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."
New Verizon Wikipedia Page (Score:4, Funny)
[1] Citation needed.
Misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
Only editing is blocked, not Wikipedia itself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But... then how will they change the article to match their paper?
Re:Misleading title (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently it's not just the title that's misleading. From TFA:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that it is 67 million IPs versus 67 million customers means that it could potentially INCREASE the number of customers impacted, based on the presumption that more than one user (via NAT) is in a given location served by a single IP address.
Wouldn't that make the theoretical (theoretical since, as many have already pointed out, the assumption is that the vast majority of Wikipedia users are not making edits..) impact greater? I looked at those r
Re:Misleading title (Score:5, Funny)
do you feel mad? do you feel that i'm mad?
OK, who gave ELIZA a Slashdot account?
Re:Misleading title (Score:5, Interesting)
work for the TSA. And then molest airline passengers. And children.
Parent got modded Troll for the priest comments, but the TSA comment might not be far off. On TV this morning (NBC Today Show), I saw the head of the TSA get grilled about the new pat downs, and Matt Lauer asked him about exemptions for children. The TSA head said they would not pat-down children aged 12 or younger. That means he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to molest children 13-17 as long as it's done in the name of airline security. If a TSA agent follows orders for the 13-17 year-old range, there's got to be something wrong with the agent. Radiation during puberty, molestation, or only taking land/sea vehicles for vacations: your children have a choice.
Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think you can register when your ip is blocked from anonymous editing.
I'm not sure why this is even news. My isp has been blocked for years. I'll never edit a wikipedia page again. Their loss not mine.
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, why not require registration for every edit on Wikipedia?
Leaving out all philosophical idealism, I see vandalism from some registered users. Registration won't stop the assholes.
The Slashdot way of filtering out the bad may be useful though. If the idiots can be modded down, their changes can be filtered out in normal usage. Slashdot modding works at a posting level, but Wikipedia could implement it on a user level.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving out all philosophical idealism, I see vandalism from some registered users. Registration won't stop the assholes.
But their accounts are much easier to ban. Especially if new account holders are not permitted to edit for a period of time. It wouldn't be perfect, of course. Vandals could still set up many accounts, let them sit for a few months until they editing is allowed then use them until they get shut down. But it would make vandalism harder and more tedious. Probably enough to make a fair number of the vandals find an easier target.
The downside, of course, is that anything that makes it harder for vandals
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot's moderation system does more to promote groupthink than anything else. Most mods here are +1 agree or -1 disagree.
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on the issue. Many times you'll get viewpoints from both sides modded up. Moderation on Slashdot is far from perfect, but overall it makes the site readable.
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why you don't mod down. If you find an already modded comment with serious flaws, you find a good response and mod that up instead.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want any more non-essential accounts. I'd just stop editing entirely. I'm sure I'm not alone.
My fixes are small but they generally stick, so I think they are deemed useful.
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why not just require user registration for IPs that come from Verizon?
That's what the "ban" would do.
> 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?
Anonymous edits are one of the corner-stones of Wikipedia. Just changing that because of a situation that is like a thousand ones before... I don't think so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A little jail time might be in order as well
Get a grip. Wikipedia allows anonymous editing.No laws are being broken. Stop taking yourself so seriously. It's *not* becoming, and really, you look like a fool.
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No laws are being broken.
I see. And you're an attorney, and you're familiar with all the jurisdictions involved. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that his activities are, in fact, illegal under U.S. law. Any lawyers in the crowd care to comment upon that?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the law is even more illogical than I thought (and that's saying something) if 'vandalizing' wikipedia (which allows anonymous edits) articles is breaking the law. Especially since 'vandalizing' can pretty much mean anything they want it to.
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:4, Insightful)
Most walls permit anonymous spray painting: are you contending that graffiti vandalism is not against laws in most jurisdictions?
While I agree that actively soliciting contributions is slightly different to the usual wall-owner's approach it still does not constitute an invitation from Wikipedia to be destructive.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most walls permit anonymous spray painting: are you contending that graffiti vandalism is not against laws in most jurisdictions?"
