Wikipedia talk:AOL/Archives/2006/11

message: NOTE: This page is linked to from MediaWiki:Blockedtext, which is shown to blocked users when they try to edit.  Please keep that in mind when editing.
==Browser==
I don't know much about AOL's browser so this could be a dumb question: We recommend AOL user's switch to Firefox or Opera. Could we also recommend they try Internet Explorer? Pcb21 Pete 15:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AOL's browser on Windows is Internet Explorer with AOL branding.  I haven't mentioned this in the article since a) I wanted to make it apply to AOL Mac too, and b) I don't really know how extensive the customizations made by AOL to IE are.  But some mention of this fact might be a good idea.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. Seems like we need someone who is a) technically astute and b) with access to an AOL connection so we can answer questions like whether it is possible to "de-brandify" IE. Pcb21 Pete 16:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of Win98se&me users at AOL, I suspect. Opera is a good recommendation. Asking AOL users to spend time/effort/money on computers isn't sensible. Keep it simple. 209.6.189.247 15:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is really great news.  One million ceiling cats had to die, but in the end it was all worth it.  207.200.116.203 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It uses a certificate signed by CAcert, which is not on IE's list of trusted roots. On the other hand, en.wikipedia.org is not encrypted, so it does not even have a certificate. --cesarb 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Random the Scrambled 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't be silly, everyone on AOL is a vandal, people only use AOL if they're vandals, so if anything, this should reidrect to WP:WE ASSUME YOU'RE A VANDAL FROM THE START AND BLOCK YOUR ENTIRE ISP WITH AS MUCH RANDOMNESS AS POSSIBLE TO DISCOURAGE CONSTRUCTIVE EDITING, how does that sound?--172.144.69.214 22:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia talk:Advice to AOL users]] 

message: I don't know much about AOL's browser so this could be a dumb question: We recommend AOL user's switch to Firefox or Opera. Could we also recommend they try Internet Explorer? Pcb21 Pete 15:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AOL's browser on Windows is Internet Explorer with AOL branding.  I haven't mentioned this in the article since a) I wanted to make it apply to AOL Mac too, and b) I don't really know how extensive the customizations made by AOL to IE are.  But some mention of this fact might be a good idea.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. Seems like we need someone who is a) technically astute and b) with access to an AOL connection so we can answer questions like whether it is possible to "de-brandify" IE. Pcb21 Pete 16:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of Win98se&me users at AOL, I suspect. Opera is a good recommendation. Asking AOL users to spend time/effort/money on computers isn't sensible. Keep it simple. 209.6.189.247 15:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Browser

message: I believe that if AOL users use the secure.wikimedia.org site to login in, their real IP will be used instead of the proxy, which will allow them to avoid blocks not aimed at them. Wouldn't recommending this make more sense that recommending they change browser? Angela. 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Secure login

message: Back when I still used AOL, there were some times when HTTP connections would mysteriously fail.  ping would find the other host. traceroute would go all the way through.  FTP would work.  HTTP over SSL would work, but anything over port 80 would fail.  I never used the AOL browser, and began to suspect that AOL had added a transparent proxy, and that said proxy wasn't always working properly.  These problems would only last a few hours at a time and were global (no websites were accessible, although all other network activity worked fine; also persistent across sign-off/sign-on).  My fix?  Find a local ISP that didn't have these problems and cost about 1/3 as much.  (Rising AOL monthly fees also contributed to that decision.) --64.232.164.63 23:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible transparent proxies

message: Please be aware that, although this secure link does allow some editing when blocked, it is also subject to the autoblocker.  This should probably be discussed in the article.  In my experience, the usual pattern after sign on is to be able to edit one or two pages, then autoblocked.  Once I sign in through https, I am usually able to edit for a longer period of time.  Quite often, however, that "secure" IP is also autoblocked and my editing session is over.  I have appreciated the help given by administrators and find the release request template very helpful.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 07:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edits over https via secure.wikimedia.org

message: Isn't AOL TopSpeed the cause of the whole proxies thing?  On my computer I can connect to AOL, but my ISP is somebody else.  If I have TopSpeed enabled, I get problems while editing on Wikipedia, but if I disable it, Wikipedia sees my kinda-static IP.  --JD[don't talk|email] 09:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AOL TopSpeed 

message: Woo hoo!  According to Angela on the mailing list (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-July/050279.html), within the next day or so we will be able to block AOL users individually, and not the proxies.  Time to update this page, once we see how it actually functions.  — Catherine\talk 21:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really great news.  One million ceiling cats had to die, but in the end it was all worth it.  207.200.116.203 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AOL now uses XFF headers for MediaWiki sites! 

