UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archives/User 78.40.239.5 and Da Best

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

User 78.40.239.5 and Da Best

Moved from User talk:Rpeh

Looking at the DNS information, IPs in the range 78.40.232.x to 78.40.239.x are all allocated to Staffs County Council, which suggests that these IPs are being used in schools. According to Da Best's talk page, he has also been using 78.40.239.4, which strongly suggests that the .5 IP is the same user. I don't know if we want to go as far as blocking the entire range, but if he's going to keep jumping to a new IP in the range, it's something that needs to be considered. --Gaebrial 08:14, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks - I hadn't spotted that one. If we end up having to block an entire range then so be it, but obviously it's a bit extreme. I wonder if it's worth trying to contact the school? --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 08:17, 19 November 2007 (EST)

If it is confirmed, blocking the entire range is a good idea. If they want to make a constructive edit, they will appeal. --Mankar Camoran^{•T•C•E•} 09:04, 19 November 2007 (EST)

It's pretty easy to block a whole range [1], assuming the feature is enabled on UESP (based on one test it seems like it is, but I wasn't able to be sure).

I'd propose that if another IP in this range is used for vandalism, then we do a one-month block on the whole range. I wouldn't want to do a permanent block on a range, especially if it's being used by a school. But we could just repeat one-month blocks as necessary. --Nephele^Talk 12:01, 19 November 2007 (EST)

That makes sense. A similar thing has happened here, although it's not a range block. --Mankar Camoran^{•T•C•E•} 12:09, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Well, if DaBest is identified as operating as those two IP addresses, and they are located from school activity, wouldn't the actual "DaBest" account have been made on school computers? It has been proven that he is a vandal at it's best, but is the DaBest account actually being used in school? Is it a possibility that we must actually contact the school - I don't think it's that serious. But we may need to block these accounts/IP's. Thank you and take this into consideration if needed. Have a great day. --Playjex 12:22, 19 November 2007 (EST)

It might be worth talking to the school if we can identify which it is, but even then there's probably not much chance they'll be able to work out who it is. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 12:42, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I hadn't realised it was that easy. I was anticipating hundreds of individual blocks, which would have been a huge pain to set up and take down again. If it's a fairly simply process then yes - one more edit and then at least a one month block. Da Best and his other incarnations have been a real pain and blocking the IPs one by one isn't going to stop the problem. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 12:42, 19 November 2007 (EST)

(outdent) Okay, looks like we have a lucky winner. This is from 78.40.239.6. Does everybody agree to the necessity of a range block? --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Okay, two things. Firstly, please forgive me if I made any blocks against policy just now. I really needed to be getting on with my job rather than making dozens of reverts so I blocked when I should arguably have waited. In mitigation, I offer the chaos of the [Recent Changes] page from this morning as an illustration of what was going on. Second, just to add to the fun, that IP made one helpful edit here. I'm only mentioning it for completeness because personally I'm getting sick of dealing with vandalism from these people but it might mean there's an argument against range-blocking after all. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 05:07, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well, I can't give you an actual school name, but the WHOIS entries for the IP addresses give a contact name of Alan Greatbatch, and the address given is that of the Staffordshire County Council Web Team. The contact email for them is webmaster@staffordshire.gov.uk. I don't know if it's worth somebody contacting Alan and explaining what has been going on. --Gaebrial 06:18, 20 November 2007 (EST)

FYI Wikipedia has been having similar problems; see this, this and this for example. Alas, I'm not sure that the council will be able to do anything. I'm willing to send an email if anybody else thinks it's worth it though. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 06:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Now, you all know I'm not an Administrator but although an experienced editor. I agree with Rpeh with this, but I am still NOT and Admin. so noone should complete these actions I speak of without permission of any Admin. Please take this into consideration, Rpeh, and all other Administrators. Thank You, and good luck to all. ---Playjex 12:19, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Umm, since you have to be an Admin in order to do any kind of block, I don't think that's something we need to worry about... --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 12:46, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Playjex, sorry, but I really have almost no idea what your contributions are trying to say. Most importantly, are you for or against a range block? What are these actions that you "speak of"? And whose permission are you saying is needed to take such actions? If you're talking about sending an email to the school, Rpeh is an admin. Therefore I'd say by definition if Rpeh is willing to send the email then the action has an admin's permission. If you are going to contribute to a discussion about whether to take an extreme administrative action against a user, and in particular if you choose to say "please take this into consideration," could you please put a bit more effort into making it absolutely clear to everyone what exactly you wish to have taken into consideration, and why. Because as it stands I have no idea whether you are trying to oppose or support the idea of a range block. And as long as it's not clear that the range block has unanimous support, I am very hesitant to take any action.