Wait... what? I was talking about 'vandalizing' Wikipedia. Digital data is, in most cases (and it is for Wikipedia), recoverable. You can't just click a button and have all of the spray paint go away.
"constitute an invitation from Wikipedia to be destructive"
What is destructive to Wikipedia? What if they defined that as someone posting things that they did not like? Honestly, it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Detection and fixing takes time (and good will), and time is not free. Nor is reputational damage.
Criminal damage is not necessarily limited to physical objects.
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
Most walls permit anonymous spray painting
The owners of most walls don't permit anonymous painting. If they did, I really doubt you could be prosecuted for painting an ugly mural.
Re: (Score:2)
Better go after half of the people who use the internet, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No laws are being broken.
I beg to differ. This is a clear violation of Wheaton's Law: "Don't be a dick!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No they don't. Your edits are still tied to your IP, and so...you can be tracked.
True anonymity is not found through that means, unless you go through some hoops.
Well, if the guy has half a brain he's gone through those hoops. If not, he may find himself in a world of hurt, if he's in the U.S. and the Feds take an interest.
Re: (Score:2)
like the impossible hoop of obtaining access to free public wi-fi... if only such a thing existed... if only such a thing existed in almost every square foot of any reasonably sized metropolitan area.......
WHAT A HOOP#!%*(&!#
you're an idiot.
Depends. If (and I say if) this were to become a law enforcement matter, those recorded IPs could at least put them in the right area. Good police work could do the rest. Again, that's assuming he's even in the country and that's by no means a given.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because going after people who pull pranks (not even serious ones either) on the internet is definitely worthwhile, right? I suppose you also want half of the users of the internet arrested, too? There's plenty of 'defamation' and 'libel' to go around!
Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a similar incident some odd years ago when I was a systems engineer for a medium sized company. 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.
My fellow admins and myself noticed this issue rather quickly as we were a quite the terminal jockeys at the time. I followed up with the website in question and requested information as to why we were banned. Now, a direct inquiry like that won't actually get someones information, but I did persuade someone to lift the ban. I requested an abuse report be sent to our abuse mail if such an abusive pattern happened again. The report should include the time and ip address of the incident.
Sure enough within a day the troll was back to trolling and an abuse report showed up in the local abuse inbox. It was fairly easy to get management approval to have the account suspended. When one user makes our services less desirable to our competitors its very easy to get management to agree. Had they not agreed I would have just banged his account or setup a null routed static on his account.
Eventually, the little bastard called up to the billing department and they had a notice to forward him to me immediately. I told him if he wants to troll he better get an account with our competitor. Apparently, they had already kicked him off their network and sent his little bastard ass to us. To the kids credit he never troll slashdot again after I re-enabled his account.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And that is a good thing, since it forces the rest of us to grow a thicker skin, thus not being such easy targets for hatemongers and other demagogues.
Don't think trolls as vandals, think of them as vaccination against the next Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
wikipedia provides a public internet website intended to be edited by users... a user simply utilized the service as designed, and you believe jail time might be in order?! is that you, adolf? the system wasn't broken, it was used as designed.
a little jobless time might be in order for the system administrators that designed the broken system.
So, uh, was the system not broken and being used as designed, or was it broken and the designers deserving of joblessness?
Re: (Score:2)
wikipedia provides a public internet website intended to be edited by users... a user simply utilized the service as designed, and you believe jail time might be in order?! is that you, adolf? the system wasn't broken, it was used as designed.
a little jobless time might be in order for the system administrators that designed the broken system.
Furthermore, there's a big difference between something being done because a system happens to allow it, and being done according to the intent of the designers. What this little fucker has been doing can by no stretch of the imagination be considered in compliance with the intent of Wikipedia. Presumably he or she is aware of that: if not, said person is probably a sociopath.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not read the rest of the post you quoted? This was almost 30 years ago, on a BBS, not on the internet, when most people using computers were still courteous.
Even if that wouldn't have changed your rant, the fact that you use the word "internet" five times in your post leads me to believe you failed to read the entire parent. As it is, that makes your post look foolish in a different fashion, and dilutes your message.
Re: (Score:2)
"Did you not read the rest of the post you quoted?"
Yes, I did. Sadly, I can't edit my post to correct that bit.
