On 10/21/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure it's the vast majority, but yeah, there are
certainly
some
who
will stop after they get blocked.
Most don't know how to use proxies so they don't much choice.
-- geni
Most people know how to log off and log back on, though.
Don't forget to change the "Subject" header of your email:
* Proxies and blocking
Is more specific then
* The whole point of Wikipedia
Ed Poor (One of several mailing list admins)
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Don't forget to change the "Subject" header of your email:
- Proxies and blocking
Is more specific then
- The whole point of Wikipedia
Ed Poor (One of several mailing list admins)
Actually, please don't, as it screws up the threading system in a number of email clients including Thunderbird.
Chris
On 10/21/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Don't forget to change the "Subject" header of your email:
- Proxies and blocking
Is more specific then
- The whole point of Wikipedia
Ed Poor (One of several mailing list admins)
Actually, please don't, as it screws up the threading system in a number of email clients including Thunderbird.
They're broken. The in-reply-to header determines threading in email, going back as far as RFC 822.
Guys,
We need to decide on how to deal with persistent vandalism of Wikipedia by users already subjected to the maximum ban.
One user in the less than two months since his own year ban was imposed has launched 30 suspected sockpuppets and at this stage between 40 and 50 proven sockpuppets against Wikipedia pages. On occasions his attacks have occurred as frequently as every two minutes, with (at a guess) twenty talk pages targeted one night for attack with cut and paste abuse placed on them.
On another night a single talk page was targeted by 18 sockpuppets in 2 hours. (It has had to be protected.)
Tonight the page on admin incidents was attacked by 15 separate sockpuppets of his (many multiple attacks) in just over three hours. The user also created articles (since speedily deleted) and though banned carried out wholescale rewriting of articles using a secret identity to get around his ban. (He slipped up and used that identity to join in the sockpuppet attacks. Once the edit history was spotted, as per the arbcom ruling, everything done under that identity was undone and articles deleted, with in one case a Californian admin starting a new valid article to replace a speedily deleted one, to prevent the banned user creating a replacement.)
More than 10 admins have had to devote hours every night this week (bar one night the vandal took off) to undoing his attacks. They were so frequent that by the time an IP had been blocked and template added to its page, the user had created a new one and reimposed his attacks.
It is ridiculous that users have to waste their time dealing with this nutter. It is also ridiculous that he is in effect able to get around his ban. (He also spams users constantly with messages and emails though they tell him to stop, abuses people and highjacks user talk pages of people who have no idea who he is, but just find he has turned their page into one of his battle fronts.)
The guy has already driven some people off Wikipedia, and used off-Wikipedia sites to libel Wikipedians. Now he has turned some pages into battle grounds. Who knows what he will do next. We have a serious problem. He is probably the most persistent vandal Wikipedia has ever had to face. We need to develop a policy to deal with him before he ups the ante and causes further chaos. Simply restarting his one year ban every time and reverting his edits, the recommendations of the arbcom, are not working.
Thom
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tom Cadden wrote:
The guy has already driven some people off Wikipedia, and used off-Wikipedia sites to libel Wikipedians. Now he has turned some pages into battle grounds. Who knows what he will do next. We have a serious problem. He is probably the most persistent vandal Wikipedia has ever had to face. We need to develop a policy to deal with him before he ups the ante and causes further chaos. Simply restarting his one year ban every time and reverting his edits, the recommendations of the arbcom, are not working.
I'm sure someone thought of this already, but how about blocking his IP range?
Ryan
We can't block his IP-range, if understand it he's editing from 203.xxx and 141.xxx. That's 1/128th of the entire internet (approximately)! Anyway, we really shouldn't permablock any IPs. As for dealing with this user, what else can we do? I mean, he is in essence banned for ever (I doubt he'd give up for an entire year, just to come back and be a nice, productive member of the wikipedia community). What can we do except to revert and block his socks?
--gkhan
On 10/22/05, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tom Cadden wrote:
The guy has already driven some people off Wikipedia, and used off-Wikipedia sites to libel Wikipedians. Now he has turned some pages into battle grounds. Who knows what he will do next. We have a serious problem. He is probably the most persistent vandal Wikipedia has ever had to face. We need to develop a policy to deal with him before he ups the ante and causes further chaos. Simply restarting his one year ban every time and reverting his edits, the recommendations of the arbcom, are not working.
I'm sure someone thought of this already, but how about blocking his IP range?
