about rules on freedom of speech. Maybe your own ISP's support address can tell you about their spam assasin configuration. _______ Line noise did not go away. It reincarnated as spam.
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police. It's easy to dismiss complaints received online from strangers and believe her precious son isn't capable of making death threats and threats of sexual violence but if she starts getting visits from the police and/or FBI it might wake her up from her own naiveté. I can understand her being upset about receiving an email about her son from someone she doesn't know but if she really believes that Grawp is someone else who is just poking fun at her son then she's got her head in the sand and won't be convinced by any evidence we can present her with no matter how compelling. So I think it's at the stage where we decide we're going to just accept it or we take it to the next level and involve law enforcement.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws wrote:
You all may remember [[User:JarlaxleArtemis]], who has been "editing" the English Wikipedia since 2004, at age 15. Originally he was an apparently good-faith editor, but was sanctioned by ArbCom in early 2005 for somewhat immature outbursts, copyright violations, and erratic behavior; eventually he pulled such stunts as putting his teacher's e-mail address on his userpage encouraging people to harass the "fucking bitch," e-mail bombing people who deleted his copyvios, and finally impersonating users and vandalizing with what would come to be hundreds of sockpuppets, all while claiming to be the victim. He was banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArte mis_2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlaxl eArtemis < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlax leArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376> &action=edit&oldid=117471376
He sockpuppeted and vandalized for a while after that, but apparently disappeared in 2006. One would have hoped maybe he grew out of his teenage phase and decided to get on with doing something productive instead.
But sadly, the story doesn't end there. In mid-2007, he reappeared with a new "persona"... the move-vandal "Grawp." Unlike his ostensible predecessor Willy on Wheels, who at least had a harmless light-hearted flair to him, as "Grawp" Jarlaxle relished in specifically targeting users and sticking their personal information (usually gleaned from Daniel Brandt's website) in his page-move titles along with death threats and rape threats. Eventually we discovered that Grawp was in fact JarlaxleArtemis, and he only got more persistent and venomous (probably because as Jarlaxle, he was very open about his real-life identity and location himself.)
About a week ago, having been one of Jarlaxle's recent targets, I decided to take matters into my own hand, and found his mother's contact information and wrote to her to inform her of the awful misdeeds her son's been up to. (While Jarlaxle is 19, he lives with his mother, and performs most of his vandalism from her Internet connection.) Instead of replying to me, however, she complained to OTRS that I was falsely accusing her son, who she insisted was JarlaxleArtemis but not Grawp. Jarlaxle then proceeded to prove her wrong... by vandalizing multiple wikis as "Grawp" later that night from the same IP address his mother sent her e-mail from. The ticket was handed to ArbCom, who replied to her with this evidence and the assurance that her son was in fact the one responsible... but received a response that she didn't believe them, didn't care, and was blocking all further e-mail from Wikimedia. (Though it's been suggested that Jarlaxle himself may have written that mail.) And he's continued to vandalize as recently as tonight.
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and in college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the Internet, even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity is known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to him, and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he still soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles "I will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be running through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
-Fran
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "Sarah Ewart" sarahewart@gmail.com:
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police.
If anyone else wants to know which police to contact, then these few things might be useful. Basically, you would start with...Is this legal?...I don't want him on my project, because...and this is how I know who he is. You might get some help with that from verizon's abuse contact or their abuse phone number. Sometimes, I'll warn ya, you can get more help from abuse contacts than cops, just because they're equipped to verify that e-mail directed at you came through them.
OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlaxl... NetRange: 71.96.0.0 - 71.127.255.255 CIDR: 71.96.0.0/11 NetName: VIS-71-96 NetHandle: NET-71-96-0-0-1 Parent: NET-71-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.BELLATLANTIC.NET NameServer: NS2.BELLATLANTIC.NET NameServer: NS2.VERIZON.NET NameServer: NS4.VERIZON.NET Comment: RegDate: 2005-01-18 Updated: 2005-08-15
OrgAbuseHandle: VISAB-ARIN OrgAbuseName: VIS Abuse OrgAbusePhone: +1-214-513-6711 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse at verizon.net
OrgTechHandle: ZV20-ARIN OrgTechName: Verizon Internet Services OrgTechPhone: 800-243-6994 OrgTechEmail: IPNMC at gnilink.net
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-12-13 19:10 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
_______ If all spoke to all, then one word would be too much. Now way to force people into closely holding their e-mail address is polite. If some law says it's not spam, then it is, and it probably violates an acceptable use policy. If it doesn't, then some internet service provider is providing uncommon terms of service that are not acceptable to me. I vote to list them at http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ Opt-out is a sentence of death to personal channels on the internet.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
From: "Sarah Ewart" sarahewart@gmail.com:
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police.
If anyone else wants to know which police to contact, then these few things might be useful. Basically, you would start with...Is this legal?...I don't want him on my project, because...and this is how I know who he is. You might get some help with that from verizon's abuse contact or their abuse phone number. Sometimes, I'll warn ya, you can get more help from abuse contacts than cops, just because they're equipped to verify that e-mail directed at you came through them.
I agree that sometimes it can be more effective going through the ISP and if they were able to confirm to the mother that, yes, in fact, this was done from your IP address, it might help snap her out of her obvious denial. However, in reference to the police, it's not just a matter of not wanting him on the project - he's making death threats and threats of sexual violence against not only our editors and admins but their children as well.
{{tl|solockhimup}}
Heaven knows he deserves it.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:06:34 +1100 From: sarahewart@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
From: "Sarah Ewart" sarahewart@gmail.com:
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police.
If anyone else wants to know which police to contact, then these few things might be useful. Basically, you would start with...Is this legal?...I don't want him on my project, because...and this is how I know who he is. You might get some help with that from verizon's abuse contact or their abuse phone number. Sometimes, I'll warn ya, you can get more help from abuse contacts than cops, just because they're equipped to verify that e-mail directed at you came through them.
I agree that sometimes it can be more effective going through the ISP and if they were able to confirm to the mother that, yes, in fact, this was done from your IP address, it might help snap her out of her obvious denial. However, in reference to the police, it's not just a matter of not wanting him on the project - he's making death threats and threats of sexual violence against not only our editors and admins but their children as well. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Imagine a life without walls. See the possibilities. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465943/direct/01/
Jay Litwyn wrote:
From: "Sarah Ewart" sarahewart@gmail.com:
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police.
If anyone else wants to know which police to contact, then these few things might be useful. Basically, you would start with...Is this legal?...I don't want him on my project, because...and this is how I know who he is. You might get some help with that from verizon's abuse contact or their abuse phone number. Sometimes, I'll warn ya, you can get more help from abuse contacts than cops, just because they're equipped to verify that e-mail directed at you came through them.
OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US
This is not the relevant police department. The relevant police department is the local police department of the victim, not the attacker. The victim must file a complaint locally, and then the local police will take the necessary steps to liase with the jurisdiction of the attacker.
I learnt this a few years ago when dealing with a certain Canadian.
-- Tim Starling
On 12/15/08, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is not the relevant police department. The relevant police department is the local police department of the victim, not the attacker. The victim must file a complaint locally, and then the local police will take the necessary steps to liase with the jurisdiction of the attacker.
I learnt this a few years ago when dealing with a certain Canadian.
I always wondered why this sort of thing is almost never prosecuted. Now I know.
—C.W.
The red tape never ends. Going the other way, from Canada to Virginia, my local EPS (Edmonton Police Service) referred me to the mounties (feds). Jurisdiction issues, ay. I will make up a list of links to the offenses, just in case they actually get back to me and request more information.
