[WikiEN-l] Re: Policy on breaches of bans

Sun Oct 23 02:21:00 UTC 2005

On the topic of Skyring...

I think I've had my IP address blocked too many times because it is
dynamically allocated to me by Agile and someone using that IP before me has
vandalised WP. It used to be frustrating to always have to email the admin
to get unblocked. Now I worked out a new method though. I simply reset the
internet connection and the IP gets changed quickly, so I'm sure it's no
difficulty for Skyring to do the same.

I remember once asking Internode (Agile) if they'd do anything about someone
using a specific IP to misbehave on Wikipedia. They said not without a
request (or subpoena) from local police! If Wikipedia wants to rule with an
iron fist then it would have to make agreements with local authorities. But
I don't think this would really be a good thing for Wikipedia in the end.
I'm certain their are other approaches to managing bad faith edits.

The problem seems to actually be the use short term sockpuppets by
experienced vandals.

I'm not sure if I like the idea that one of us suggested (that users gain
"experience points" like in a MUD) because it is just another way for
newbies to be discriminated against even for good faith edits. But perhaps a
"edit faith quality level" could be maintained for each user and it would
take only say 5 days with at least 5 good faith edits or 50 good faith edits
for a new user to be ramped up to 100%.

Presumably it would be easy to profile the behaviour of an experienced user
who creates a sockpuppet vs an inexperienced user who creates a new account
for the first time. And based on matching this profile, the software would
delay the increase of "edit faith level". This might delay legitimate good
faith sockpuppets for a few more days or so before their "faith quality
level" would reach 100%, but would help keep control on shortterm
sockpuppets created specifically to be used for bad faith edits.

Lisa

Anthony wrote:

> 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.com <http://answers.com/><http://answers.com>will start bringing
> in some serious
> revenue and something like this can be
> considered.
> Anthony
>