WikiIndex:Open proxy events - 2014-03

This began as a list of IPs involved in harassment of Leucosticte here. Below, there are additional IPs that vandalize. It turns out, so far, that all involved IPs in harassment are using open proxies. No legitimate edits have been noticed in this period from open proxies. There is a possible obvious recommendation.

The time period begins with March 7, the appearance of Sophie Wilder here, going after Leucosticte. Sophie Wilder, presumably the same user, is a moderator on RationalWiki. ("Sysop" on RationalWiki means almost nothing. I am a sysop on RationalWiki. At least today I am! Moderators there are elected and have advanced privileges.

For each IP, I searched for global blocks on meta.wikimedia.org. If the IP showed as globally blocked, I linked to the global block display for it. nb means not blocked globally. Most meta blocks for open proxies are range blocks.

Then, if the IP was not globally blocked on metaI searched for the IP with google.

See Wikipedia WikiProject on identifying open proxies. I am not going to those lengths. I'm just looking for obvious indications by googling the address. If a search showed accusations of open proxy, that is shown by "google." If not, by ng. I did not search for addresses shown as blocked open proxies by meta.

1. Contributions/194.132.32.42 Blocked nb google
2. Contributions/5.199.130.188 1 contrib, harassing, not blocked (same user as above, threatens TOR) nb see open proxy.
3. Contributions/77.244.254.227 Blocked open proxy
4. Contributions/37.221.162.226 4 contribs, harassing, not blocked open proxy
5. Contributions/77.95.231.11 1 contrib, harassing, not blocked nb google
6. Contributions/70.39.66.59 Blocked nb google
7. Contributions/93.184.66.227 1 contrib, Blocked open proxy
8. Contributions/89.207.132.76 1 contrib, harassing, not blocked nb google
9. Contributions/109.163.234.2 Blocked open proxy
10. Contributions/62.210.129.149 Blocked open proxy
11. Contributions/212.232.24.57 Blocked nb google
12. Contributions/95.130.9.190 Blocked open proxy
13. Contributions/77.247.181.164 contributions possibly positive. nb google
14. Contributions/171.25.193.20 contributions possibly positive. open proxy
15. Contributions/81.89.96.89 1 contrib, Blocked open proxy
16. Contributions/141.138.141.208 1 contrib, harassment, not blocked. nb google
17. Contributions/178.217.187.39 1 contrib. Blocked nb google
18. Contributions/77.109.141.138 2 contribs, harassing, not blocked. nb google
19. Contributions/82.94.251.227 Blocked nb google
20. Contributions/37.221.171.236 Blocked open proxy
21. Contributions/198.96.155.3 Blocked (one old edit from this IP) open proxy
22. Contributions/109.163.234.7 harassment, not blocked. Note same range as above, x.x.x.2 open proxy threatens ddos attacks
23. Contributions/192.99.8.96 harassment, not blocked. New attack page creation. spambot, likely open proxy
24. Contributions/212.83.187.52 harassment, not blocked. nb google
25. Contributions/95.211.98.166 harassment, not blocked. open proxy
26. Contributions/81.169.151.138 harassment, not blocked, nb google
27. Contributions/5.104.224.5 harassment, not blocked, nb google

Fascinating how some who call others "cowards" are using anonymizing techniques, starting with IP editing, then anonymizing the IP, while harassing registered users who are using -- or readily connected with real names. Cowards, full of hatred, terrorists.

Related

That these are related does not indicate specific connection. While Sophie Wilder was radically uncivil, that is merely the custom at RationalWiki. I have seen no evidence that the IP connection with Sophie Wilder was anything more than an offer of assistance from them to her. I know of no history of Sophie Wilder using open proxies.

• Special:Contributions/Sophie_Wilder Blocked

Evil-Unveiled

• Contributions/76.28.31.199 was me.

• Contributions/213.93.202.241 many positive contributions. nb ng

Other IP vandals

1. Contributions/85.10.211.53 open proxy This IP did not go after Leucosticte or siteadmin, but after a new user, apparently the same as .241 listed above with "many positive contributions," who is now doing a great deal of positive editing from a registered account. If the IP is connected with the attack on Leucosticte, this would be an attempt to harass a WikiIndex user as retaliation for the site allowing Leucosticte to edit.

My position on this, I should disclose. Leucosticte is a user who creates massive controversy. He supports highly unpopular causes. However, he also responds to community restraint, usually, if it is civil and rational. He may argue endlessly, but he is also capable of backing off and simply contributing within site purpose.

My initial work here was to interdict the vandalism, the attack on Leucosticte, which was pure bullying and what I called "terrorism," that is, an attempt to attain ends deemed, by the terrorists, to be so important as to allow massive collateral damage, and whatever extreme action is considered, by them, as necessary. The enemies of Leucosticte have done much worse than what has been seen here. Threats of physical violence have been made, and threats have extended to others seen as defending him. I.e., me. Here, there has merely been gross incivility, vandalism, and revert warring.

The flood of IP vandalism having abated, for the moment, I then turned to the other side of this. Leucosticte has been adding provocative content here. I have begun to tag some of this for deletion. One might, in Leucosticte's defense, notice that he does not revert war over a deletion tag. Rather, he argues on the attached talk page. He is an experienced wiki user and only revert warred, in the last week, with blatant vandals. (As did I).

(I was blocked on a WMF wiki by a somewhat dizzy admin for revert warring with a blocked editor, editing IP, who was repeatedly adding "outing" information. And I'd do it again. Basically, being blocked causes no pain. The real problem there was administrative inattention, a common problem on wikis. The administrator who blamed me for disturbing his nap. No, I did, however, probably cause him to wake up a little sooner. Which was the point. Otherwise there would have been one or two edits buried in the noise.)

(There is a policy here against revert warring. Such policies need exceptions. The policy assumes good faith editing.) --Abd (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)