They still need to know where the relevant ISP is in reference to their logs and admin personnel, so I am glad that the last IP from the mail-bombing of Fran Rogers (71.107.162.158) still reverses to verizon.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Starling" tstarling@wikimedia.org To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
Jay Litwyn wrote:
From: "Sarah Ewart" sarahewart@gmail.com:
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police.
If anyone else wants to know which police to contact, then these few things might be useful. Basically, you would start with...Is this legal?...I don't want him on my project, because...and this is how I know who he is. You might get some help with that from verizon's abuse contact or their abuse phone number. Sometimes, I'll warn ya, you can get more help from abuse contacts than cops, just because they're equipped to verify that e-mail directed at you came through them.
OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US
This is not the relevant police department. The relevant police department is the local police department of the victim, not the attacker. The victim must file a complaint locally, and then the local police will take the necessary steps to liase with the jurisdiction of the attacker.
I learnt this a few years ago when dealing with a certain Canadian.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It would help if the list is posted somewhere, so others who are reporting can use the list too.
X!
On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:58 PM [Dec 16, 2008 ], Jay Litwyn wrote:
The red tape never ends. Going the other way, from Canada to Virginia, my local EPS (Edmonton Police Service) referred me to the mounties (feds). Jurisdiction issues, ay. I will make up a list of links to the offenses, just in case they actually get back to me and request more information.
They still need to know where the relevant ISP is in reference to their logs and admin personnel, so I am glad that the last IP from the mail- bombing of Fran Rogers (71.107.162.158) still reverses to verizon.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Starling" tstarling@wikimedia.org To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
Jay Litwyn wrote:
From: "Sarah Ewart" sarahewart@gmail.com:
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police.
If anyone else wants to know which police to contact, then these few things might be useful. Basically, you would start with...Is this legal?...I don't want him on my project, because...and this is how I know who he is. You might get some help with that from verizon's abuse contact or their abuse phone number. Sometimes, I'll warn ya, you can get more help from abuse contacts than cops, just because they're equipped to verify that e-mail directed at you came through them.
OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US
This is not the relevant police department. The relevant police department is the local police department of the victim, not the attacker. The victim must file a complaint locally, and then the local police will take the necessary steps to liase with the jurisdiction of the attacker.
I learnt this a few years ago when dealing with a certain Canadian.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't want anybody getting routinely ignored or charged with false and vexatious complaints. Just in case anyone missed it, security@verizon.net is the fallback reporting address, because I saw a threat that would not fall under common assault, and it was identified as a death threat that would. It clearly falls under Attachment 2(b) of: http://www.verizon.net/policies/vzcom/tos_popup.asp
(b) transmit uninvited communications, data or information, or engage in other similar activities, including without limitation, "spamming", "flaming" or denial of service attacks;
Disallowing "uninvited communications" is an opt-in policy, even without specifying that stupid open phrase, "without limitation". This is as I hav seen it so far in my random walk of his checkuser report. If you know heavier evidence, then tell us. If you hav actually gotten a response from verizon security at this point, then my hat is off to you, because I want to look them up at http://www.rfc-ignorant.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarrukh&diff=prev&old... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Merridew&diff=p...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Soxred93" soxred93@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
It would help if the list is posted somewhere, so others who are reporting can use the list too.
X!
On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:58 PM [Dec 16, 2008 ], Jay Litwyn wrote:
The red tape never ends. Going the other way, from Canada to Virginia, my local EPS (Edmonton Police Service) referred me to the mounties (feds). Jurisdiction issues, ay. I will make up a list of links to the offenses, just in case they actually get back to me and request more information.
They still need to know where the relevant ISP is in reference to their logs and admin personnel, so I am glad that the last IP from the mail- bombing of Fran Rogers (71.107.162.158) still reverses to verizon.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Starling" tstarling@wikimedia.org To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
Jay Litwyn wrote:
From: "Sarah Ewart" sarahewart@gmail.com:
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police.
