Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Could Block 67 Million Verizon Customers

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-that's-why-the-internet-exists dept.

Networking 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."

cancel ×

481 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

New Verizon Wikipedia Page (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227638)

Here's the new Verizon Wikipedia page:

:: crickettes :: [1]

[1] Citation needed.

Aw shucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227644)

I'll have to get my info about mexican professional wrestling and the largest rodents of south america elsewhere...

Re:Aw shucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227662)

Try TVTropes.

/. blocked all the comments from my IP? (0, Redundant)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227640)

I see no comments! Is everyone reading the article?

Don't be such an ass (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227892)

hole.

Misleading title (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227648)

Only editing is blocked, not Wikipedia itself.

Re:Misleading title (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit119 (1933106) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227700)

if there wasn't a lie in the headline, how would i know which site i was on?

slashdot = stagnated

Re:Misleading title (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227728)

If you weren't a cum dumpster, how would I know you weren't Michael Kristopeit?

Why do I hide behind an AC account? Because I am stagnated and am completely pathetic.

Re:Misleading title (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit119 (1933106) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227756)

i AM michael kristopeit.

ur mum's face weren't a cum dumpster.

you are NOTHING

Re:Misleading title (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227820)

I want to rape your mother's face until it bleeds.

Re:Misleading title (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227898)

I already did. Sorry bout that.

Re:Misleading title (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227960)

It's cool, I'll take the asshole then.

Re:Misleading title (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit127 (1934220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227990)

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

present yourself to me, and i will kill you.

Re:Misleading title (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34228122)

I AM you.

Re:Misleading title (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227826)

Who the fuck is Michael Kristopeit?

Re:Misleading title (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34228066)

Troll

Comon you guys,, dont poke the trolls youll just encourage them.

Re:Misleading title (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227744)

People tend to think that Pedophilia is somewhat connected or in relation to homosexuality, however this of course is false. With Pedophilia comes a rather unnerving list of other disorders commonly associated with it (as they do not with homosexuality, in simple terms - A pedo is an insane sociopath, while a fag is just a normal person who likes the same sex), research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies.

I am not saying that OP is a pedophile (having a liking to girls with small breasts hardly classifies as pedophilia), however he is clearly either a troll (most likely) or just ignorant, as the practices he describes indeed happened, however he fails to mention that these practices only happened to developed females, i.e adults (physically speaking) and not girls/children. To claim this is to claim that massive groups of people were neurologically damaged, seeing the amount of people willing to have sex with children today, this is just false.

Re:Misleading title (0, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit121 (1933108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227792)

i described no practice.

you're a presumptuous moron.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

why do you research and propagate classifications of homosexuals as "normal"? was i to assume they weren't normal? was i to assume you believe they aren't normal? do you have a NEED to be normal? does using the overloaded term "fag" make you feel like less of one, or do you simply feel pride?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Misleading title (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227908)

I am a pedophile and I support this post. Normalcy is overrated. You are a good man Mr. Kristopeit.

Re:Misleading title (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227904)

Look, the Catholic church teaches that man-on-man butt fucking is a sin. The result? Catholic fudge packers take a vow of celibacy and become preists. And then molest children.

The US Military, through Don't Ask Don't Tell, prevents faggots in uniform. The result? Meathead fudge packers work for the TSA. And then molest airline passengers. And children.

Thanks a lot, assholes.

Re:Misleading title (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34228028)

brb, applying for a job in the TSA.

AT&T (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227658)

I can't edit Wikipedia from my iPhone on AT&T. Can you?

Or maybe... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227668)

...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.

Re:Or maybe... (5, Interesting)

Entrope (68843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227798)

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:Or maybe... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34228016)

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:Or maybe... (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228124)

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.

Seriously? Why not force registration (5, Interesting)

areusche (1297613) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227674)

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?

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227682)

And by it I mean registration, not forcing everyone into editing articles anonymously. Man this has been one long weekend.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (2, Insightful)

Doctorer (1017662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227690)

It wouldn't stop blocked editors from simply re-registering and continuing their noble and righteous correction spree.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227720)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227726)

I love the idea of being able to make anonymous edits, but seriously wouldn't it make their lives easier by just requiring [registration] for everyone?

All that would do is please the Wikipedia hatedom. Having to put up with 'I told you so' is more upsetting to the Wikipedia folks than dealing with vandals like these.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (1, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227782)

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?

Why not find out who the little bastard is, and send someone to give him an attitude readjustment. A little jail time might be in order as well, depending upon where he happens to hail from.

This is not the first time a high-profile operation has had a persistent twit cause problems. I remember when CBBS #1, generally recognized as the first computerized bulletin board system, had a similar issue almost thirty years ago. A young man was continually posting offensive messages and generally being a little prick. The board's operator's tracked him down and spoke to his father, and I remember Ward Christensen commenting that "we know now where Mr. Scopes gets his evil ways." I don't remember how it turned out or what they did, but Mr. Scopes' posts abruptly stopped.

There are always children (or adults with childlike mentalities) who enjoy raising hate and discontent simply because they can. The problem with the Internet is that it allows such people to cause a much greater degree of harm than, say, a teenager with a can of spraypaint, as similar as the mindset may be.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227824)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227896)

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.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (1)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228014)

It is IP, not PI. As in Internet Protocol adress, not Personal Identity number. Computer get tracked, not person.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (2, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228030)

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:Seriously? Why not force registration (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit127 (1934220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228032)

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.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228080)

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:Seriously? Why not force registration (0, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit128 (1934222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228114)

what law was broken? providing an alternate opinion?

you're an idiot.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34228102)

Public Wi-Fi still gives a physical location, and may give further logs from there.

Not as clean a break as you imagine.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (1)

MichaelKristopeit129 (1934224) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228118)

the truth = troll

slashdot = stagnated

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (5, Funny)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227974)

This is the most calmly-punctuated 'Flamebait' I have ever seen.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228024)

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:Seriously? Why not force registration (2, Funny)

MichaelKristopeit131 (1934226) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228134)

i wouldn't be surprised if every judge on the planet thought you were retarded.

any judges want to deny it?

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit122 (1933778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227836)

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.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228044)

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:Seriously? Why not force registration (0, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit127 (1934220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228086)

you certainly are screwed.

the system was broken... it was used as designed, and wikipedia has demonstrated their inability from stopping individuals from misusing the system provided.

you're an idiot.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228072)

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:Seriously? Why not force registration (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit127 (1934220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228106)

you're presumptuous and judgmental.

the system was provided, the system was used as provided.

if the designers of the system no longer wish to allow the system to be used, they can certainly stop offering the service.

the intent of the designers is irrelevant... only the potential of the product they provide matters.

you're an idiot. there's a big difference between idiots and morons, and you're both.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (0, Troll)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228126)

"A young man was continually posting offensive messages and generally being a little prick. The board's operator's tracked him down and spoke to his father, and I remember Ward Christensen commenting that "we know now where Mr. Scopes gets his evil ways." I don't remember how it turned out or what they did, but Mr. Scopes' posts abruptly stopped."

I find it disturbing that they actually tracked someone down merely for posting offensive content on the internet. I mean, really, how oversensitive do you have to be to go to that extreme? That's probably why they were targets in the first place.

"There are always children (or adults with childlike mentalities)"

"My hobby is better than yours!"

"The problem with the Internet is that it allows such people to cause a much greater degree of harm than, say, a teenager with a can of spraypaint, as similar as the mindset may be."

If someone seriously gets 'hurt' by reading a message on the internet that they find offensive (which is highly subjective), then they should not only stop using the internet altogether, but they should also constantly plug their ears when in the presence of others, as they may utter something that they find offensive. This isn't a problem with the internet, this is a problem with oversensitive, weak-minded fools.

Re:Seriously? Why not force registration (5, Interesting)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227976)

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.

no PR nightmare for wikipedia? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit161 (1934886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227684)

unable to block a user they have claimed to have identified? relying on IP addresses for their bans? although this very internet web site chat message board uses the same measure to attempt to silence its users, the reliance on a "one IP address = one person" myth is ignorantly lazy at best, and uselessly pathetic regardless.

if you can't enable heuristics to stop vandalism and protect the content which serves as your only product, THEN YOU DON'T BELONG IN THE INDUSTRY.

Re:no PR nightmare for wikipedia? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227886)

the reliance on a "one IP address = one person" myth is ignorantly lazy at best, and uselessly pathetic regardless.

You are living proof of that.

if you can't enable heuristics to stop vandalism and protect the content which serves as your only product

If /. could do that you'd be forgotten before my page could refresh.