message: I use IE, so this doesn't really have to do with AOL, but how come IE thinks that secure.wikipedia.org is less secure than wikipedia.org? Random the Scrambled 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses a certificate signed by CAcert, which is not on IE's list of trusted roots. On the other hand, en.wikipedia.org is not encrypted, so it does not even have a certificate. --cesarb 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Random the Scrambled 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I have a question

message: I've set up Wikipedia:America Online, a centralised page providing information for AOL users and countervandalism, with a proposed noticeboard for coordinating AOL blocks and allowing AOL users to contact the community without keeping track of an IP page they no longer own. I've merged the content of this page, trimmed for usefulness and relevance, into that page. Are there any objections to redirecting this page to the new one? —[admin] Pathoschild 16:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be silly, everyone on AOL is a vandal, people only use AOL if they're vandals, so if anything, this should reidrect to WP:WE ASSUME YOU'RE A VANDAL FROM THE START AND BLOCK YOUR ENTIRE ISP WITH AS MUCH RANDOMNESS AS POSSIBLE TO DISCOURAGE CONSTRUCTIVE EDITING, how does that sound?--172.144.69.214 22:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I just pulled the following list items from the article, as they do not seem to be proper content:
"Please look at User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection for one such legitimate user who is hit very often. Consider adding User:JRM/unblock to your watchlist; see the top of my talk page for further information. JRM · Talk 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unclear on the steps to take to report a TOS violation.  Can I simply give AOL the time and IP address of the vandalism or do I need more information?  Is this actually a viable option?  Without this possibility, it seems that AOL vandals are completely immune from any kind of blocking whatsoever.  --DDG 19:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed list

message: On March 15, 2006, the User:Terminatorius bot created by User:Audriusa blanked warnings from several user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning template where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. The bot was later stopped and the changes were reverted by the bot owner. Do you think this type of bot is a good idea? Please see discussion at WP:BRFA#User:Terminatorius - automated blanking of the vandal anonymous IP talk pages Wuzzy 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminatorius bot blanks warnings

message: Since Wikipedia is now a top 20 website, it might be worth attempting to find contacts at its abuse department that can work with Wikipedia on a NOC-to-NOC basis. Perhaps if Wikipedia got its own AS, we could get an INOC-DBA telephone... -- Karada 19:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forming a relationship with AOL's abuse department 

message: I'm getting some nasty renderings of this project page (not the talk page). The  box is moved to the left to accomodate the shortcut box, which looks rather nasty. Help? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I swapped the templates.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rendering problems? 

message: Should we even Bother to give AOL users warnings when we see vandalism?  I mean what's the point.  Couldn't we just make One AOL page that won't notify them and just list all the cases of vandalism.  I don't think I even want to bother to give them a warning.  The same user won't see the warning anyway.  Why should the Innocent AOL users (or guilty ones for that matter) see a warning addressed to another user.  Especially when the vandal sees all this warnings to other people they will think this is normal behavior.
How about all the AOL user Talk pages On the top link to one AOL Vandalism report page that will will just be one long list with just a link to the edit and no actual warnings.--E-Bod 01:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Give or not to give a warning 

message: although wikipedia allows for editing without registering, perhaps whenever someone comes from AOL they should not be allowed to edit without registering?
I have been seeing some aol vandalism, which doesn;t seem stoppable any other way...
JJ211219 19:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably rehashed question 

message: When will the XFF headers be installed?--Scott3 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please update the page to explain what the XFF thing is and how it applies to persistent AOL vandals?  We've got one using some kind of bot to paste the same exact information to two articles and it's really irritating.  The page has been sprotected probably 15 times. — Omegatron 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will the XFF headers be effective 

message: Why not require registration when someone using AOL's proxies attempts to edit an article? Surely this would take less effort than having to constantly revert the damage caused by these vandals? --Edward Sandstig 06:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea!  But I don't think that is neccery anymore:
Wikipedia:Dealing with AOL vandals#Breaking news--Scott3 02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But when will this actually take effect?  How will we know?  Is there anything we can do to speed this up? — Omegatron 15:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It'll take effect if and when AOL gets around to it, we'll know when they make an announcement to that effect and AOL blocks start working properly, and there is nothing we can do to make it happen sooner. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Require registration when attempting to edit using AOL's proxies? 

message: I've set up Wikipedia:America Online, a centralised page providing information for AOL users and countervandalism, with a proposed noticeboard for coordinating AOL blocks and allowing AOL users to contact the community without keeping track of an IP page they no longer own. I've merged the content of this page, trimmed for usefulness and relevance, into that page. Are there any objections to redirecting this page to the new one? —[admin] Pathoschild 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge