Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Could Block 67 Million Verizon Customers
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."
Here's the new Verizon Wikipedia page:
:: crickettes :: [1]
[1] Citation needed.
I see no comments! Is everyone reading the article?
I'll have to get my info about mexican professional wrestling and the largest rodents of south america elsewhere...
Only editing is blocked, not Wikipedia itself.
I can't edit Wikipedia from my iPhone on AT&T. Can you?
...They just won't care. Why do they care if their customers can't edit Wikipedia? Realistically, what is the ratio of viewers to contributes? As long as their customers can view it, I doubt there will be enough of an outcry for them to take any action at all.
The link forwards to a conversation between Wikipedia admins. It seems like there is just one user being a prick. Why not just require user registration for IPs that come from Verizon? Hell, why not require registration for every edit on Wikipedia? 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?
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.
$0.02 (CDN)
... why, exactly, the submitter thinks Verizon gives a rat's rear end whether or not their customers can edit Wikipedia pages?
#DeleteChrome
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.
[End Of Line]
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.
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...
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.
That's just disgraceful, Verizon.
First you invade Poland, then you invent AIDS, then you JEFF IS GAY
I'm sorry, but this is Wikipedia's issue to deal with, not Verizon's. And, to imply otherwise is just trolling.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
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.
All they have to do is block all edits made by Zsfgseg.
What, no good?
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.
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.
Are Wikipedia admins serious? Do they really think that most of the bad press will be against Verizon if they block VZ's ip range? That's hilariously egotistical. No, if Wikipedia blocks Verizon customers from editing, most if not all the bad PR will be aimed squarely at Wikipedia for over-reacting to a single troll. Perhaps the Wikipedia admins are so big-headed that can't possibly see why Verizon will not, ever, care about their individual site enough to track down a single vandal.
Slashdot wanted me to moderate this. It gave the default of "normal."
Considering what we are talking about I considered your post quite normal.
"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."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It's not Verizon's responsibility to do anything unless people on their network are breaking laws. Last time I checked, general trolling was not against the law. (If it were, half the internet would be shutdown. :) )
Wikipedia needs to get their act together and secure their own site better. The fact that they're even considering blocking editing from /6s and /8s is absurd.
" 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. "
So? It's not as if it was something which actually matters, such as copyright infringement...
Makes me wonder why I have to pay 10 bucks a month extra for a static IP.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
Do as you would be done to.
the REASON it's a problem is because a person can change their IP address...
Exactly what I have said!
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.
you're an idiot.
Why not just have editors submit their credit card and proof of education for verification?
This will just get worse with ipv6 increasing the number of ip addresses.
IP bans will no longer be as useful as they were.
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!>
From Wikipedia:
--
Wow. That story got a few thing completely wrong:
* We are not thinking about blocking 67 million customers, but 67 million IPs.
* Verizon is not the only ISP in the range. It also includes some Comcast and AOL ranges, as well as a few smaller ISPs.
* The article makes it sound like Zsfgseg made the threads and revealed the phone numbers. That was Grawp (who is actually not one person but a large group of people with the same mindset as JarlaxleArtemis, who is the real Grawp).
Technically, the troll has been banned and has been notified of the ban.
This means he is accessing a computing resource without permission.
Technically this is illegal according to the law as written.
Whether applying "unlawful use of a computer" laws applies to publicly-accessible computers when you've been told you aren't allowed to access them - in this case the "them" you aren't allowed to access being the "edit" links - is something a court will have to decide. By now there probably is some case law on it.
Wikimedia Foundation could, if it wanted to, use these laws to identify the person behind the IP address and send them a cease-and-desist letter. However, they probably won't do it unless the person becomes a huge problem and technical means won't work, and they won't do it at all if the risk of a Streisand Effect is too great.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What, exactly, did this user do? I can't find any info.
Seriously, the political machinations of midgets with a web page.
tHIS iS zSFGeSG. PLEASE rANGELoBCK 68.0.0.0/6 oFR ONE YEAR.
but tHIS iS zSFGeSG uSiNG A pORKsY!
Rather than blocking a whole field of public IPv4 addresses, let's have Verizon (who's deploying an LTE network for phones) & Wikipedia (who already uses it on their backend) push big for IPv6 migration. This situation will become easier to manage, not harder.
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
"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.
Especially if he isn't that computer-saavy, just mark his browser with an evercookie and ignore his edits. Those would come in handy some day :)
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
So says the Anonymous Coward.
... Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy, but that does not mean that wikipedia must suffer. If the only thing they need was identification to block someone from editing, would that really be infringing on your freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means your right to say whatever you want without censorship, it does not mean you are free from the effects of your speech nor that your speech won't have any repercussions. There is moderation in democracies as well as on the web, after all - otherwise everyone would be free to spread racial slurs, hate speech and so forth. Luckily, this is not the case.
Ask your ISP. Since static IPs cost them less than dynamic ones, this is entirely a way for them to double-dip for more money.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Just ignore spam. It's trival to track and Hitler will eat your socks. Makes you immune to the next Michael Jackson. What a bullshit.
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.
"Verizon customers tired of seeing Jimmy Wale's ugly face on every wikipedia page were out in force today demanding it be blocked."
GamesNet is in the top five? Interesting, because:
http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/top10.php
http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/details.php?net=OnlineGamesNet&submenu=years
http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/top100.php
dealing with Verizon has never been pretty. You pretty much have to threaten the worst to get even one ear to listen.
Get a grip. Wikipedia allows anonymous editing.No laws are being broken.
Unless the troll is in the UK, where it has recently been determined that hurting people's feelings on the Internet is a jailable offence.
