Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

I dont think this is the place to try to publically expose somebody. If you want to deal with an issue like this, you need to do it in private and NOT in a public forum. That will only fuel the flames. One of the first things I learned about dealing with issues such as this is to deal with it in the background as a site administrator is supposed to do.

I am HIGHLY against what you dealing with this and posting a chat transcript in public. BAD BAD BAD idea....

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

I really really really agree with what was just said. Posting private converations between individuals without the written consent of all parties is a federal offense. I will look up the location in the USC where the details about this are, but the punishment is not trivial. Something like a $50,000 fine, and/or jail time. Be very careful when revealing conversations between individuals. Note, I don't know if this applies to chats on AIM, but it does to phones and email.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

Calm down man! IANAL but IM is far to fluid a medium to be held in any regard in a court of law.

Take a deeeeep breath everyone. We're all giddy from the excitement :-)

"Oh boy! Our first monster!!! Wheee! Lets slay the troll!!!"

I feel like Dubya: Bring 'em On!

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

I don't believe it applies to AIM, so far as the federal statue goes (though I'm not familiar with it). I only say that, though, because I hear frequently that you have to be careful if you live (or the other party lives) in Mass. (d'oh... New Hampshire), because it is a state law there that it applies to. And if the guy is indeed from MIT ... (granted his threat wasn't the most legal action, either).

I half agree with what you said. But,
He was the one who started this in a public forum. He vandalized pages, and his IP is free to be posted on the wiki (a looser link could be made for here) as to his indiscretion, so that it can be avoided. (Is it publically exposing somebody when he doesn't try to hide his aims, and a complete history is publicly available on FIRSTwiki?). The AIM transcript might be a different matter, however.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

It is unfortunate that some people only want to spend their time on destructive actions trying to undermind other's constructive efforts to build a better community, especially when the reason for these actions is so unimportant.

I didn't get much out of that AIM log, except the fact that this person wanted to edit part of the Wiki page and for some unknown reason he wasn't allowed to do so. I am not familiar with your process of building this wiki page, and this person may or may not deserve to be "screw so badly", but I think there is a better way to handle this than publically denounce this person, reveal his screen name, and keep on posting names of people or information you might think is related to this person.

It seems like you are trying to say all these to the public as a warning to this person. I have a feeling that's the least of that person's concern. The more you try to stop him/her, the more he/she is going to want to fight back. There is no winner in these sort of fights. Frankly its a waste on both sides' time.

If he/she did something that you don't agree should be done on the wiki page, work it out. Come to an understanding on what you and he/she expect the wiki page to look like. If there are obvious difference on your and his/her vision, than accept the difference and move on. It seems like you expect a lot of people to work on the wiki page, so you should expect lots of different opinions, and know how to handle them appropriately.

It is obvious that this person's feelings are hurt. Anything that he/she does because of those hurt feelings is only going to waste more time on your side. Lets not make it worse for both side of this matter.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

This type of naivete can be your undoing. See here and here. You'd be suprised how ignorant the court can be in matters of technology. Also, as echoed by others ... posting information about other people shouldn't be taken so lightly.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

I just got so much perspective out of that.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

well i will put my input into this....i post on a few different messageboards (phishhook.com, sharinthegroove.org, etc) and over the past months we have had alot of problems with people like this posting tons of obseen material and causeing a ruckus. what we found is yes they try to take down the site for like a week and then give up.....i would say just don't respond to them and just fix the things they do eventully they will go away. most people on this site are more mature then these people, and lets not let them get in the way of further devlopment of this project.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

Oh, I agree with that sentiment. However, before a user is blocked he is given repeated notices of what he is doing, asked nicely to stop, we try to get him to realize what he's doing is wrong ... and only then do we block him. All I was getting at was at this point he has clearly made it public, and I think we have every right to put his IP address on the wiki so that others can look out for him when the ban is expired to make sure he doesn't do any more vandalizations.

Though a certain over-excited administrator has indeed prompted a lot of constructive conversation on the whole issue ... which will cause me (and the other sysops more than likely) to review the whole process of what happened ... and a lot of which will soon find its way to the administrator's guide (which I'll try to bring up to par on the morrow). I'll post a link where further review of our policies can more appropriately take place.

For now, please keep the good advice coming ...

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

A quick search on this IP reveals:

12.222.122.13
12-222-122-13.client.insightBB.com
Win XP
Netscape 5.0
1400x1050
16 M colors

Darn Netscape Users.... :rolleyes:

Massachusettes has nothing to do with this particular attack.. This person may have been from there at one time, but not at the time of that posting on the wiki going by the info that you provided.

Astronouth7303, if you want to know the info I found - PM me.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

That is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, to think that someone has the time and the stupidity to try and destroy a resource designed to help people.

Good luck in fending them off, I'll try to be around soon to help out.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

I know that maybe it probably wasn't the best idea ever to make this public, but there are a few things to be said for it:
A. If this person comes along and destroys someone's work (I know you can change it back, but that's beside the point...), they won't feel like it's an attack against them, it's just some trouble maker
B. Also, if anyone sees this guy making trouble again, they can know that it's not his first time and report it to the sysops/other admins.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

Rousing up minions? Starting a rebellion? Sounds like an immature 12-year-old wannabe cracker to me.

Some people, geez. Well, we should be able to hold against this.

Re: FIRSTwiki: The first battle
 

I've come up with a first draft of our policy. The general Guide for administrators is here, and the specific policy dealing with vandalism is here. It is being debated, and everyone's input is certainly welcome.