If anyone else wants to know which police to contact, then these few things might be useful. Basically, you would start with...Is this legal?...I don't want him on my project, because...and this is how I know who he is. You might get some help with that from verizon's abuse contact or their abuse phone number. Sometimes, I'll warn ya, you can get more help from abuse contacts than cops, just because they're equipped to verify that e-mail directed at you came through them.
OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US
This is not the relevant police department. The relevant police department is the local police department of the victim, not the attacker. The victim must file a complaint locally, and then the local police will take the necessary steps to liase with the jurisdiction of the attacker.
I learnt this a few years ago when dealing with a certain Canadian.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Has there been any updates on this? Has anyone else called either Verizon or the police? A whole lot of talk is going on here, not much action.
On Dec 17, 2008, at 12:18 PM [Dec 17, 2008 ], Jay Litwyn wrote:
I don't want anybody getting routinely ignored or charged with false and vexatious complaints. Just in case anyone missed it, security@verizon.net is the fallback reporting address, because I saw a threat that would not fall under common assault, and it was identified as a death threat that would. It clearly falls under Attachment 2(b) of: http://www.verizon.net/policies/vzcom/tos_popup.asp
(b) transmit uninvited communications, data or information, or engage in other similar activities, including without limitation, "spamming", "flaming" or denial of service attacks;
Disallowing "uninvited communications" is an opt-in policy, even without specifying that stupid open phrase, "without limitation". This is as I hav seen it so far in my random walk of his checkuser report. If you know heavier evidence, then tell us. If you hav actually gotten a response from verizon security at this point, then my hat is off to you, because I want to look them up at http://www.rfc-ignorant.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Talk:Sarrukh&diff=prev&oldid=186083986 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=User_talk:Jack_Merridew&diff=prev&oldid=186052458
----- Original Message ----- From: "Soxred93" soxred93@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
It would help if the list is posted somewhere, so others who are reporting can use the list too.
X!
On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:58 PM [Dec 16, 2008 ], Jay Litwyn wrote:
The red tape never ends. Going the other way, from Canada to Virginia, my local EPS (Edmonton Police Service) referred me to the mounties (feds). Jurisdiction issues, ay. I will make up a list of links to the offenses, just in case they actually get back to me and request more information.
They still need to know where the relevant ISP is in reference to their logs and admin personnel, so I am glad that the last IP from the mail- bombing of Fran Rogers (71.107.162.158) still reverses to verizon.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Starling" tstarling@wikimedia.org To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp
Jay Litwyn wrote:
From: "Sarah Ewart" sarahewart@gmail.com:
I think the only options remaining are to start reporting him to the police.
If anyone else wants to know which police to contact, then these few things might be useful. Basically, you would start with...Is this legal?...I don't want him on my project, because...and this is how I know who he is. You might get some help with that from verizon's abuse contact or their abuse phone number. Sometimes, I'll warn ya, you can get more help from abuse contacts than cops, just because they're equipped to verify that e-mail directed at you came through them.
OrgName: Verizon Internet Services Inc. OrgID: VRIS Address: 1880 Campus Commons Dr City: Reston StateProv: VA PostalCode: 20191 Country: US
This is not the relevant police department. The relevant police department is the local police department of the victim, not the attacker. The victim must file a complaint locally, and then the local police will take the necessary steps to liase with the jurisdiction of the attacker.
I learnt this a few years ago when dealing with a certain Canadian.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/11/08, Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws wrote:
But sadly, the story doesn't end there. In mid-2007, he reappeared with a new "persona"... the move-vandal "Grawp." Unlike his ostensible predecessor Willy on Wheels, who at least had a harmless light-hearted flair to him, as "Grawp" Jarlaxle relished in specifically targeting users and sticking their personal information (usually gleaned from Daniel Brandt's website) in his page-move titles along with death threats and rape threats. Eventually we discovered that Grawp was in fact JarlaxleArtemis, and he only got more persistent and venomous (probably because as Jarlaxle, he was very open about his real-life identity and location himself.)