Ryan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDWYVq6MKb8lYmCtcRAmgsAJwO4St9yA318d7BXjyA7FWFW0pHmACfWacz E3JcuWuM3mgSEyIw140Uf5M= =rLjU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Oct 21, 2005, at 8:52 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
What can we do except to revert and block his socks?
In practical terms, it's worth noting that in at least one past case, we lifted the ban on a user that we could not effectively block, figuring that letting them edit under heavy constraint was a better option than the continual war on their vandalism.
-Snowspinner
Ofcourse, you are absolutly right, forgot that one :P I don't think it applies to this user though, I doubt he could be so reformed.
--gkhan
On 10/22/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 21, 2005, at 8:52 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
What can we do except to revert and block his socks?
In practical terms, it's worth noting that in at least one past case, we lifted the ban on a user that we could not effectively block, figuring that letting them edit under heavy constraint was a better option than the continual war on their vandalism.
-Snowspinner _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Oskar,
Ofcourse, you are absolutly right, forgot that one :P I don't think it applies to this user though, I doubt he could be so reformed.
I know Skyring from a previous life (as an aside, I remember back when he wasn't quite so concerned about the posting of a third party's personal info!), and he's quite knowledgeable and has the ability to be a *great* contributor. 'Twould be a pity to lose much of what he has to say about politics or Australia.
He's also quite, quite mad, however, and the first time someone disagreed with him we'd undoubtedly see a return of the behaviour that led to the ArbCom ruling in the first place. This would only be exacerbated by his ban, and by the knowledge that we can't stop him if he really wants to disrupt Wikipedia.
Somehow (I know it's easy to say this as one who wasn't around at the time) we botched the Skyring case. I don't know what we could've done better (if anything), so this isn't meant as a criticism of ArbCom or admins, but what we did wasn't as useful as it should've been.
On 10/21/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
We can't block his IP-range, if understand it he's editing from 203.xxx and 141.xxx. That's 1/128th of the entire internet (approximately)!
How is he able to do this? Is there a particular ISP which uses these IPs, or is he going from multiple IPs, or what? Can the ISP be contacted? That'd be the first step. Failing that, I'd actually suggest trying to get some sort of injunction through the legal system (Australia, I suppose, and one of the other editors claims to actually have known the person). "Don't touch Wikipedia again, or you'll go to jail." That'd probably work. I honestly don't think blocking is a very useful long-term solution, especially in an environment where the blocks are implemented by semi-trusted volunteers. If Wikimedia had an employee with full developer access who knew the ins and outs of the Internet and whose job it was to block vandals (using both technical tools and well-placed phone calls to established contacts at ISPs), that might work. Of course, there are 168 hours in a week, so even working 42 hour weeks it'd take 4 employees to handle the job 24/7. Those employees would certainly have time to do other things as well, but even so it's probably too expensive for now (rough guesstimate $150,000/year). Hopefully the new deal with answers.comhttp://answers.comwill start bringing in some serious revenue and something like this can be considered. Anthony
I think we should block the range, making it clear who (real name, etc) is responsible and let Australia sort it out.
Fred
On Oct 22, 2005, at 7:56 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 10/21/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
We can't block his IP-range, if understand it he's editing from 203.xxx and 141.xxx. That's 1/128th of the entire internet (approximately)!
How is he able to do this? Is there a particular ISP which uses these IPs, or is he going from multiple IPs, or what? Can the ISP be contacted? That'd be the first step. Failing that, I'd actually suggest trying to get some sort of injunction through the legal system (Australia, I suppose, and one of the other editors claims to actually have known the person). "Don't touch Wikipedia again, or you'll go to jail." That'd probably work. I honestly don't think blocking is a very useful long-term solution, especially in an environment where the blocks are implemented by semi-trusted volunteers. If Wikimedia had an employee with full developer access who knew the ins and outs of the Internet and whose job it was to block vandals (using both technical tools and well-placed phone calls to established contacts at ISPs), that might work. Of course, there are 168 hours in a week, so even working 42 hour weeks it'd take 4 employees to handle the job 24/7. Those employees would certainly have time to do other things as well, but even so it's probably too expensive for now (rough guesstimate $150,000/year). Hopefully the new deal with answers.comhttp://answers.comwill start bringing in some serious revenue and something like this can be considered. Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think we should block the range, making it clear who (real name, etc) is responsible and let Australia sort it out.
Gee, thanks Fred. How about we block every ISP in the US and let the rest of the US "sort it out" with regards to Willy on Wheels/MARMOT/etc? I understand that there are a few vandals who we actually do have the real name and address of, who have been spreading libel and making legal threats against our editors.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Peter has to have accounts with isps to get on, doesn't he? I don't think he's hanging around the public library.
