User talk:NERIC-Security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro 2 Range block 3 WTF 4 Range block 5 Range block 6 Range block 7 WP:AN 8 Thanks 9 Image:Studentsorry.jpg listed for deletion 10 Congratulations... 11 How? 12 Clarification needed 13 Keep up the good work 14 Range block 15 re: thanks 16 You're welcome. 17 Please consider also warning vandals 18 New Talk 19 Re:Thanks 20 Javascript and gadgets 21 Thanks 22 Re: Thanks 23 No prob 24 Re: Revert 25 RE: Thank You 26 COOKIE MONSTeR 27 Re: Thank you 28 Chuck Norris says 'Revert'

[edit] Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro

You're probably correct, I've restored the edits and removed their vandalism warning. Thanks for pointing that out. Jauerback (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Range block

I've blocked 163.153.44.0/24 for 1 week as you requested in your email to me. --NrDg 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

WTF, that's the Ogdensburg district IP, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.143.68 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Range block

I have blocked anonymous editing from 163.153.160.0/23 for seven hours as of around 10:45 EST. Have a nice day! east.718 at 15:42, January 4, 2008

[edit] Range block

Per your request [1], 163.153.27.0/24 has been blocked for one week. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Range block

I blocked 163.153.160.0/23 for 31 hours. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I blocked 163.153.100.0/22 for a week. Hope you find this guy. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

There is currently a brief discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding this account. Please feel free to comment. - auburnpilot talk 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for tagging 163.153.126.41. The district reports that the student involved has been identified and is taking appropriate measures. NERIC-Security (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the heads up on this! I never heard that any school vandal ever got caught in person, so this is quite an interesting thing for me to read. Lets hope that this one learns that vandalising doesnt work, and that he eases off on wiki now. Thanks again, and happy editing to you :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Studentsorry.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Studentsorry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Looks like the copyright wonks got to it. I guess it was inevitable. Still...

You recieve a barnstar for showing us the most awesome anti-vandalism measure ever taken. – Gurch 10:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to claim the idea as mine, the credit for the appropriate "punishment fitting the crime" belongs to the student's building principal. The goal was to let the community know that the student was sorry, and that seems to be accomplished, so I'm ok with the deletion. Take care. NERIC-Security (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, the student in question did explicitly intend to address this letter to the Wikipedia community, yes? Reason I'm asking is this is relevant to US copyright law. If the Wikipedia community (care of the Wikimedia Foundation) is the intended recipient, then this would be a legal copy, I think. If so, WMF has explicit right to display it. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the image. Wikipedia does not allow images to be uploaded "for use on Wikipedia only." If you'd like to upload the image to Flickr or another website designed for hosting images that accepts all sorts of licenses, you are more than welcome to. (If you don't have a copy of the image, email me and I can send you a copy.) Mr.Z-man 08:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations...

So you track down students who add harmless "vandalism" that is easily fixed by hundreds of people who actually enjoy sitting in front of a computer screen clicking buttons for eleven hours a day? Wikipedia has done enough damage to our educational system without zealots like you using it as an excuse for endemic surveillance and invasion of privacy in what is supposed to be a safe and fun environment for kids. Take a step back and take a hard look in your monitor's reflection - your efforts would be infinitely more helpful if perhaps you actually taught students, instead of spending all day curtailing their internet access and intimidating them. Shame on you, shame on a principal who thinks humiliation is punishment "fitting the crime", and shame on the New York school system for allowing this to happen. 64.30.3.122 (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't harmless. I don't believe Wikipedia damages any education system. As a hard-working member of the Wikipedia community, I for one thank the school for helping to protect this valuable resource, and for teaching the student in question the value of information and community effort. That's one of the most important lessons out there. Good job! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, how is it humiliation when the identity of the student remains private? I do see this as teaching students: that vandalism of any kind is bad and that you just never know what will happen if you get caught. This is certainly one of those situations where a problem has led to community awareness and folks here have gotten a harmless laugh out of the deal. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

64.30.3.122 (talk) sees this differently from how it looks from here. I see the wikipedia community as having a shared belief that specific types of non-constructive edits to articles are not an acceptable behavior. As a member of this community, I accept and abide by this shared belief. When this unaccepted behavior is observed, a series of progressive warnings are typically issued to those making such edits. When the behavior persists, the privilege of editing is blocked for a while. If the behavior persists after a block is lifted, additional blocks are applied for progressively longer periods of time.

