It has something to do with railroad track switching, I'm not exactly sure what. This has become a serious problem on many of the Wiktionaries. As I understand it, it was originally a problem on the English Wikipedia, complete with abusive sockpuppets and mass disruption; the problem has apparently been snuffed out there.

A few days ago, a checkuser was done on the vandals on the wiktionaries; I'd suggest a checkuser on the corresponding user on the English Wikipedia, and if the results match up, a Jimbo-level ban. This is becoming a serious, serious problem.

Essjay

On 3/15/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:

What, may I ask, did he claim was the meaning of "exicornt"? When I read your e-mail, I just couldn't stop laughing.

I've seen all sorts of weird vandals, as well as people trying to plant false information, but the idea that somebody would invent a word and claim it was real, especially something as ludicrous sounding as "exicornt" (I don't believe any real English words end in -ornt, and not many end in -rnt).

Mark

On 14/03/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hoi, On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something about this vandal.

It is a daily annoyance. :(

Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

One thing i can think of is making that page with a space in it or a redirect to the mainpage. Then lock it. That way the vandal won't be able to disrupt that article again. Of course usefull additions can't be made as well but its the only viable solution I can think of, as blocking AOL is definitly not what we want, isn't it. greetz gerbennn

Mark Williamson schreef:

Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.

On 15/03/06, - Essjay - essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

It has something to do with railroad track switching, I'm not exactly sure what. This has become a serious problem on many of the Wiktionaries. As I understand it, it was originally a problem on the English Wikipedia, complete with abusive sockpuppets and mass disruption; the problem has apparently been snuffed out there.

A few days ago, a checkuser was done on the vandals on the wiktionaries; I'd suggest a checkuser on the corresponding user on the English Wikipedia, and if the results match up, a Jimbo-level ban. This is becoming a serious, serious problem.

Essjay

On 3/15/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:

...

What, may I ask, did he claim was the meaning of "exicornt"? When I read your e-mail, I just couldn't stop laughing.

I've seen all sorts of weird vandals, as well as people trying to plant false information, but the idea that somebody would invent a word and claim it was real, especially something as ludicrous sounding as "exicornt" (I don't believe any real English words end in -ornt, and not many end in -rnt).

Mark

On 14/03/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hoi, On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create articles with titles like "exicornt switch". This is a non existing word. The guy insists to create this article and uses any means to get his way. I have been told that this guy is a user on the en.wikipedia as well. As the frustration of this guy is getting to a level where AOL is being blocked, I would like to know if we can cooperate and do something about this vandal.

It is a daily annoyance. :(

Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- Essjay

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/ _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

2006/3/15, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:

Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.

Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is a good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used to use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..

-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

I disagree with Gerard about the approach to use here. To deny thousands (millions?) of AOL users the right to contribute to wikimedia projects because of some guy who tried to create a word called "exicornt switch" would be a mistake. To justify it because we supposedly receive very little benefit from AOL is typically elitist. If said user were blanking out whole useful sections of wiktionary or launching DOS attacks or something else that would affect the end user (whom I doubt is affected by the addition of nonsense words such as this), then maybe a temporary block would be in order. Until then, I think wiktionary editors need to suck it up and delete these pages as they come along. Wikipedia is great precisely because it strives to not privilege one group of users over another. Let's keep it that way.

On 3/19/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

Hoi, It may be disproportional, but the disruption of this vandal is also disproportional to the benefit we get from AOL. There is no other method available to prevent this sorry sod somewhat. It would help if we could put some bumbs on the road making vandalism less easy. It would also help if we could go to the police.

Thanks, GerardM

On 3/19/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:

...

2006/3/15, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:

...

Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.

Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is a good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used to use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..

-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---

Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

So many things to say on this:

1) AOL has been contacted before, by Wikimedia, by the developers, by AOL users, and the response has always been that they simply don't care. AOL causes a great deal of problem on en.wikipedia, so getting AOL to cooperate has been tried quite a bit.

2) Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to edit even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor PHP skill. It requires the following:

a) that the patch be enabled; b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which to my knowledge is already enabled c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per day. This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.

The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact quote was that doing so is a "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to thier expertise in the matter.

In short, if the only way for AOL to be unblocked is for AOL to cooperate, then AOL will be blocked until hell freezes over, because they've never shown any interest in doing so. Anyone on AOL will be blocked, whether they are logged in or not, and there is no expectation that a change will be forthcoming. I doubt anything short of a Board-level order to implement a fix to 550 would solve the problem.

Essjay

On 3/19/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:

The current situation seems to be that all AOL users are blocked pending cooperation from AOL in trying to stop vandalism. This seems like a good approach to me.

Existing contributors who already use AOL should be motivated to contact AOL and request that they cooperate, or they can change ISPs, or maybe we can allow people who log in with certain usernames.

Mark

On 19/03/06, Mark Evans alberrosidus@gmail.com wrote:

...