"Even if that wouldn't have changed your rant, the fact that you use the word "internet" five times in your post leads me to believe you failed to read the entire parent."
Actually, no. I myself used it four times, while I merely quoted some of what he said (which contains the word "internet," making it show up five times in my post). In actuality, he did mention the internet in his post, and the on
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but my point was that tracking someone down because they merely offended them is just idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think a little jail time was in order. After all, if someone posts 'offensive' content (no matter where it is), they should be jailed immediately.
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.
Re:Why would Verizon care? (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
In fact, this isn't even vandalism. Using chalk on a sidewalk is not considered vandalism because it washes away and isn't permanent. The same could be said about Wiki edits that can easily be undone. Close the system to anonymous edits or STFU.
Re:Why would Verizon care? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not true, actually.
The chalk does not wash away easily, and it is vandalism. Such as in this case [missionlocal.org] where Microsoft got in trouble for chalk advertisements. IIRC, IBM got in trouble for a similar stunt in New York City.
Re: (Score:2)
I think any judge would laugh at an excuse that internet vandalism can "wash away". If it takes human effort to undue the effect, it's vandalism.
Re:Why would Verizon care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try writing "fuck the police" on the police station with chalk and see if they think its vandalism.
Re:Why would Verizon care? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems silly to me... why would Verizon care?
They shouldn't. That's what makes this such a non-story. The problem is that there are a lot of people ("editors" they call themselves, until they get to level 2 and become an "admin") who take Wikipedia waaay too seriously. Take this gem from TFA:
Verizon didn't seem to care. -- T. Canens
Are you kidding me? That idiot wasted hundreds of hours of admins time, spent all his free time libeling people, outer hundreds of Wikipedia editors by mass-creating hundreds of accounts the included their phone numbers (or so I've heard) and they don't care? What is wrong with those people? -- Access Denied
My biggest problem with Wikipedia is the direct source of stories like this. It's become a little pool and everyone is trying to be the biggest fish, for two reasons: First, that way they can create their own little kingdom of articles which they've "adopted", bullying people into a consensus which matches their own ideals/agenda. Second, they just want to feel important. Take that Access Denied fellow's name/signature thing for example. Bright red, obnoxious, disrupts the page flow, and yells to everyone, "Look at me, look at me!"
Wikipedia "editors" are such cute little things.
Re: (Score:2)
My biggest problem with Wikipedia is the direct source of stories like this. It's become a little pool and everyone is trying to be the biggest fish [enwp.org], for two reasons: First, that way they can create their own little kingdom [enwp.org] of articles which they've "adopted", bullying people into a consensus which matches their own ideals/agenda [enwp.org]. Second, they just want to feel important [enwp.org].
I should sleep now, it's after midnight, but Duty Calls [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is using your service to attack and/or disrupt another service. You should care. Especially if you've received abuse complaints about it. There will come a point where you'll be held culpable in the act.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to going to the local Starbucks and using their Internet. Or scarfing any other source of non-Verizon internet access.
I highly doubt that someone going to this much trouble to cause them problems is going to stop the first time he runs into a simple block like this.
I guess I should have reworded my response to "adapt their process to something that will effectively take care of the problem".
Re: (Score:2)
Again... .cooperate with WHAT exactly?
These guys aren't doing anything wrong... they're just editing some pages. The Wiki admins SAY they're libelling people, etc., but since when is it Wikipedia's responsibility to handle that for those that have been wronged?
If they're claiming illegal activity, then follow legal means to take care of it. They can't just say "they're doing illegal shit so we should take some vigilante action to shut them down".
Again, I'm not agreeing with what these vandals are doing, b
Could someone explain... (Score:4, Insightful)
... why, exactly, the submitter thinks Verizon gives a rat's rear end whether or not their customers can edit Wikipedia pages?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because if they did block Wikipedia from Verizon users with a message saying "you have been blocked from this service because Verizon [boring technical or sociological problem that people won't see because by the time their eyes hit the word 'Verizon', they'll be on the phone]", there is a belief that their support costs will go up because of the masses of people complaining and having to deal with those people according to their support process. No idea what Verizon's support is like, maybe they just
Re:Could someone explain... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What bad PR? I'm a Verizon customer, and while being unable to make wiki edits would be annoying, why the hell would I blame Verizon for that? Sounds like the typical Wikipedia ego trip to me. Some people are douches. News at 11.