My observation in school environments, is that many of these edits are done anonymously, meaning that the blocks are against IP addresses. If these edits come from a series of related addresses, then blocks may be placed against a range of addresses. Since these addresses are shared by many users, such blocks will adversely affect many innocent editors. In fact, we had an instance last year that the action of a few students at a few school districts resulted in a six month block against all anonymous editors at over 100 school districts here in New York. Those editors are not just other students. There are many rural communities where broadband access is not readily available, and in those communities the schools often allow their computer labs to be used by the public; these editors were also blocked. My goal is to try to minimize the number of non-constructive edits coming from the NERIC network so that anyone who wants to make an anonymous good faith edit will be allowed to do so. NERIC-Security (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's very clear why Wikipedia users dislike school-generated vandalism so much. It's certainly not because it contributes to a decrease in Wikipedia's credibility among all internet users - it doesn't. Most vandalism is reverted within minutes (seconds on highly-watched pages), by people who have fun doing so. The real harm done to Wikipedia's credibility is that if a seventh-grader shows ten of his peers that he can add "poopy-head" to an article about George Washington, none of those students is very likely to take Wikipedia very seriously in the future. And since 90% of Wikipedia's readership is probably under the age of 18, this is the main reason Wikipedia continues to have a public image of unreliability over-representative of the actual amount of error in the encyclopedia.

Simply put, IP blocks, especially range-blocks, are never necessary. There is such a massive surplus of eager users armed with semi-automated vandal-fighting programs and assisted by copious bots that vandalism can be reverted almost immediately in all cases. IP blocks are simply a product of Wikipedia's ego - a futile effort to enhance its image through intimidation tactics that say "I mean business" but actually do nothing. If Wikipedia ditched this ridiculous vanity it would vastly improve editing access to well-meaning schoolchildren with very little sacrifice to to its accuracy.

And I don't know about you guys, but if my principal posted my apology on a top-ten website for half the world to see, I'd be embarrassed whether or not my name was connected to it. But hey, I'm sure none of his friends found out...

You are simply being used in an effort to increase student-intimidation, and it's not helping anybody, especially good students. 64.30.3.122 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where the heck you get off saying fighting vandalism is "fun". As someone who spends time reverting vandalism, I can say that I find it a chore, and an unpleasant one at that. Don't confuse the fact that we're fast to correct damage with the idea that we somehow enjoy it. The fast response is out of duty and necessity, not eagerness. • You stated, "And since 90% of Wikipedia's readership is probably under the age of 18" Huh? Source? • If one would be embarrassed by having vandal activities made public, then maybe one shouldn't be vandalizing, eh? Actions have consequences, quite often unpleasant ones. Another valuable lesson to be learned. • Just punishment for a misdeed one actually committed is not "intimidation". • I notice that the talk page and history for the IP address you are using has associated vandalism. Was that you? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not getting off on anything I say. Despite what you seem to think, I'm not taking some sort of sadistic pleasure in writing what I believe to be a candid analysis of a ridiculous situation. And honestly, if you really find reverting vandalism to be such a chore, you are certainly among the minority of "vandal-fighters" on the site. Talk to your friends and see if they share your sentiments. Sorry, but even anyone who has taken Psych 101 knows that the vast majority of people don't do things unless they get some sort of gratification out of it. I have seen the act of fighting vandalism referred to as "relaxing," "enjoyable," "satisfying," and, yes, "fun." Several times. You yourself seem to revert because you believe you have some sort of moral imperative to do so. Fighting vandalism is neither necessary nor required of you. It just happens to be something you consider worthwhile, if unpleasant. So after a hard day's work leaving talk page messages and AIV reports, you feel happy about what you're doing. That's gratification, and since you wouldn't get that gratification without the vandals, you are directly benefiting from their acts.

I am sure that 90% is an exaggeration - I intended it to be. But the majority of people using computers are in the younger demographic (0-30). Of those who use computers, the majority that use the internet are of the younger demographic. So it's reasonable to guess that between 60 and 70 percent of Wikipedia readers and anonymous editors are under the age of 25. This is a known fact when it concerns regularly contributing registered editors - in that case the percentage is actually much, much higher.

Actions should have consequences on the same order of magnitude of the actions themselves. Any reasonable parent knows this. How much harm did that grade schooler cause to the 'pedia? - virtually none. It probably required less than a second to revert his actions. There doesn't seem to have been any noteworthy reputation-related damage done to the encyclopedia. So, in my mind, a fit punishment would be to require the vandal to make one revert of vandalism himself. Then he would fully understand the vast amount of trouble he caused. Requiring him to write on a typewriter and then post the forced apology publicly so that it can be laughed at by thousands of uninvolved people (note that, in an astonishingly inappropriate move, the letter was linked to from the Signpost. It also looks like it will survive IFD) is obviously an over-reaction. If anything, Wikipedia is acting like the IRS - punishing those they do catch with a preposterous sentence to account for the massive amount of infractions they miss or do not have the resources to investigate. Like I advocated in my earlier post, Wikipedia needs to change the way it approaches IP vandalism, much the same way the Internal Revenue Service should revise its tax code.