Fred
On Oct 22, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Alphax wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think we should block the range, making it clear who (real name, etc) is responsible and let Australia sort it out.
Gee, thanks Fred. How about we block every ISP in the US and let the rest of the US "sort it out" with regards to Willy on Wheels/MARMOT/ etc? I understand that there are a few vandals who we actually do have the real name and address of, who have been spreading libel and making legal threats against our editors.
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ1pHvLMAAH8MeUlWAQhBqAf7BHva3seBLtp/vP9Iml9bLbuYVeruXgiA 9SsCtaGO2rzi57gn59YFpFR4+D1/MFh52tpsnqAUQT+P84iWJTzTvvRNT3GD0N53 yJ1GSzkrEQmdyD4B+LCVuuNYRBRcf17sX7SVo1tFVY2KKSqFu8rurSrGohVczJHZ mbGFTv3EervVylyR1bg0vj43z0gl00bbqO3GgjykSxB0ibo/z6UlIl6cBiEVgaUz WJBorWO7v4vX+J6w+0LAx+YxErg8u636ZuhiBoJop86eglJatreEBypxJRGK3lTR /nVHvwtaNrwLrpzza1ATOL+ZG1YEbpzC8nPRDgcO5uTrh4iiItUOZQ== =wD7M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/22/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Peter has to have accounts with isps to get on, doesn't he? I don't think he's hanging around the public library.
way back he mentioned useing wireless acess at a local cafe.
-- geni
A complication is that he travels a lot (he denies it, and then lists the places he visits a few paragraphs later! He is that scale of nutter). He also somehow managed to use a Finnish IP at one stage. People looking at the edits were convinced that either it was him or he had an identical (equally paranoid) twin brother! He seems to be quite skilled at finding some way to get on. He also has used IPs and user accounts, jumping between the two. When all his attempts to put in attacks using IPs were reverted (great work, BTW, everyone) he created a new user account and sneaked in a change under an edit summary marked 'fixing link'.
Skyring also posts personal abuse of Wikipedians on his own site. Here are three examples:
(1)
Mackensen's user page was then vandalised. The use of the term "AULDBITCH" is clearly a reference to the letter. I am sure that David can check on the source of this vandalism and I am equally sure that he will find nothing to link it to me. In fact, judging by this extremely interesting series of edits I suggest that it will turn out to be Duffy.
(2)
Jim Duffy (sic), whose wikiname is jtdirl, I've mentioned before, and here is the result of his discovery that somebody else had popped their head up to say the same things I was saying. He was roundly condemned for his attitude and his illegal block of an innocent editor, but failed to see anything improper in his conduct. I particularly liked his comment that I travelled extensively and could present myself at sites around the world pretending to be somebody else. Good heavens! If only I had the time when travelling. It's all I can do to keep up with LiveJournal and BookCrossing.
(3)
People are saying all sorts of nasty things about me, really sinking the boot into me. Their complaint? That I'm attacking them! I'm not sure that they can see the lack of moral depth to their position. Another person, a young lady who may or may not have dyslexia, thinks that when I cast an eye over her edits and correct her spelling, I'm stalking and harrassing her. She just quoted an extract from this very LiveJournal blog as evidence against me. Huh? Who's doing the stalking?
So as you call see, Skyring (real name Pete - his name and address, BTW, is on record) is a thoroughly nice chap. lol
Thom Cadden jtdirl
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/22/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Peter has to have accounts with isps to get on,
doesn't he? I don't
think he's hanging around the public library.
way back he mentioned useing wireless acess at a local cafe.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
G'day Fred,
I think we should block the range, making it clear who (real name, etc) is responsible and let Australia sort it out.
Gee, that's a good idea! Why not just block Telstra[0]? I mean, it's only the biggest ISP in the country ...
[0] I think it's Telstra ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Fred,
I think we should block the range, making it clear who (real name, etc) is responsible and let Australia sort it out.
Gee, that's a good idea! Why not just block Telstra[0]? I mean, it's only the biggest ISP in the country ...
[0] I think it's Telstra ...
Yep, and they own about 90% of the infrastructure as well. Agile owns about the other 10% (if that).
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
G'day Anthony,
On 10/21/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
We can't block his IP-range, if understand it he's editing from 203.xxx and 141.xxx. That's 1/128th of the entire internet (approximately)!