Because a lot of people would look at it in a slightly different view:
Anyone can edit Wikipedia.
Verizon customers cannot edit Wikipedia.
Ergo: Problem lies with Verizon, not Wikipedia.
Verizon gets bad publicity, whether it really is "their" fault or not. And in honesty, Wikipedia likely knows just how many Verizon customers edit Wikipedia, if they are prepared to block all of them just to shut this one assclown up, then he in all likelihood IS really being that much of an assclown.
Wikipedia is trying
Re: (Score:2)
And Verizon customers may have other ways to access the internet. (Like via their home computer and cable connection. Who edits wikipedia on their cell phone anyway.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What bad PR? Verizon isn't doing the blocking. Any bad PR would be properly directed to wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if I were Verizon, then I would fear of the bad PR they are already receiving.
Oh please, compared to past public relations debacles, this one doesn't even register on the radar.
No kidding. What percentage of Internet users in the United States have even visited Wikipedia, much less would feel the loss? Verizon's customers are far more concerned about their provider's dickish policies towards them, than the fact that a computer vandal is giving Jimmy Wales' brainchild a hard time, assuming said vandal is even a Verizon customer. He might be routing through a rooted box on Verizon's network for all we know, might even be in another country.
Wikipedia has had trouble with twits and
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: (Score:2)
Visited? Um, basically all of them?
I doubt that. I think you're giving us too much credit.
Ultimate Troll Is Successful (Score:5, Funny)
In the news tonight, police find a teenager dead in their basement. Law enforcement received a phone call from a neighbor that they heard a loud scream from the basement, followed by a crash. Police tried to contact the occupants from the doors, but an officer walking around the back looked into a window and saw a body laying on the floor.
Officers broke in to render emergency aid, and EMTs rushed the young man to the hospital, where he was declared dead upon arrival. But the cause of death has given everyone cause for concern.
"It was crazy," said Officer Pullayup. "He had this maniacal grin on his face and his garments below the waist were soaking wet with what appeared to be fluids of a sexual nature."
Further investigations revealed that the teen, known online as "Zsfgseg", had been "trolling" the website known as "Wikipedia" for months. In desperation to halt the abuse, Wikipedia was forced to ban the entire Verizon network, one of the country's largest ISPs. County coroner Dirk Slabber performed an autopsy.
"It looks like he orgasmed to death,"
Police have been unable to reach the parents, who neighbors say only show up once a week to throw food down the back steps of the basement.
Enjoy the moment... (Score:2)
I hope he/she is getting in all the laughs now, because when they finally do decide to p0wn him/her, it won't be funny anymore.
Re:Enjoy the moment... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope he/she is getting in all the laughs now, because when they finally do decide to p0wn him/her, it won't be funny anymore.
Who would "they" be? If this fuckwit is even in the U.S. I'd be surprised. He could be pretty much anywhere: sure, the activity is coming from an address assigned to Verizon, but we may find it belongs to some poor schmuck who had no idea his computer was being used to proxy vandal traffic.
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.
Net Neutrality, Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but this is Wikipedia's issue to deal with, not Verizon's. And, to imply otherwise is just trolling.
Re:Net Neutrality, Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, *Verizon* have a vandal, that is paying Verizon money to vandalise the Wikipedia.
Often the vandal is breaking multiple laws, and the ISP is enabling them, for money, and refusing to investigate it or even warn the user off.
It's not an ethically or legally neutral position for Verizon to take, and Verizon have failed to act before with other vandals. It's almost certain that the vandal is breaking Verizon's own terms and conditions as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ability for "vandalism" is directly tied to being net neutral. being net neutral as an isp is taking money and providing a pipe. just looking up who the person is or what he does on the net is a breach of that. that's how it goes. neutrality is a bitch if banhammer is your answer.
if he really is doing severe things it's easy enough to call the cops on him. THE ISP IS NOT THE POLICE! THEY DO NOT HAVE POLICE POWERS! they literally should not be able to look at their logs and give information on that to some r
Easy solution (Score:2)
All they have to do is block all edits made by Zsfgseg.