Re:no PR nightmare for wikipedia? (0, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit126 (1933786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227980)

i can do that. i DO do that. IT IS TRIVIAL

slashdot is run by moronic marketeers.

slashdot = stagnated

Re:no PR nightmare for wikipedia? (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227906)

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:no PR nightmare for wikipedia? (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit125 (1933784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227968)

uh... the problem is still that wikipedia treated an IP address as a person... and thus implemented a ban of a person with a ban of an IP address.

the REASON it's a problem is because a person can change their IP address... PEOPLE ARE NOT IP ADDRESSES AND NEVER WILL BE.

to be more precise, i was EXACTLY correct, said nothing but the truth, and those entrusted to moderate this website have chosen that my submission OF PURE FACT was "troll" and should be hidden from view. moderator: is that you, adolf?

THE TRUTH = TROLL

slashdot = stagnated

Re:no PR nightmare for wikipedia? (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228088)

the REASON it's a problem is because a person can change their IP address...

Exactly what I have said!

Re:no PR nightmare for wikipedia? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228050)

Makes me wonder why I have to pay 10 bucks a month extra for a static IP.

Why would Verizon care? (4, Informative)

nettdata (88196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227714)

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? (3, Interesting)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227786)

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? (5, Insightful)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227846)

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:Why would Verizon care? (1)

laci (37234) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227894)

> If it's not illegal, then they'll probably have to adapt their process to take care of the problem.

That is exactly what Wikipedia might be doing: block Verizon customers from editing Wikipedia. They take care of the problem... At that point it will become Verizon's problem as perhaps a number of their customers will complain loudly. And a solution is that Verizon updates their TOS and then kicks out the vandals. Even if something is not illegal, it may be against the TOS, so Verizon can terminate the connection. Of course, so many things are against the TOS, that they can terminate almost anybody's connection :-(.

Re:Why would Verizon care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34228054)

It's called VANDALISM

Just because you can edit a webpage doesn't mean you can vandalize it. And yes, that is well known "exception" of free-speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Could someone explain... (3, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227716)

... why, exactly, the submitter thinks Verizon gives a rat's rear end whether or not their customers can edit Wikipedia pages?

Re:Could someone explain... (1)

dshk (838175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227748)

Because if I were Verizon, then I would fear of the bad PR they are already receiving.

Re:Could someone explain... (3, Insightful)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227780)

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.

Re:Could someone explain... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227958)

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 to protect their own site, I am sure that blocking all of Verizon isn't the first idea they have come up with to stop this guy wrecking their site - and I don't think that they should HAVE to require registrations from all their users just to stop one guy being a dick. If he were on any other ISP, it seems that they could just block him out, but because of the way that Verizon does something or other, they can't, and apparently Verizon doesn't want to really play ball, so it is simply "Ultimatum Time" to see what happens when push comes to shove.

Some people are douches.

Yup, so why should all Verizon customers suffer that small inconvenience just because of that one douche? You see it as little inconvenience, others would see it as no different at all, but yet others again would suddenly feel that a great part of their life was taken away. Those are the ones that would cause a nightmare PR scenario for Verizon.

Re:Could someone explain... (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228052)

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... (3, Informative)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228094)

Verizon also does FIOS and DSL.

So they would be blocking those people in particular.

http://www22.verizon.com/residential/internet/ [verizon.com]

Re:Could someone explain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227790)

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.

Re:Could someone explain... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227860)

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 astroturfers since its inception: I'm just surprised it took this long for a really major asshole to go on the offensive.

Re:Could someone explain... (3, Informative)

Captain Nitpick (16515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227978)

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:Could someone explain... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228056)

Visited? Um, basically all of them?

I doubt that. I think you're giving us too much credit.

Re:Could someone explain... (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227854)

What bad PR? Verizon isn't doing the blocking. Any bad PR would be properly directed to wikipedia.

Re:Could someone explain... (1)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228084)

Verizon is harboring [vandals, spammers, hackers, pedophiles, terrorists] and get banned from Wikipedia.

This is the headline you may see, depending on how serious is the news reporter. There is no way this bad PR would be directed at wikipedia for been the victim, of whatever the medias say, verizon is harboring.

Re:Could someone explain... (1)

MichaelKristopeit132 (1934228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227858)

i remember when slashdot did not contain discussion of "PR".

WHAT bad PR do you believe verizon is receiving? WIKIPEDIA IS BROKEN... this has NOTHING to do with verizon.

perhaps you are not verizon because you fear too much.