Just for the record, both Dabest1 and Poodoo edited using 78.40.239.6. And Rpeh, I'd say permanent blocks against both users would completely acceptable given that it's pretty obvious they're sockpuppets being used by an already-blocked user.

Finally, as for sending an email I have no objections to someone doing it, although I'm skeptical that it will produce any results. And I also don't think that sending an email has any impact on other actions that need to be taken. In other words, whether or not an email is sent, we still need to figure out what to do with blocking these IPs and preventing continued vandalism to the site. So I would like to proceed with a one month range block (with account creation disabled, but still allowing registered users access), as soon as it's clear that nobody opposes the idea. --Nephele^Talk 13:05, 20 November 2007 (EST)

(outdent again) Okay. I think there's a consensus here but let's get the scores on the doors. The proposal is for a Range Block on 78.40.232.0/21.

Support: Let's get the site clear then we can see about a solution on the school's side. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 13:47, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Support: We need to at least stop the vandals, even if we need to investigate other solutions later-Ratwar 13:49, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Support: At least for the time being it makes sense. Stop the immediate problem and then figure out a more long-term solution. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 13:50, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Support: With the qualification that it will only be a one month block, to be renewed repeatedly if needed. --Nephele^Talk 13:53, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Support: Sorry all whom I confused. I say look at all the good and the bad he/she has done, and let's even it out. I agree with all of you. --Playjex 14:01, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Support: I have always been in favour of it. They can always appeal if they want to make constructive edits. --Mankar Camoran^{•T•C•E•} 14:10, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Consensus: Support. Block has been put in place for one month. --Nephele^Talk 14:20, 20 November 2007 (EST)

• N.B. Individual notices will not appear on each user's talk page, however the message that pops up when someone tries to edit will provide the reason for the block, which will direct them to User talk:Da Best for explanations. Also, this is all assuming that range blocks are enabled for UESP. If any IPs in this range are able to edit, then I'll contact Daveh to make sure the settings are in place. --14:20, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well it happened again. I'll hold my hand up for part of it because the block I placed on Poodoo expired and I didn't reinstate it after its sockpuppetry was confirmed. Two new accounts took part, though - Srantiuss and Elondir Blackfort. Is there any way to see when they were created - before or after the block? I'm now definitely of the opinion that we should write a letter to the council and try to find out who these idiots are. I'll draft something when I have time. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 05:16, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I just noticed Srantiuss was created at least as far back as mid-October. I'd still like to know about the other one though. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 05:30, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I don't know of anyway to find out when an account was created, at least not with our current mediawiki settings. From the fact that no edits were made tonight using anon IPs, I'd say it looks like the range block is working. And that block includes prevention of new account creation using that IP range, so it seems unlikely that the accounts were created today. Furthermore, Elondir Blackfort was able to create a new non-talk page (the Nordy Wordy page), which is an ability only possible with accounts that are at least three days old.

I think the main loophole at this point is that the IP range block still allows registered users to use those IPs. That could be changed, but I'd be inclined to wait a couple days first (although that's easy for me to say, given that rpeh's the one who has had to do all the work cleaning up after this guy). I think it's likely that this vandal has run out of accounts (or will very soon), in which case tightening up the range block won't be necessary. --Nephele^Talk 05:48, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Fair enough - I didn't realise you could only create new pages after three days. And credit where credit's due - this morning's clean up was an Anglo-Dutch alliance; my train was delayed and Timenn had already done most of the work by the time I got here. I don't mind having to deal with this for another couple of days - it's just embarrassing that a) these idiots are English, and b) they've obviously read my story but the only thing they took out of it was the phrase "Nordy-wordy" ;) --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 06:00, 21 November 2007 (EST)