I have just discovered that "Grawp" is a Tori Amos fan. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yes,_Anastasia&diff=prev&o...
Notice the url of the "YouTube" link.
—C.W.
It makes sense to take a further action with this vandal. Unlike every internet troll I have handled so far, Grawp doesn't stop when he dosen't get the reaction he wants.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws wrote:
You all may remember [[User:JarlaxleArtemis]], who has been "editing" the English Wikipedia since 2004, at age 15. Originally he was an apparently good-faith editor, but was sanctioned by ArbCom in early 2005 for somewhat immature outbursts, copyright violations, and erratic behavior; eventually he pulled such stunts as putting his teacher's e-mail address on his userpage encouraging people to harass the "fucking bitch," e-mail bombing people who deleted his copyvios, and finally impersonating users and vandalizing with what would come to be hundreds of sockpuppets, all while claiming to be the victim. He was banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArte mis_2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlaxl eArtemis < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlax leArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376> &action=edit&oldid=117471376
He sockpuppeted and vandalized for a while after that, but apparently disappeared in 2006. One would have hoped maybe he grew out of his teenage phase and decided to get on with doing something productive instead.
But sadly, the story doesn't end there. In mid-2007, he reappeared with a new "persona"... the move-vandal "Grawp." Unlike his ostensible predecessor Willy on Wheels, who at least had a harmless light-hearted flair to him, as "Grawp" Jarlaxle relished in specifically targeting users and sticking their personal information (usually gleaned from Daniel Brandt's website) in his page-move titles along with death threats and rape threats. Eventually we discovered that Grawp was in fact JarlaxleArtemis, and he only got more persistent and venomous (probably because as Jarlaxle, he was very open about his real-life identity and location himself.)
About a week ago, having been one of Jarlaxle's recent targets, I decided to take matters into my own hand, and found his mother's contact information and wrote to her to inform her of the awful misdeeds her son's been up to. (While Jarlaxle is 19, he lives with his mother, and performs most of his vandalism from her Internet connection.) Instead of replying to me, however, she complained to OTRS that I was falsely accusing her son, who she insisted was JarlaxleArtemis but not Grawp. Jarlaxle then proceeded to prove her wrong... by vandalizing multiple wikis as "Grawp" later that night from the same IP address his mother sent her e-mail from. The ticket was handed to ArbCom, who replied to her with this evidence and the assurance that her son was in fact the one responsible... but received a response that she didn't believe them, didn't care, and was blocking all further e-mail from Wikimedia. (Though it's been suggested that Jarlaxle himself may have written that mail.) And he's continued to vandalize as recently as tonight.
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and in college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the Internet, even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity is known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to him, and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he still soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles "I will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be running through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
-Fran
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In the case of another banned editor who kept disrupting the project, one of the Checkusers wrote to the ISP complaining about violations of the provider's T&C. To the best of my knowledge, the user hasn't come back since then.
Is someone working on this? Or are we all just saying it would be a good idea and waiting for someone else to act?
-Will Beback
Kevin Wong wrote:
It makes sense to take a further action with this vandal. Unlike every internet troll I have handled so far, Grawp doesn't stop when he dosen't get the reaction he wants.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws wrote:
You all may remember [[User:JarlaxleArtemis]], who has been "editing" the English Wikipedia since 2004, at age 15. Originally he was an apparently good-faith editor, but was sanctioned by ArbCom in early 2005 for somewhat immature outbursts, copyright violations, and erratic behavior; eventually he pulled such stunts as putting his teacher's e-mail address on his userpage encouraging people to harass the "fucking bitch," e-mail bombing people who deleted his copyvios, and finally impersonating users and vandalizing with what would come to be hundreds of sockpuppets, all while claiming to be the victim. He was banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArte mis_2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlaxl eArtemis < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlax leArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376> &action=edit&oldid=117471376
He sockpuppeted and vandalized for a while after that, but apparently disappeared in 2006. One would have hoped maybe he grew out of his teenage phase and decided to get on with doing something productive instead.