I disagree with Gerard about the approach to use here. To deny thousands (millions?) of AOL users the right to contribute to wikimedia projects because of some guy who tried to create a word called "exicornt switch" would be a mistake. To justify it because we supposedly receive very little benefit from AOL is typically elitist. If said user were blanking out whole useful sections of wiktionary or launching DOS attacks or something else that would affect the end user (whom I doubt is affected by the addition of nonsense words such as this), then maybe a temporary block would be in order. Until then, I think wiktionary editors need to suck it up and delete these pages as they come along. Wikipedia is great precisely because it strives to not privilege one group of users over another. Let's keep it that way.

On 3/19/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hoi, It may be disproportional, but the disruption of this vandal is also disproportional to the benefit we get from AOL. There is no other method available to prevent this sorry sod somewhat. It would help if we could put some bumbs on the road making vandalism less easy. It would also help if we could go to the police.

Thanks, GerardM

On 3/19/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:

...

2006/3/15, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:

...

Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.

Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is

a

...

...

...

good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used

to

...

...

...

use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..

-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---

Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---

Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

-- Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

On 3/19/06, - Essjay - essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote: ...

2. Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to edit

even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor PHP skill. It requires the following:

a) that the patch be enabled; b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which to my knowledge is already enabled c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per day. This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.

The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact quote was that doing so is a "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to thier expertise in the matter.

...

Essjay

Is that really their reason? That is *remarkably stupid* of them. I had thought there was a real reason; such lame excuses disgust me.

The whole idea of blocking, reverting and rollbacking and such like is to change the balance between the ease of vandalising and the ease of fixing vandalism in the favor of the latter. Likewise, the whole idea of blocking is to raise the costs of an attack on pages to the point where the vandal engages in fewer or none (at which point the fixing-vandalism comes into play). Ex. it is hard to vandalise a conventional website, and so it isn't done often, but it is easy to vandalise a wiki, so it is done often. Enabling that feature would raise the cost of vandalism from those IPs- even if they could still get around it (note that *all* blocks can be circumvented; it is just too troublesome for most vandals) by making sleeper accounts, that requires quite a bit of effort and planning, and waiting- all factors that considerably raise the cost of vandalism from those IPs, especially since the sleeper accounts would be indef blocked on surfacing, requiring the vandal to get even more sleeper accounts, costing ever more effort. It would be very useful.

~maru

Maru Dubshinki wrote:

...

The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact quote was that doing so is a "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to thier expertise in the matter.

...

...

Essjay

Is that really their reason? That is *remarkably stupid* of them. I had thought there was a real reason; such lame excuses disgust me.

Nope.

The real situation is that our current blocking system sucks. A lot. And if we just "flipped a switch" it would suck *MUCH WORSE* because it would be virtually impossible to actually block anyone -- just create a bunch of accounts and you're immune until someone laboriously tracks them all down.

So, it'll take more options and rethinking and generally some better, clearer idea of what blocking's supposed to do.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

2006/3/19, - Essjay - essjaywiki@gmail.com:

2. Bug 550 deals with the issue of allowing users who have accounts to edit

even if thier IP is blocked. The solution for it is quite simple; it's actually three lines of code that can be written by anyone with minor PHP skill. It requires the following:

a) that the patch be enabled; b) that account creation from blocked IPs be disabled (to prevent the vandals from simply creating an account to sidestep the IP block) which to my knowledge is already enabled c) throttling account creation from IPs to x per day, currently 10 per day. This allows legit people to create accounts, but prevents vandals from creating 1000 sleeper accounts to use once the IP is blocked.

The devs are aware of the fix, and are not willing to enable it. The exact quote was that doing so is a "very very bad idea." It is thier opinion that it will be of no use, that the vandals will just create sleeper accounts and evade the blocks. I don't agree, but I'm not a developer either; I defer to thier expertise in the matter.

Well, as a voice in the desert, let me say that I'm one not in favor of 550. In my opinion there is already too much overly broad and long blocking. If logged-in users are not hit by the block, that will only worsen, and we're looking forward to the day that not just all of AOL, but all roaming IPs, internet cafes, schools and libraries are blocked indefinitely. That's not the direction I want to go, and the possibility that one might be blocking a logged-in user is one thing that helps avoiding that.

-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

Andre Engels wrote:

2006/3/19, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:

...

The current situation seems to be that all AOL users are blocked pending cooperation from AOL in trying to stop vandalism. This seems like a good approach to me.

Not to me. It's not the IP's task to micromanage the online behaviour of their users. And why single out AOL? Why not block ALL users until their ISP starts to cooperate?

We single out AOL because they are the only ISP we know of that categorically refuses to append XFF headers to proxy requests. Today, before I read this mailing list thread, I wrote this page on the subject:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project

One of the ISPs on the trusted list (EscapeNet) is only there because I emailed them and asked them to change their proxy configuration. Their response was fast and friendly. My hope is that other ISPs will follow their lead, and that eventually the problem of shared IP addresses will be mostly isolated to AOL.

As for AOL itself: sad to say, but we might need to put up some entry barriers. Bug 550 is an extreme example of this: a feature which would let sysops restrict access to trusted users only. Email confirmation with an aol.com address required would be better.

-- Tim Starling