Re:Could someone explain... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227902)

Verizon doesn't care about PR. They have the best network, period, and everything else is secondary to them. I am paying them a ridiculous fortune (minimal voice plan, unlimited text and data, 20% employer discount, and it's still over $80/mo) for service, but for that I get service everywhere.

Ultimate Troll Is Successful (5, Funny)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227732)

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.

My moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227988)

Slashdot wanted me to moderate this. It gave the default of "normal."

Considering what we are talking about I considered your post quite normal.

Enjoy the moment... (1)

Vexler (127353) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227734)

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... (3, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227890)

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.

IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227770)

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...

Re:IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227812)

And if the psycho is really an asshat, what keeps him from going to the public library, starbucks, mcdonalds, etc. and using those networks' different IP addresses? Could still be a pain in the ass for a long time to come.

Re:IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227870)

"It allows you to specify that you will only login from a given /64 to your bank, your stock account, etc..."

That would work great if not for the fact that it's trivial to compromise a routing node with false headers. The IP something is "from" is only slightly more accurate than the e-mail "from" field. In either case, the accuracy is entirely dependent upon the security of computers outside your control. The only reason that it is a meaningful form of end-user identification at all is the fact that most of the time the IP is issued by a large corporate ISP from a block of IPs designated as for that purpose, so the majority of the route is statistically likely to be mostly secure most of the time.

For your application, the result is that IP-based locking is equivalent to or worse than the existing secure cookie trick which detects whether you've used the computer you're on to communicate with them before, and asks for additional forms of identification if you haven't.

And no, stacking IP and cookie checks doesn't get you much. It is about equally easy to compromise. All it does is make it more likely that you're right when you're right (i.e. it increases your statistical confidence for legit users)...which is pretty much useless.

Re:IPv6 (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227876)

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:IPv6 (3, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227938)

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.

Home IP caught in ban of 8192 Verizon addresses (4, Informative)

Christian Marks (1932350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227828)

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.

Disgraceful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227852)

That's just disgraceful, Verizon.

First you invade Poland, then you invent AIDS, then you JEFF IS GAY

Net Neutrality, Anyone? (5, Insightful)

TexVex (669445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227884)

Verizon could potentially change how they assign IP addresses, or be forced at least to address a PR nightmare.

I'm sorry, but this is Wikipedia's issue to deal with, not Verizon's. And, to imply otherwise is just trolling.

Easy solution (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227910)

[...] solutions to deal with abuse from this Verizon user, named 'Zsfgseg' on Wikipedia.

All they have to do is block all edits made by Zsfgseg.

What, no good?

Re:Easy solution (1)

beej (82035) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228116)

"I tried that! Don't you think I would have tried that?"

Not impressed. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227942)

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.

Yes I am a vandal too (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34227956)

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.

The bad PR that Verizon would get? (1)

Altanar (56809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227964)

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.

Collective punishment ... ISP sized ... (2, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34227998)

"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 (4, Insightful)

Skellbasher (896203) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228034)

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.

Re:Misguided Wikipedia Editors (-1, Troll)

Christian Marks (1932350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228142)

The fact that they're even considering blocking editing from /6s and /8s is absurd.

This is the logical progression now that they find that blocking /19s just doesn't make them feel sufficiently powerful.
My own Verizon IP address was caught in a ban of 8190 host addresses. My appeal to lift the block, at least for my address--was denied--they have no mechanism for identifying users and for distinguishing legitimate users from vandals. I have come to the conclusion that if Wikipedia cannot solve the technical problem of user authentication and identification or adapt someone else's approach, then its admins should be encouraged to block editing from /0.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34228046)

" 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...

You're slowing down, Slashdot! (5, Funny)

foxylad (950520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228068)

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.

Wikipedia brings this on itself (5, Interesting)

br00tus (528477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34228104)

Wikipedia brings this on itself. I used to be heavily involved with Wikipedia. I think the supposed openness of Wikipedia can be deceptive. I don't really think it is as open as it appears. I know this is hard for most people to swallow, since even people who should know better don't believe it. It is more open then say, Encyclopedia Britannica, but there is an undercurrent of control there. Jimbo Wales is well known for running an Ayn Rand mailing list, Reason magazine talks about how the economist Hayek inspired Wales to create Wikipedia, which Wales has said, and so on. Of course his opinions could be held in constraint, and he obviously is not draconian about a party line he supports, but there are strings being pulled, fairly openly for anyone who pays attention.

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>