User talk:Moni3/Socks

Advocacy or review article?
I think we need to settle quickly whether this article advocates certan policies or aims at an objective review of policies and events. This was convceived as an "op ed" (opinion piece), and Moni3, Philcha and Tony advocate severe restrictions on use of alternate accounts. Others may wish to advocate different policies, while some may wish to attempt an objective review, if such a thing is possible. We need to settle the objectives of this page to avoid confusion and possibly acrimony. --Philcha (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think operating unnecessary alternate accounts, even as jokes, are deceptive and compound confusion. We're going to receive acrimony no matter what. To me it's a matter of valuing my own opinion based on my experiences over the potential anger from those who operate alternates. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, I dislike alternate a/cs as much and for similar reasons. --Philcha (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me adding my voice here. I tend to agree with much of what has been said here. Awadewit (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even a tiny bit. Please add. I am approaching this with frustration that leads me to withdraw from the policy pages of AN, ANI, and ArbCom. I have my opinions, but as usual, think that no one really cares about them. When that's combined with my frustration, I just tend to drop policy pages off my watchlist and just concentrate on writing articles under a black cloud. Other editors participating in this help me try to put words to the indecipherable sounds that I emit. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the entire op ed be written in second person, making it a bit more accusatorial or engaging? --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming names
Are we going to name names? Currently, I have adopted the convenient false anonymity practice of the 18th and 19th centuries in Britain - initials. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if we present this before the next Signpost, I think it will be pretty obvious that Casliber and Law/the_undertow were the inspiration for this. Or at least a last straw of sorts. But I think it's pretty much unnecessary to name specific editors. It will irritate the ones we single out and may relieve others who operate socks or alt accounts for not being named. What do you think of creating blatantly false names or simply Editor A and such just to be able to keep track of individuals in paragraphs? --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Less transparency...gotcha. (Just kidding!) Could you come up with some fun names? You're really good at that creative stuff. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha. Me and Dickens. Screw it. Let's just base them all on Dickens. Pickwiki. Loquatia. Diarrhœtica. Señor Emendation. Duplicitron, the Overlord Master. Covertipedian, Minister of Secrecy. Sister Mary Cryptica of the Monthly Administruation. This what you had in mind? Would certainly get folks' attention. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:SirFozzie/Alternate
Here are some views we might want to address. Awadewit (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Awadewit. --Philcha (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll read it and I've already watchlisted it. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back has been blocked for block evasion?? and supplied the funniest response to a block notice I have ever seen. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hacking public computers
Just how easy is it to hack an open computer to gain a password? Should no one use their password on a public computer? Let's explain this a bit to technically uninformed like myself. Awadewit (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The most common way of hijacking a password is a keystroke logger. Never mind WP, these can seriously damage your wealth if the perp finds your ebanking or credit card log-in details. There are various ways of installing malware on a computer, some of which are "sucker punches" and others are cleverer and may involve design or programming errors in browsers and operating systems. When new malware is discovered (or known malware in a new guise), the security vendors update their software so as to detect and neutralise such threats, and the browser and/or operating supplier may issue updates to lock up unintentional "back doors" into their software.
 * None of this depends on whether the "victim" is a public or private computer. Most depends on whether the owner diligently and skilfully uses a set of good and up-to-date anti-malware software. The comments in the op-ed point out that both public and private computers show a wide range of diligence and proficiency in use of anti-malware software. In the case of WP "admins" (in broad sense), WP requires no proof of diligence and proficiency in use of anti-malware software. I guess there's a slightly greater risk that users of public computers will do seriously dumb things, e.g. ignoring warnings from security software. However regular scans by good anti-malware software will quickly remove such "sucker punch" attacks. Most of the dangerous stuff is delivered by taking advantage of flaws in browsers and operating systems. This is where it becomes important to make good use of anti-malware software and to keep security packages, operating and browsers up-to-date. Doing this thoroughly is a major job - most companies have several IT security staff. A well-run public computer facility will be more secure than almost all individuals' computers, simply because the organisation has the trained staff available. At the dumb end of the scale, who knows? --Philcha (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)