No, the vandalism for this address isn't mine. It's a shared IP. Had you blocked it for that vandalism, I might not have been able to post here. 64.30.3.122 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

While it may not have been uploaded as an image, this is not the first time that an apology from a student has been posted on wikipedia. "Disciplinary actions taken" has the redacted text of an e-mailed apology from another similar incident. NERIC-Security (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, so, because some one else did something inappropriate in the past, that means it's entirely OK to repeat the action later on? Please... 64.30.3.122 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How?

How do you find out which computer made a vandalism edit if on wikipedia the edit is just described as being done by an IP for a whole institution? Hope you get what I meen :P Tiddly-Tom 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess there are internal network logs and I guess if the IT team sees that IP aa.bbb.cc.ddd (which belongs to their network) vandalised Foo_Bar at 12:00 UTC, they could look up from which (internal network) account the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foo_Bar&action=edit had been accessed at that time which would reveal the guilty accountholder... But this is just me thinking along ;-) --Mbimmler (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

Hello again! At Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 22#Image:Studentsorry.jpg, Lquilter asked whether or not the student authored the letter, or whether it was dictated to them and they just typed it up. Could you please clarify? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, if possible, would you consider uploading the image to flickr? Flickr wouldn't take issue with it, and we would still be able to access the image. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Posting the apology on wikipedia let the wikipedia community know that the student was sorry. Based upon the discussion, it appears that the apology was read, acknowledged as received, and accepted. At this point, should the student choose to post it somewhere else, that would be up to them. NERIC-Security (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So, the student did author the letter himself? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work

You've been promoted ~Kylu (u|t) 08:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Range block

I have blocked the range 163.153.126.0/23 so that anonymous editing is no longer permitted until June 30, 2008 as you requested at WP:AIV. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: thanks

You're welcome. To have an account that monitors IP addresses is a good idea, never seen it before. Great to see! SGGH ^speak! 17:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome.

You're welcome about the warning, and thank you for your involvement in tracking down abuse. I've added your account to the (short) list of approved Role accounts (accounts operated by more than one person). · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see; I thought this account was currently operated by multiple people. I've removed it from the role account page then, since it isn't a role account (only operated by you), but a good single purpose account (in that you have a single purpose). By the way, the AN thread is located here. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider also warning vandals

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [2]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Talk

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Thanks

You're welcome. Cheers, FusionMix 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Javascript and gadgets

Hiya, me again!

I ran across a small javascript gadget that you might be interested in: It lets you specify either a CIDR range or a wildcard in special:contributions. You could put in the range...oh, say, 163.153.0.0/16

It's available at User:Splarka/contribsrange.js. If you haven't messed with the javascript much yet, let me know and I can either add it to your personal settings for you or tell you how to do it yourself, if you're interested.

Good hunting. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I would just like to thank you for stopping abuse of Wikipedia in BOCES area school districts. I for one am a student from one of these districts and I appreciate what you are attempting to do. Hopefully this will stop other students from abusing Wikipedia and allow it to be used properly and actually have some credibility in the future. So, Thanks again! 5aret (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

No problem, just part of a days work for AndreNatas. AndreNatas (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No prob

That's good that the school is taking care of the vandal(s). I sometimes wonder why kids don't try to do something constructive on Wikipedia during computer class. I mean, if they improved Wikipedia, maybe they could get extra credit in grammar or English class by showing their teacher(s) the diffs for their edits. That's probably a long shot, but you know what I mean. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Revert

Oops. It's easy to jump to conclusions after monitoring recent changes for a while. Thanks for catching my mistake. JSpung (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Many eyes make all bugs shallow --NERIC-Security (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Thank You

Your welcome, we're all trying to do our job. Pleasure to get in touch with you. Happy Wikipeding and 'security patrolling.' Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COOKIE MONSTeR

Hi, just to make sure you're not hungary - keep up the good work! Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 01:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thank you

No problem, just doing my job. It's good to see that the school's taking care of it, and that that's one less vandal on Wikipedia. :) Happy editing, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that - thanks for the confirmation on my talk page too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Norris says 'Revert'

Nice job - you beat me to it. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 17:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. We're just trying to patrol our part of the 'Net. The district is tracking this down to try to prevent it from repeating. --NERIC-Security (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)