Checking up on a bit of vandalism to a physics article got me to a really big sockfarm, already dealt with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=212936641

The vandal's edit summary note says: "Moved Centrifugal force to HAGGÆR?: for great justice and epic lulz; also, go to htp://GrawpsGiantCockForc.on.nimp.org [a must-see]"

It's not a must see: you don't want to click on the link (which I've disabbled by misspelling "force"), due to what it will do to your computer: you get porn which is hard to remove. However, going past the sock's account to user:Grawp, the sockmaster (see the address of the website), gets you the epic Grawp sockfarm uncovered by admins, including über-Admin Alison (is this OUR Alison??):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...user/Case/Grawp

Here you can see the damage done to WP by one person or small group intent on creating what they call "epic lulz". In this case, the vandal may be referred to as Grawp. One of Grawp's socks is Qwerty and it may be inferred that a lot of the sockfarm here is active on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and before that, on LiveJournal (where they were kicked out for creating drama).

So, we have various problems with 4 types of vandals.

1) There exist damaged people who seek to vandalize to get attention, since they've been somehow neglected or ostracized when children. An element of comedy is often included in such vandalism, since comedy is probably a mechanism to get attention (standup comedians typically have notably horrendous childhoods-- comparing these is actually a standing joke among Standups). Class clowns are never firstborn kids who have two loving parents. They are generally later-born neglected kids who have other problems at home, or socially.

2) Some vandalism is of the comic type, to tweak the nose of authority. If you can pour jellybeans into the machinery, like Harlequin does to get at the master Timekeeper in the Harlan Ellison story (Repent, Harlequin, said the Ticktockman), then you can send a message. Think of Groucho and the many wars of Freedonia in Duck Soup, or Chaplain playing The Great Dictator. And the fascistic Wikipedia is a natural target for that.

3) Some vandalism is merely guerilla warfare against a system which has systemic problems and refuses to listen to constructive criticism.

4) Or it is done as revenge for unfair practices of the system on a particular person.

Real vandals are not pure type 1, 2, 3, or 4. Most are a mix of two or more types.

Now, administrators of WP really cannot see the problems in their own system, and many refuse to believe that anyone is a righteous type #3 or #4 and has any reason for honest retaliation for anything, since they believe everyone gets a fair shake. The few who are forced to see differently believe that even if somebody was mistreated, the importance of Wikipedia is so large as to override little problems with hurting individual people. This reason also prevents WP admins for having much sympathy for practical jokers of type #2. And lastly, there really are people who are type #1, who will damage a system for no good reason, for personal problems of their own. They would do this, even if Wikipedia is perfect. They exist to provide Wikipedia administrators with a perfect excuse to treat all vandals as type #1's who are attacking a system which has no reason to be attacked.

Take a look at this Grawp sockfarm again. If you were a WP admin, what would YOU think you were dealing with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...user/Case/Grawp

And given the existence of Grawps, how are any pokes at WP from WR likely to be treated by honest administrators? If such there still be?

And given that the admins have sprotected every page under attack by this group, what then is still their rationale for why ALL pages on Wikipedia should not be sprotected? It seems to be happening piecemeal, without anybody admitting that it needs doing. How typical.

Milt

This should be on the blog. Very nice! And yes, that's "our" Alison...

I can almost see why "open editing" would be desirable in a system like WP's, at least during the growth phase. But "open editing at all costs," when the cost includes people's time, sense of equanimity, or their very sanity - that I can't see. And I've never understood why they keep it up, other than sheer refusal to admit there's a problem with the whole underlying concept.

Grawp hit my encyclopedia too. Took me over a half hour of button-pressing to clean up.

There's some fun here, though. Grawp is into classical languages. One notable sock was named Arma virumque cano, Troiæ qui primus ab oris. Before he got nailed as a Grawp sock, somebody blocked him. Our Virgilius fan complained "Come on, it's just Latin!" and the decline-blocking administrator said: "Pick another name, this one's too long." To which our saga-bard responded reasonably: "If it's too long, I shouldn't have been able to create it!

Eh, nobody did this to Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The , and (s)he was only a word shorter. I guess you get username length-compensation points, if you've had your peepee shortened? Virumque NON cano!

The motivation of the vandals is easier to understand than the motivation of those on Wikipedia who are so willing to tolerate vandalism. My guess is the tolerance arises because many persons view Wikipedia as a competitive battleground and also because some persons would rather fight against vandals than write articles.

It should be noted that any subdomain of .on.nimp.org (and any file on it) redirects to GNAA's Last Measure, which is an extremely effective shock site. Therefore, Milton's intentional misspelling still leads to it.

Ah yes, Grawp. He's actually a contributor to Encyclopedia Dramatica and doesn't vandalise.

See also...

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Grawp

Wow. Some "read between the lines" evidence that in a previous incarnation, Grawp was actually Willy-On-Wheels, a truly epic vandal who is the cause of the present autoconfirm and sprotect policies (which weren't a good idea, no, no, until forced down the throat of WP and Jimbo).

And Grawp urges Wiki-admins to get a life! Yikes, what a pathetic set of personality disorders. Makes spoiled child-amins look sane by comparison.

And for all of that, not without a certain humor. Did you know there is actually a medical disorder that makes you look like an infant all your life?








Yes, it's infant death.

This guy, Willypx2, says he's Willy, he's definitely not Grawp and he stopped vandalizing in 2006. Everybody since then are imitators. AN consensus is to let him be.