What, no good?
Re: (Score:2)
"I tried that! Don't you think I would have tried that?"
Not impressed. (Score:2)
I'm not too impressed. The Wikipedia admins working on this are named "The Thing That Should Not Be" and "Access Denied". I've never heard of either of them in five years on Wikipedia.
The bad PR that Verizon would get? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Collective punishment ... ISP sized ... (Score:3, Funny)
"Now because of the infractions of recruit Zsfgseg, all 67 million Verizon users will have to run up Currahee ... three miles up, three miles down. All weekend Internet passes are hereby revoked."
Verizon user: "Lieutenant, permission to speak, sir."
Lieutenant: "Permission granted."
Verizon user: "Why can't I edit Wikipedia pages?"
Lieutenant: "Because one of youse 67 million recruits is a royal fucking dickhead. Any questions?"
Verizon user: "Why does Wikipedia hate us?"
Lieutenant: "Wikipedia doesn't hate us. They just hate you, Verizon user."
Misguided Wikipedia Editors (Score:4, Insightful)
You're slowing down, Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
59 comments and no-one has traced Zsfgseg yet?
In the good old days we'd have posted his ip address, phone number, physical address and his mother's maiden name by comment 20. Comment 32 would detail how his PC was cracked and display images of the nong via his webcam. By comment 50, his bank account would have been emptied, citizenship revoked, and 2,500 pizzas would be arriving at his door.
Re: (Score:2)
Hang on dude, I'm still trying to find out what Wikipedia is!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You're slowing down, Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
Wikipedia brings this on itself (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, the very controversial editor JayJG did not get elected into the Arbitration Committee, too many people opposed (including me) and others got more votes - so Wales appointed him to it. Great, if you want Wikipedia to favor JayJG's line on Middle East politics, which is what he was always POV edit warring over.
Another example - look at the history of the Wikipedia Review page on Wikipedia. It was blocked from creation by the power users there, and an article could not be created until mid-2008. OK, you say it is not notable enough (although thousands of other less popular websites have articles - although Wikipedia doesn't allow you to cite other relative articles as evidence for relevancy, one of their bizarre rules of this type). Well mention of the existence of Wikipedia Review, linking to it and so forth was banned for years on the Criticism of Wikipedia page. It's a real sign of the cultishness of the admins that the Criticism of Wikipedia page forbid links, or even mention, to the most prominent forum for criticism of Wikipedia. I guess they finally relented, but by that time a lot of the critics (like me) left. Look over that page's history and the discussions and archived discussions.
These things are fairly out in the open, there are a lot of other biases that are harder to point to so obviously. I should also say that someone who spends there time editing the pages on say, quantum mechanics, may never run into these problems, and for them Wikipedia is working quite nicely. It is just when someone has perhaps a different point of view then Jimbo Wales on Ayn Rand, or on JayJG on the Middle East, and so on down the line for the rest of his lieutenants that this becomes obvious. But if one is interested, look into the JayJG Arbcom appointment, look into the blocks from mention of Wikipedia Review on the Criticism of Wikipedia page etc. As I said, there is a cultish quality to Wikipedia, I posted about this on Slashdot before and you get replies from some admins, like "You are one of THOSE PEOPLE! An ENEMY of WIKIPEDIA! A VANDAL/SOCKPUPPET/WHATEVER!" It is the same cultish thing as banning mention of Wikipedia Review that existed before - if Wikipedia is open, why are people critical of Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review considered "enemies"? I should mention I was once blocked for some hours - for criticizing Essjay, who was an administrator who lied about his credentials, and used to refer to his non-existent credentials when edit warring over different articles. This was reported in the mainstream press (about Essjay, not me). I posted to his page that he should be ashamed of himself and I was blocked by an administrator for that for 24 or 48 hours, I forget. So yes, I am one of those "vandals" who was blocked from Wikipedia.
Re: (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 excessiv
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is another topic altogether, but I think part of the problem is that the number of edits don't measure how good an editor is any more than the number of lines of code measure how good a programmer is.