The time he's referring to is nearly 10 years ago, when it was still called GamesNet, and when AOL was still a relevant ISP. For a while it was the defacto IRC server for Counter-Strike players back when Counter-Strike was pretty much the biggest thing on the internet and IRC was the primary way for organized clans to communicate with each other.
I forgot to clarify that it's called Gamesurge.net now, #11 on the top 100 list you linked.
who cares if wikipedia gets trashed?
Seriously, why does Verizon have an abuse department if they do not deal with, well, abuse? And I have seen this all to often, in Newsgroups, in forums, etc. It seems that all e-mail going to abuse@bigisp.net seems to go directly into a Delete All folder. I'm not asking ISPs to police their own networks, please don't, but if abuse of your network is brought to your attention, then the ISP should take action. Now, if the ISP refuses, than the website / service should block users from that ISP. Especially if its a big site, it could actually bring attention to this issue. Imagine if Wikipedia, Facebook and Youtube all blocked Verizon from accessing their sties because they will not address abuse.Customers would be leaving by the millions, which might force the ISP to take some action.
He did say "at the time" and if you look at that first link, it's in 6-7th place in the 2002-2003 era. Top 5 for a few months stint during that range isn't out of the realm of possibilities.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
It's the only solution.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Since they don't have enough static IPs to assign to each customer, the ISP charges a premium for static IP addresses.
You're right, they should totally allow massive copyright infringement on the fifth or sixth most popular website in the world. That would totally be more fair.
If you don't like a law, change the law, not the law-abiding citizens.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
I might be misremembering, but weren't links to Wikipedia Review banned because they "outed" Wikipedia editors, which is a no-no? Any site which did that would have links to them banned, whether they criticized Wikipedia or not.
are they a pop combo of female crickets?
If someone is using Verizon services to vandalize a website then Verizon, if it does not act to the contrary, is aiding and abetting and is subject to damages that Wikipedia may wish to seek.
Although Wikipedia is designed to make it easy for all to edit, there are rules that they must obviously enforce to keep the site valuable and their efforts from being wasted. Since Verizon customers ultimately may ultimately get to pay for the damages in higher fees for service, its pool of non-vandals should care if they want to keep their costs low.
As a user of Wikipedia, I make note of Verizon's unwillingness to cooperate and will be steering clear from doing business with Verizon until this is cleared up. If the well-intentioned and civic minded don't make an effort to stand up to those who would destroy, then they will ultimately loose the benefit of civilization. The choice is up to each of to make.
If you were denied access the rest of us would be happier not having to wade through you trolling with your sockpuppets in every thread. Too bad that didn't last...
Have fun replying with your usual rage about my posting this AC. Since I won't be checking back you're just wasting your time.
Its not at all clear that what is being denied here is political speech, but rather the willful destruction of what a community of users has built. Free speech doesn't mean you are entitled to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, it can not be used as an excuse for vandalism. There are limits to the exercise of free speech. Free speech is not absolute. Failing to recognize this will only ensure the erosion of free speech as people try desperately to protect themselves from the consequences.
To take your perspective to its logical extreme, as has been done in the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling, the well-connected and well-funded should be permitted to lie about everything and anything in as deceptive a manner as possible or as necessary so as to totally pervert and manipulate the very concept of democracy. It may be legal, although certainly not just, and in no way leads to anything but a corruption of the entire system. Speech becomes totally without purpose or usefulness, if all speech becomes so deceptive and anonymous that it looses context and meaning or some measure of common trust between those speaking and those listening.
If you are an anarchist, then you should embrace anonymous and deceptive speech 24/7. If not, then you need to ask yourself, just where do you draw the line. Personally, as an advocate of the benefits civilization, I would rule out vandalism, bomb threats, and flying airplanes into buildings as justified expressions of free speech anonymous or not.
AndNothingOfValueWasLost tag?
It's not healthy to be associated with the edit nazis on Wikipedia anyway, they have twisted the initial vision of Wikipedia beyond recognition. Power (and Alexa/Google search rankings) has gone to their heads.
I read TFA, it just talks about banning him. All hte links I found just go to more discussions about banning him and how he's evading said bans. But I can't find what he did that caused all the commotion in the first place. Could someone who has worked it out, please enlighten me?
They have exactly as many static as dynamic IPs. It used to be different in the days of dial-up, but these days about all connections are 24/7.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
i can do that. i DO do that. IT IS TRIVIAL
You are trivial. You are stagnated. You are nothing.
I am MichaelKristopeit! Everyone listen to ME!! I am MichaelKristopeit! I am the WALRUS!!
You are pathetically stupid. You are trivial, you are stagnated and you are nothing. There was no "or" to be considered, only your inability to comprehend simple English. Three sentences, each containing three words, and yet your feeble mind could not grasp their meaning.
Time to up your meds, MichtrollKristrollpathetic.
i CAN'T be nothing AND anything else. no one can.
you're an idiot.
i CAN'T be nothing AND anything else. no one can.
You are many things and 'nothing' is at the very top of the list. Here are just a few:
captcha: anxiety
you are a coward unable or unwilling to take responsibility for your lies.
what is your name? what is your address?
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY A PERSON ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RESOURCE THAT DOES NOT LIMIT ACCESS BY PERSON. the architects of this website and of wikipedia are untalented hacks that have offered and provided BROKEN SYSTEMS OF CONTROL.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic. your entire existence is a waste. you concede your pointlessness.
slashdot uses the exact same ineffective methods of control that wikipedia does, and will obviously suffer the same fate. can't get much more on-topic than that.
slashdot = stagnated.
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.