How is he able to do this? Is there a particular ISP which uses these IPs, or is he going from multiple IPs, or what? Can the ISP be contacted? That'd be the first step. Failing that, I'd actually
It's probably time to start contacting ISPs, yeah.
suggest trying to get some sort of injunction through the legal system (Australia, I suppose, and one of the other editors claims to actually have known the person). "Don't touch Wikipedia again, or
Well, via USENET. I mean, I haven't actually sat down and had coffee and joked about the electoral roll with him. But I s'pose it's possible one day; this is a small city, after all.
<snip />
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
We can't block his IP-range, if understand it he's editing from 203.xxx and 141.xxx. That's 1/128th of the entire internet (approximately)! Anyway, we really shouldn't permablock any IPs. As for dealing with this user, what else can we do? I mean, he is in essence banned for ever (I doubt he'd give up for an entire year, just to come back and be a nice, productive member of the wikipedia community). What can we do except to revert and block his socks?
Maybe Telstra would consider switching him to a static IP address, if we asked really nicely. They might have to hack their administrative system a bit to do it without billing him for it, but they do have the technical ability to assign IP addresses to customers. Usually it costs $10/month extra. Maybe they can bill the Foundation instead, and give him Internet access for free.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Fred,
I think we should block the range, making it clear who (real name, etc) is responsible and let Australia sort it out.
Gee, that's a good idea! Why not just block Telstra[0]? I mean, it's only the biggest ISP in the country ...
It's not as bizarre as it might seem, a couple of years ago the whole Telstra network was blocked from sending mail (by the MAPS RBL), because they were sheltering spammers. Telstra caved in after a few days. A bit of googling just now seems to suggest they have a reputation for protecting badly behaving users. They might pay attention if we, say, blocked the whole network from both reading and writing... but then again they might not. Wikipedia isn't quite as big as email yet.
Anyway, most ISPs are interested first and foremost in keeping their paying customers. That's why I suggest a static IP -- Telstra would get their money, and hopefully Skyring would stick with them. We could block him selectively, and he'd then have an incentive to go annoy different site for a while.
-- Tim Starling
On 10/22/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
We can't block his IP-range, if understand it he's editing from 203.xxx and 141.xxx. That's 1/128th of the entire internet (approximately)! Anyway, we really shouldn't permablock any IPs. As for dealing with this user, what else can we do? I mean, he is in essence banned for ever (I doubt he'd give up for an entire year, just to come back and be a nice, productive member of the wikipedia community). What can we do except to revert and block his socks?
Maybe Telstra would consider switching him to a static IP address, if we asked really nicely. They might have to hack their administrative system a bit to do it without billing him for it, but they do have the technical ability to assign IP addresses to customers. Usually it costs $10/month extra. Maybe they can bill the Foundation instead, and give him Internet access for free.
That wouldn't work if he is using an internet café as geni said he might be doing. Also, it feels very, very wrong that the Foundation should have to shell out cash for this.
--gkhan
G'day Ryan,
Tom Cadden wrote:
The guy has already driven some people off Wikipedia, and used off-Wikipedia sites to libel Wikipedians. Now he has turned some pages into battle grounds. Who knows what he will do next. We have a serious problem. He is probably the most persistent vandal Wikipedia has ever had to face. We need to develop a policy to deal with him before he ups the ante and causes further chaos. Simply restarting his one year ban every time and reverting his edits, the recommendations of the arbcom, are not working.
I'm sure someone thought of this already, but how about blocking his IP range?
203.* and 141.* cover a sizeable proportion of Australia, IIRC. Now, I know someone *jokingly* suggested that, but, well ...
On 10/21/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Don't forget to change the "Subject" header of your email:
- Proxies and blocking
Is more specific then
- The whole point of Wikipedia
Ed Poor (One of several mailing list admins)
Actually, please don't, as it screws up the threading system in a number of email clients including Thunderbird.
They're broken. The in-reply-to header determines threading in email, going back as far as RFC 822.
What does this thread have to do with "proxies and blocking"?
Tony Sidaway wrote:
They're broken. The in-reply-to header determines threading in email, going back as far as RFC 822.
I know, but for some reason whatever email client some people are using, they aren't changing the in-reply-to header correctly. Thunderbird takes an intelligent guess at how to thread it, by using the email subject.
What is even more annoying is when people hit reply to an existing email, and start a completely new discussion (and it is then threaded in reply to an existing topic). I can't win, can I? :)
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
They're broken. The in-reply-to header determines threading in email, going back as far as RFC 822.