But sadly, the story doesn't end there. In mid-2007, he reappeared with a new "persona"... the move-vandal "Grawp." Unlike his ostensible predecessor Willy on Wheels, who at least had a harmless light-hearted flair to him, as "Grawp" Jarlaxle relished in specifically targeting users and sticking their personal information (usually gleaned from Daniel Brandt's website) in his page-move titles along with death threats and rape threats. Eventually we discovered that Grawp was in fact JarlaxleArtemis, and he only got more persistent and venomous (probably because as Jarlaxle, he was very open about his real-life identity and location himself.)
About a week ago, having been one of Jarlaxle's recent targets, I decided to take matters into my own hand, and found his mother's contact information and wrote to her to inform her of the awful misdeeds her son's been up to. (While Jarlaxle is 19, he lives with his mother, and performs most of his vandalism from her Internet connection.) Instead of replying to me, however, she complained to OTRS that I was falsely accusing her son, who she insisted was JarlaxleArtemis but not Grawp. Jarlaxle then proceeded to prove her wrong... by vandalizing multiple wikis as "Grawp" later that night from the same IP address his mother sent her e-mail from. The ticket was handed to ArbCom, who replied to her with this evidence and the assurance that her son was in fact the one responsible... but received a response that she didn't believe them, didn't care, and was blocking all further e-mail from Wikimedia. (Though it's been suggested that Jarlaxle himself may have written that mail.) And he's continued to vandalize as recently as tonight.
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and in college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the Internet, even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity is known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to him, and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he still soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles "I will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be running through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
-Fran
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 12/15/08 7:58 PM, Kevin Wong at wikipedianmarlith@gmail.com wrote:
It makes sense to take a further action with this vandal. Unlike every internet troll I have handled so far, Grawp doesn't stop when he dosen't get the reaction he wants.
Kevin,
The targeted person's reaction is secondary to him. And the targets are, most likely, chosen at random. He is more stimulated by seeing his work there, in print, than anything else. It's like some persons who write graffiti on a wall; they are less interested in the reactions of those who see it, than in looking up and seeing that their work is there. And only strong outside intervention will even begin to stop him.
Marc Riddell
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Fran Rogers fran@nutmeg.ws wrote:
You all may remember [[User:JarlaxleArtemis]], who has been "editing" the English Wikipedia since 2004, at age 15. Originally he was an apparently good-faith editor, but was sanctioned by ArbCom in early 2005 for somewhat immature outbursts, copyright violations, and erratic behavior; eventually he pulled such stunts as putting his teacher's e-mail address on his userpage encouraging people to harass the "fucking bitch," e-mail bombing people who deleted his copyvios, and finally impersonating users and vandalizing with what would come to be hundreds of sockpuppets, all while claiming to be the victim. He was banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArte mis_2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jarlaxl eArtemis_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlaxl eArtemis < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/Jarlax leArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit le=User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis&action=edit&oldid=117471376> &action=edit&oldid=117471376
He sockpuppeted and vandalized for a while after that, but apparently disappeared in 2006. One would have hoped maybe he grew out of his teenage phase and decided to get on with doing something productive instead.
But sadly, the story doesn't end there. In mid-2007, he reappeared with a new "persona"... the move-vandal "Grawp." Unlike his ostensible predecessor Willy on Wheels, who at least had a harmless light-hearted flair to him, as "Grawp" Jarlaxle relished in specifically targeting users and sticking their personal information (usually gleaned from Daniel Brandt's website) in his page-move titles along with death threats and rape threats. Eventually we discovered that Grawp was in fact JarlaxleArtemis, and he only got more persistent and venomous (probably because as Jarlaxle, he was very open about his real-life identity and location himself.)
