Wikipedia Could Block 67 Million Verizon Customers 481
An anonymous reader writes "A particularly nasty Wikipedia vandal has forced a discussion to take place over whether to block edits from an address range used by over 67 million Verizon customers. Verizon has not responded to abusive Wikipedia users on their network before, even though the abusive Verizon users have released private information (phone numbers, etc.) of numerous individuals, and made countless threats that have also been reported to law enforcement. Wikipedia has done something similar in the past with users on the AOL network, which used proxy servers and thus allowed vandals to continue disrupting the site. Discussion is also taking place on alternate solutions to deal with abuse from this Verizon user, named 'Zsfgseg' on Wikipedia. If a block of millions is enacted, Verizon could potentially change how they assign IP addresses, or be forced at least to address a PR nightmare."
Misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
Only editing is blocked, not Wikipedia itself.
Why would Verizon care? (Score:5, Informative)
This seems silly to me... why would Verizon care?
If the vandals are doing something illegal, then go ahead and follow the legal procedures to get it stopped, which would probably include subpoenaing Verizon for the identity of the vandals and going after them directly.
If it's not something that can be handled in the courts, (being a dick hasn't been made illegal, last time I checked) then Verizon may well open themselves up to a lawsuit for helping Wikipedia with this "wrongdoing".
If it's not illegal, then they'll probably have to adapt their process to take care of the problem.
And I'd be very interested to see how many good edits or entries were being made from that block of IP addresses. They may well be cutting off their leg to cure an ingrown toenail.
Home IP caught in ban of 8192 Verizon addresses (Score:4, Informative)
I created an account on Wikipedia to learn more about its culture and vernacular. But when I attempted to edit my user page, I was greeted with the news that my IP--one among 8192 other Verizon addresses--was banned. An appeal to lift what I considered to be an excessive block was denied by an administrator. But now I see that banning a mere 8192 address won't satisfy the administurbatory will to power. I was wrong to politely request that an exception should be made in my case. I must have been suffering from a profound sense of entitlement commensurate with my self-importance when I made my appeal. Blocking millions of IP addresses is not enough. Wikipedia's administrators must be encouraged to ban the entire Internet.
Re:IPv6 (Score:4, Informative)
The dynamic IP ranges is what is causing this blanket-edit bans. Psycho asshats just reset their modems. Assign static IPs to customers and then just ban that /64. Problem fixed..
As to people saying you will be tracked, well, you are already tracked. Each of your IPv4 assignments is tracked by the ISP. /64 just specifies a network, not individual. The benefits of static IP outweigh the negatives. It allows you to specify that you will only login from a given /64 to your bank, your stock account, etc...
Back when I had Comcast, they offered what were called "permanent" IPs. Not static, just "permanent", in that the address wouldn't change upon a modem reset, only when Comcast needed to for "network management" purposes. In the two years I had them, I think it changed a couple of times. Once was in response to my upgrading my speed tier. And I agree: static IPs are damned convenient. It really is nice not to have to use a dynamic IP service like DynDNS just to get access to your equipment, and being able to point a domain at your own server.
Dynamic IP pools made a lot more sense back in the days of dial-up, where you had more customers than IP addresses, and connections were being made and dropped to your modem bank on a continuous basis. You just hoped that more wouldn't try to go online than you had addresses to assign to them. That's not the case with the vast majority of broadband connections, which are always on anyway.
Yes I am a vandal too (Score:1, Informative)
I am a vandal who has IP ranges in 2 seperate /8s. Wikipedians get so butt hurt that I know all the admins who are "regular" and who to expect to block me. They tried to edit filter me but just as terrorists causes us to use naked body scanners vandals will keep finding new methods to get around the blocks. When IPv6 gets deployed in a few years I will have fun with my quardrillions of IP addresses.
Re:Could someone explain... (Score:4, Informative)
What percentage of Internet users in the United States have even visited Wikipedia, much less would feel the loss?
Visited? Um, basically all of them?
I think you meant "edited".
Re:Or maybe... (Score:2, Informative)
the difference is that the vast majority of people who visit Wikipedia merely view content.
and viewing content isn't going to be blocked.
in your example, you BLOCKED access completely.
therefore you proved the OP's point beautifully.
Re:Could someone explain... (Score:4, Informative)
Verizon also does FIOS and DSL.
So they would be blocking those people in particular.
http://www22.verizon.com/residential/internet/ [verizon.com]
Re:Wikipedia brings this on itself (Score:2, Informative)
At least you got further than me. My attempt to learn the ropes was prematurely cut short when an admin blocked a range of 8192 Verizon IP addresses. I found this out when attempting to edit my user page. My appeal was summarily dismissed since there really is no mechanism for distinguishing legitimate users from vandals. To add insult to injury, Wikipedia requires that the appeal remain on my talk page until the range block is lifted some time in 2011. I thought that banning editing from a /19 was excessive, but now I see they are contemplating /7s and /6s. I think they should try for /0.
Re:The bad PR that Verizon would get? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:2, Informative)
Why not just require user registration for IPs that come from Verizon?
Last I checked, Wikipedia registration was a joke. You can just make up a funny user name and a password, and you are ready to roll. No e-mail-based verification, no nothing. You can voluntarily add an e-mail to your registration, but this is only if we want to get notification (for when somebody undoes one of your edits, etc.), but this e-mail is by no means mandatory. Just leave it blank if you want to stay anonymous.
In fact, if I happen to vandalize, I usually register, as this makes me more anonymous (no IP address displayed for all to see which might be traced back to me).
When I do serious edits, on the other hand, I usually don't bother registering.
I love the idea of being able to make anonymous edits, but seriously wouldn't it make their lives easier by just requiring it for everyone?
Nice Freudian slip, indeed you register in order to be anonymous :-)
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:1, Informative)
Sure enough within a day the troll was back to trolling and an abuse report showed up in the local abuse inbox.
Trolling a forum doesn't qualify as abuse of network access and has no business being sent to an abuse contact, and should never result in a block on an entire network. Either require users to log in or deal with the crap you get from allowing AC's to post. That is, after all, the entire point of the self-moderation system; Trolls can be dealt with by the users and if you don't want to see AC posts it's easy to shut them off.
If you get someone who is actively spamming the forum (i.e. flooding or posting nasty links, etc.) that's a little different because now you're getting into attack & exploit situations, but you can't bitch to an ISP about the content of a person's postings as long as it's not something illegal. We're not here to be a referee in forum disputes, if you want that then hire some people to do it for you or STFU.
One of our users was trolling slashdot at all times and generally being a prick. This of course resulted in a slashdot ban of one of our address blocks.
I've never seen that happen, and I would hope the system admins on here aren't dumb enough to think you can effectively block someone based on their IP address, and do so by shutting off an entire netblock of IP's which are probably being handed out dynamically in the first place. Or to do so before submitting the proper abuse report to the proper address.
Re:Home IP caught in ban of 8192 Verizon addresses (Score:1, Informative)
So WTF did "Zsfgseg" do? (Score:3, Informative)