To clarify (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA, looks like it's discussing a soft block...which would mean that Verizon customers could still edit, they would just have to do so from an account. No doubt all those Verizon customers will Really Suffer when they have to use/create a login to wikipedia...a login which is really nearly as anonymous as the ip editing. <gasp!>
Solve it with IPv6 (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we IP ban the people who delete every photo? (Score:5, Interesting)
"UR FAIR USE RATIONALE IS NO GOOD!"
*removes professional headshot, posts shitty cell phone picture of a celebrities' shoulder*
"Here is a headshot I took with my DSLR, fill flash and $10,000 lens."
"UR PICTURE IS NO GOOD!"
*reverts edit to shitty cell phone photo*
"UR FAIR USE RATIONALE IS NO GOOD!"
"Well the photo comes from government archives and originated in the SS, so I don't think anyone is going to..."
"UR FAIR USE RATIONALE IS NO GOOD!"
*nominates photo for deletion*
Rinse. Repeat.
I know many of them are either admins or obsessive super-editors who have ingratiated themselves into the community, but damn.
Anonymous Speech is More Important (Score:4, Insightful)
I love Wikipedia. It is one of my favorite websites. I have a tab open there right now (doing some research on the oil embargo in the 1970s).
All that said, Verizon not only shouldn't be required to respond, they should be enjoined from responding barring due process under the law. Anonymous speech is one of the most important principles of true democracy. That does not mean that Wikipedia has to allow this abusive asshole's behavior, but they have no place asking Verizon to identify or chastize him.
If this was some sleazy politician asking Verizon to cut off a user who was posting incriminating evidence on the politician's web forum, we wouldn't bat an eyelash before condemning the politician and demanding that Verizon refuse.
Principles are the things you abide by even when the outcome is exceedingly distasteful. Anonymous speech is so vital to the practice of free speech that we must not stand for, let alone condone, infringement of it. Not even to stop this asshat from vandalizing one of the true wonders of the information age.
Re:Anonymous Speech is More Important (Score:5, Interesting)
no, wikipedia isn't about free speech, its about informed and sourced speech. if you want free speech, go with uncyclopedia.wikia.com, and post willy nilly.
So WTF did "Zsfgseg" do? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Or maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
You might be surprised how responsive they are if their users start to complain. As one of the staff on an IRC network (one of the five largest IRC networks at the time, although that still isn't saying much), we got AOL to pay attention to abusers by banning the whole network. It took less than 24 hours of AOL users telling AOL "Hey, GamesNet is saying they can't get AOL to respond to abuse reports" before AOL got in touch with the network and explained how to expedite abuse reports.
Yeah, if Wikipedia does something stupid and bans Verizon users without explaining why or what the users can do, Wikipedia won't get very far. Personally, I think Wikipedia has more clue than that. It didn't take all that much for that IRC network to get appropriate attention on the chronic abusers.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
This has been discussed before [wikipedia.org]. If a gaming website caused them issues, then I've always thought that blocking AOL would pretty much cause a huge problem for AOL customer support.
Re: (Score:2)
That would require changes on the ISP side, and customers would have to manually type IP addresses assigned from the ISP. Technical users can easily do so, but the average user of course don't know what an IP address is. BTW, if you think the fundamental conflict between dynamic IP assignment and IP-based blocking is bad enough, wait until NAT makes all edits on a specific network come from the same IP address.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot that at least in theory you can set a DHCP server to always assign the same IP, removing the configuration hassle.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
To be more precise, the problem here is not the "one IP address = one person", but the fact that one person can dynamically change the IP address to another address, making banning a fixed address only cause trouble for another person who happens to later been assigned that address. But yes NAT can make all edits from an entire network appear to come from the same IP address, making the problem even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder why I have to pay 10 bucks a month extra for a static IP.
Re: (Score:2)
the REASON it's a problem is because a person can change their IP address...
Exactly what I have said!
Re:Wikipedia has Been Trolled (Score:5, Funny)
I hope whatever troll defeated Wikipedia on the battlefield of internet trolling is enjoying a bottle of champagne and a blowjob tonight
And looks like you'll be giving it.