About a week ago, having been one of Jarlaxle's recent targets, I decided to take matters into my own hand, and found his mother's contact information and wrote to her to inform her of the awful misdeeds her son's been up to. (While Jarlaxle is 19, he lives with his mother, and performs most of his vandalism from her Internet connection.) Instead of replying to me, however, she complained to OTRS that I was falsely accusing her son, who she insisted was JarlaxleArtemis but not Grawp. Jarlaxle then proceeded to prove her wrong... by vandalizing multiple wikis as "Grawp" later that night from the same IP address his mother sent her e-mail from. The ticket was handed to ArbCom, who replied to her with this evidence and the assurance that her son was in fact the one responsible... but received a response that she didn't believe them, didn't care, and was blocking all further e-mail from Wikimedia. (Though it's been suggested that Jarlaxle himself may have written that mail.) And he's continued to vandalize as recently as tonight.
Personally, I'm utterly bamboozled. This kid is nineteen years old and in college; he's an adult, and he has his entire life ahead of him. Yet he still continues to anonymously threaten and harass people on the Internet, even though he's clearly stepped into illegal territory, his identity is known along with reams of evidence of his misdeeds connecting them to him, and his parent upon whom he's still dependent has been alerted. And he still soldiers on, using Mom's broadband to move pages on Wikipedia to titles "I will rape and murder (insert admin here)." What could possibly be running through his mind? And how can he be stopped?
-Fran
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi,
The targeted person's reaction is secondary to him. And the targets are, most likely, chosen at random. He is more stimulated by seeing his work there, in print, than anything else. It's like some persons who write graffiti on a wall; they are less interested in the reactions of those who see it, than in looking up and seeing that their work is there. And only strong outside intervention will even begin to stop him.
What amazes me is that this guy, a 19-year-old, whose identity is known publicly, is willing to risk his future career life by engaging in silly, disruptive, petty vandalism that would be common from a two-year-old.
And what he's doing is illegal, too. He's taking a huge risk.
Why can't some people simply apologise and move on, or at least move on? There are other things that are far more worthy of one's time, Wikipedia-related and not.
--Thomas Larsen
On 16 Dec 2008, at 04:14, Thomas Larsen wrote:
What amazes me is that this guy, a 19-year-old, whose identity is known publicly, is willing to risk his future career life by engaging in silly, disruptive, petty vandalism that would be common from a two-year-old.
It sounds to me as though he were ill, not just stupid.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
Well I think he is... I know that there was a case some time ago where excessive vandalism came from the IP of an asylum.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Michael Everson everson@evertype.comwrote:
On 16 Dec 2008, at 04:14, Thomas Larsen wrote:
What amazes me is that this guy, a 19-year-old, whose identity is known publicly, is willing to risk his future career life by engaging in silly, disruptive, petty vandalism that would be common from a two-year-old.
It sounds to me as though he were ill, not just stupid.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The targeted person's reaction is secondary to him. And the targets are, most likely, chosen at random. He is more stimulated by seeing his work there, in print, than anything else. It's like some persons who write graffiti on a wall; they are less interested in the reactions of those who see it, than in looking up and seeing that their work is there. And only strong outside intervention will even begin to stop him.
on 12/15/08 11:14 PM, Thomas Larsen at larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
What amazes me is that this guy, a 19-year-old, whose identity is known publicly, is willing to risk his future career life by engaging in silly, disruptive, petty vandalism that would be common from a two-year-old.
Having his name and his work out there is the major reason he's doing it.
You are trying to rationalize irrational behavior. With this kind of thing, only the solutions can be rational.
And what he's doing is illegal, too. He's taking a huge risk.
It is also my impression that he has been pretty well protected throughout his life so far.
Marc Riddell
I don't like this writing that sounds like mind-reading. There's a point where one of his sock puppets is complaining about Psychonaut, which is one of his early creations beating himself up.
He is more stimulated by seeing his work there, in print, than anything else.
He's wasted some time, but he hasn't hurt anyone. Give him one last chance. Ensure that he sees this thread, and if it stops, let him go. Cheers:) Brian