I know, but for some reason whatever email client some people are using, they aren't changing the in-reply-to header correctly. Thunderbird takes an intelligent guess at how to thread it, by using the email subject.
What is even more annoying is when people hit reply to an existing email, and start a completely new discussion (and it is then threaded in reply to an existing topic). I can't win, can I? :)
In addition, it seems that email clients ignore the in-reply-to header, the references: headers, and so on and so forth.
Oh, and I keep getting tab characters in the subject line.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Alphax wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
They're broken. The in-reply-to header determines threading in email, going back as far as RFC 822.
I know, but for some reason whatever email client some people are using, they aren't changing the in-reply-to header correctly. Thunderbird takes an intelligent guess at how to thread it, by using the email subject.
What is even more annoying is when people hit reply to an existing email, and start a completely new discussion (and it is then threaded in reply to an existing topic). I can't win, can I? :)
In addition, it seems that email clients ignore the in-reply-to header, the references: headers, and so on and so forth.
Oh, and I keep getting tab characters in the subject line.
So it isn't an issue of the mailing lists stripping them? since we seem to be having the same issue at helpdesk-l of the reply-to headers being stripped.
-Jtkiefer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Jtkiefer wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
They're broken. The in-reply-to header determines threading in email, going back as far as RFC 822.
I know, but for some reason whatever email client some people are using, they aren't changing the in-reply-to header correctly. Thunderbird takes an intelligent guess at how to thread it, by using the email subject.
What is even more annoying is when people hit reply to an existing email, and start a completely new discussion (and it is then threaded in reply to an existing topic). I can't win, can I? :)
In addition, it seems that email clients ignore the in-reply-to header, the references: headers, and so on and so forth.
Oh, and I keep getting tab characters in the subject line.
So it isn't an issue of the mailing lists stripping them? since we seem to be having the same issue at helpdesk-l of the reply-to headers being stripped.
It's a completely different header. You need to set heldesk-l to "reply to list" and *not* strip existing Reply-To headers.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Maybe I didn't notice it before but since my Skyring 'experience' a number of other users have approached me to say they have having the same experience.
Among the things happening are a NUMBER of users are eperiencing:
* PERSONALLY targeted attacks on individual members by another individual (a different individual in each case), who follows the user around adding abuse to talk pages. (Another user has just emailed me and said that has been happening to them too. Someone else said they had experienced it a few weeks ago.)
* users who standby and the moment an individual is criticised, jump in to add in venomous attacks of their own that are unconnected to the current dispute.
* users spamming other users with smears about someone on Wikipedia.
* off-Wikipedia public attacks, some of them libellous, many of them offensive and distressing, on Wikipedians.
* One abuser, Skyring, even accused another Wikipedian of physically stalking his house!!! (She obviously didn't, but was shocked at the claim, which was in a longer personal attack he launched on her.)
Two people in the last 24 hours, having witnessed Skyring's antics against me, have emailed me to say that they too are being targeted others. Both said that they are on the brink of quitting WP altogether because of the unending cycle of abuse they are getting from an individual (a different individual in each case).
I can't help wondering if Skyring's antics (which are proving difficult to stop - he has now started again creating phoney sockpuppet 'users' to sneak back in attacks under the guise of innocent edit summaries) has inspired others to act in a similar way.
Simply deleting attacks doesn't solve the problem if merely the fact of editing an article opens one up to the attack to start off with. The offence will have been caused by the time the attack is deleted. And with some users spreading attacks like confetti, not every attack is spotted if it is in the talk page of a little read page. Offensive attacks also remain in the archives for anyone to read.
This problem could destroy Wikipedia, by driving away genuine users and having WP swamped by abusive trolls stalking individuals throughout the database. The danger is that genuine users who may themselves not be a victim of this problem may see such stalked attacks appearing all over the place and decide 'I don't want that to happen to me' and so leave. One already left two months ago, having emailed me to ask "what is happening here? It is disgusting."
What strategy do we have for dealing with what seems like a growing problem?
Thom
___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
One problem is that we don't give someone something which they then loose if they start acting out. We have no experience points invested in our character as one might have in a MUD, usually no special powers or privileges to loose. This is complicated by no requirement to create an account, no confirmation of accounts or of identity. So access to any ip is sufficient to come aboard and edit without limit, and to return to the subject, be as nasty as you might want to be.
Fred
On Oct 22, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Tom Cadden wrote:
Maybe I didn't notice it before but since my Skyring 'experience' a number of other users have approached me to say they have having the same experience.