Quick! Somebody move his account to 13th Century Gothic Cathedrals!

Yes, if you're dumb enough to type it in to see. And I left it up so you could do just that, fair warning. However, I disabled the LINK here so you couldn't do this inadvertantly, just by clicking on it. That's all.

Willy on Wheels is probably English. Grawp is almost beyond doubt American. They're definitely not the same person.

I just checked it out and I saw Blissyu2 thinking it's Somey.






I remember somewhere back in 2007 there'd be huge vandalism sprees with an image macro of a partial goatse and an lolwut ascii art and the word "This page brought to you by *** Grawp *** Got HAGGER?"

I have it saved as it's a nice macro but it's too large to post here I think.

And you would well know, wouldn't you?

That link isnt disabled. Anything before .on.nimp.org is whatever they want it to be - its whats after it that matters.

The link HERE on WR, in my message that leads this thread, is disabled HERE. It has no line under it. You can't click on it and go anywhere. Disabled. Yes, it still works if you reconstruct it. So does a disassembed firearm.

Well, it's just obvious. I know almost nothing about the user Grawp as a person despite the fact that I am in frequent communication with him on Encyclopedia Dramatica; all I know about him is the Grawp known to Wikipedia.

Also, what are you guys thinking of Grawp's userpage, categories and sockpuppet userpages being put up for deletion? It seems to be heading towards a delete. Personally I think a long term abuse subpage for Grawp would be warranted; he's much more aggressive in his vandalism style than Willy on Wheels ever was and uses more sneaky tactics.

There were some silly comments someplace else about "institutional memory" being bad. No, generally, if the insitution wants to be efficient, it having memory is good. Unless it wants to fool new volunteers, somehow.

Is it time for today's metaphor?

Well, if your answer is "no", then stop reading.

You volunteer as an unpaid teachers' assistant at the new Common Wisdom School of Lower Education. Which is a preschool that takes 4 year-olds. In the main hallway, you meet the Principal, Trogbo the Banniator. Going past you is a long line of 4 year-olds, each of which is trying to walk carefully toward the playroom, carrying a 16 oz. lead-crystal class filled to the rim with chocolate milk. In the playroom where they are headed, you hear screaming and crying, and from it there issues an occasional school nurse carrying a bleeding form, and a powerful smell of sour milk.

"Ah, Mr. Trogbo?" you say. "I'm all for drink breaks, but couldn't you give these kids water or juice in little plastic glasses with snaptops, or something?"

"NO!!!!!" growls Trogbo. "This is a very recent problem, here, and we're dealing with it!" (Here the enlightened reader will note selective suppression of institutional information).

"AND THIS IS MY WORK!" Roars Trogbo. "The Common Wisdom School is one in which every child is entitled to a full crystal of chocolate milk!! IT is NON negotiable policy. It is Trogbo's Law!!"

You don't know what to say.

"But," continues Trogbo, "if you kiss Trogbo's rear, here is a pail and mop with which we may allow you to clean up some of the minor and recent and completely necessary problems inherent in the way We Do Things. And I say that with respect and love."



And finally you answer, by first drop-kicking the pail straight at Trogbo's tiny head:

"Trogbo, I invite you to stick your &%$#ing mop up your ^%$#ing %$^&*, so high that the handle end &^^$ing tickles your &^$# tonsils...! And I say that with respect and love, too. Good luck, Trog; you're gunna need it."

I saw Alison made a post where she seemed to find humor in the Grawp issue.

But on Wikipedia, I see Wikipedia Admins seem to take the Grawp issue as some very serious business, instead of being light-hearted about it. Like Grawp is the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia since.... I don't know.,, and worse than Rachel selling Jimbo's used clothes with pecular white stains on them.

You forgot the 5th Dissipline : Administrative Vandalism.

Jon

This was a did not read the thread post before, let me fix that.


Why the assumption that Grawp is one person? This is nothing more than Willy on Wheels vandalism 2.0, and like WoW vandalism, it's clearly self-perpetuation. Last Measure is a well-known troll site used by many trolls, pagemove vandalism and sleeper/sock accounts are older than Wikipedia, and pagemove vandalism is nothing new.

In fact, there's even a helpful little guide there on how to troll Wikipedia like Grawp! Thanks a whole lot, vandal fighters! You're doing Wikipedia a great service, by lavishing attention on those type-1 trolls and all.


Also. Milton, you seem to have identified two reasons for trolling and two justifications for trolling. There are trolls who troll for attention and trolls who troll to destroy, and trolls who feel justified in hurting their particular target and trolls who are lashing out in general. Trolls who are lashing out in general, whether it be for attention (your type #1) or trolls who troll just to cause chaos to entertain themselves or other people who are entertained by chaos (your type #2) can't ever be satisfied, just dealt with. As long as there's a building, they'll try to paint something on the walls or light it on fire.

Posit that a significant number of trolls are aiming at Wikipedia because of issues with Wikipedia. How would you suggest identifying these people from trolls who are attacking it because it's there, and engaging in a dialogue with someone who is doing the equivalent of spraypainting the windows or lighting the carpet on fire?

I can see ways to better engage WR's form of "harm" to Wikipedia, honest criticism of its goals, execution, processes, etc. What I can't see is how to better engage the Grawp form, other than showing that person the door as quickly as possible. Or are you trying to criticize the lumping of anyone who wants to harm Wikipedia, either by criticism/counter-advertising or by wrecking the place, into one group? Because I don't see any of the former here.