Among the things happening are a NUMBER of users are eperiencing:
- PERSONALLY targeted attacks on individual members by
another individual (a different individual in each case), who follows the user around adding abuse to talk pages. (Another user has just emailed me and said that has been happening to them too. Someone else said they had experienced it a few weeks ago.)
- users who standby and the moment an individual is
criticised, jump in to add in venomous attacks of their own that are unconnected to the current dispute.
- users spamming other users with smears about someone
on Wikipedia.
- off-Wikipedia public attacks, some of them
libellous, many of them offensive and distressing, on Wikipedians.
- One abuser, Skyring, even accused another Wikipedian
of physically stalking his house!!! (She obviously didn't, but was shocked at the claim, which was in a longer personal attack he launched on her.)
Two people in the last 24 hours, having witnessed Skyring's antics against me, have emailed me to say that they too are being targeted others. Both said that they are on the brink of quitting WP altogether because of the unending cycle of abuse they are getting from an individual (a different individual in each case).
I can't help wondering if Skyring's antics (which are proving difficult to stop - he has now started again creating phoney sockpuppet 'users' to sneak back in attacks under the guise of innocent edit summaries) has inspired others to act in a similar way.
Simply deleting attacks doesn't solve the problem if merely the fact of editing an article opens one up to the attack to start off with. The offence will have been caused by the time the attack is deleted. And with some users spreading attacks like confetti, not every attack is spotted if it is in the talk page of a little read page. Offensive attacks also remain in the archives for anyone to read.
This problem could destroy Wikipedia, by driving away genuine users and having WP swamped by abusive trolls stalking individuals throughout the database. The danger is that genuine users who may themselves not be a victim of this problem may see such stalked attacks appearing all over the place and decide 'I don't want that to happen to me' and so leave. One already left two months ago, having emailed me to ask "what is happening here? It is disgusting."
What strategy do we have for dealing with what seems like a growing problem?
Thom
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jeez...I wonder why this troll hate you.
On 10/22/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
One problem is that we don't give someone something which they then loose if they start acting out. We have no experience points invested in our character as one might have in a MUD, usually no special powers or privileges to loose. This is complicated by no requirement to create an account, no confirmation of accounts or of identity. So access to any ip is sufficient to come aboard and edit without limit, and to return to the subject, be as nasty as you might want to be.
Fred
On Oct 22, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Tom Cadden wrote:
Maybe I didn't notice it before but since my Skyring 'experience' a number of other users have approached me to say they have having the same experience.
Among the things happening are a NUMBER of users are eperiencing:
- PERSONALLY targeted attacks on individual members by
another individual (a different individual in each case), who follows the user around adding abuse to talk pages. (Another user has just emailed me and said that has been happening to them too. Someone else said they had experienced it a few weeks ago.)
- users who standby and the moment an individual is
criticised, jump in to add in venomous attacks of their own that are unconnected to the current dispute.
- users spamming other users with smears about someone
on Wikipedia.
- off-Wikipedia public attacks, some of them
libellous, many of them offensive and distressing, on Wikipedians.
- One abuser, Skyring, even accused another Wikipedian
of physically stalking his house!!! (She obviously didn't, but was shocked at the claim, which was in a longer personal attack he launched on her.)
Two people in the last 24 hours, having witnessed Skyring's antics against me, have emailed me to say that they too are being targeted others. Both said that they are on the brink of quitting WP altogether because of the unending cycle of abuse they are getting from an individual (a different individual in each case).
I can't help wondering if Skyring's antics (which are proving difficult to stop - he has now started again creating phoney sockpuppet 'users' to sneak back in attacks under the guise of innocent edit summaries) has inspired others to act in a similar way.
Simply deleting attacks doesn't solve the problem if merely the fact of editing an article opens one up to the attack to start off with. The offence will have been caused by the time the attack is deleted. And with some users spreading attacks like confetti, not every attack is spotted if it is in the talk page of a little read page. Offensive attacks also remain in the archives for anyone to read.
This problem could destroy Wikipedia, by driving away genuine users and having WP swamped by abusive trolls stalking individuals throughout the database. The danger is that genuine users who may themselves not be a victim of this problem may see such stalked attacks appearing all over the place and decide 'I don't want that to happen to me' and so leave. One already left two months ago, having emailed me to ask "what is happening here? It is disgusting."
What strategy do we have for dealing with what seems like a growing problem?
Thom
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l