Workshop for Admins

Discussions related to both taboo and peculiar areas of research.
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

michiganj » December 18th, 2018, 2:14 pm wrote:Dear SCS, I very much enjoyed our phone conversation last week and yes we are on the same page with regards to the care and attention this forum deserves. There is still a lot to learn and I will try to be more active in the future. Thank you for the extended permissions even if I don't know what to do with them but I'll figure it out eventually.

As for the Observer character, part of me is curious to see those emails but I know it's just gonna make my brain hurt to try and read them. :unsure:

Take care all,
mj
Well, since you are curious enough to ask, I will quote the last two emails I received from it- in full. They were sent to me exclusively, unless of course “blind copied” elsewhere.

I hope you laugh instead of reach for the Tylenol. :wacko:

At 12:12 AM (Central Time) on December 18, 2018:
From: Steve [AKA “Observer”]

[Subject heading] Briefest Letter Ever

True or False: Simon's drawing shows "Jim & Joe WOULD see 6-month parallax" looking directly up.
https://www.tychos.info/book_imagery/13 ... HOS_02.jpg

True or False: My drawing also shows "Jim & Joe WOULD see 1-year parallax" looking directly up.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4892/3141 ... 5b53_o.png

True or False: My drawing shows "Copernicans would NOT see 1-year parallax" looking directly up.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4905/3142 ... ef68_o.png
And finally (thus far), at 12:37 AM (Central Time) on December 18, 2018:
From: Steve [AKA “Observer”]

[Subject heading] justly settle this debate

Simon deleting/censoring my simple point is as unjust as the Astronomy site deleting/censoring his.

Ryan, could you please bravely share the following over at CluesForum to justly SETTLE this debate?

True or False: Simon's drawing shows "Jim & Joe WOULD see 6-month parallax" looking directly up.
https://www.tychos.info/book_imagery/13 ... HOS_02.jpg

True or False: Observer's drawing also shows "Jim & Joe WOULD see 1-year parallax" looking directly up.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4892/3141 ... 5b53_o.png

True or False: Observer's drawing shows "Copernicans would NOT see 1-year parallax" looking directly up.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4905/3142 ... ef68_o.png

Observer maintains all 3 statements above are TRUE. Simon maintains one (which one?) is FALSE.
As my brother “Smokey” would say, “you don’t have to know what kind of snake it is, you just know it’s a snake, and you stay away from it.”

Warm Regards, :)
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Dear fellow Admins,

I will note that it is entirely possible (though I can’t be certain) that “deactivating” a member may not be enough. I’m still looking at this issue.

But, I think (to be safe) we should (when permanently ridding this place of a member) probably BAN (using all three options) by username, email address, and by IP.

I say this because- last night I was working in the background on the very locked down “Wal-Mart” forum, and I noticed this (PLEASE pay close attention to the time stamps):

Image

So, instinctively, I checked “forum permissions,” and went straight to the Wal-Mart forum, and I noticed none other than “Observer” in the drop down window! I didn’t think to screenshot it as I hurriedly removed it from the permissions.

Nonetheless, you can see here that I removed that “permission” within a minute of the previous screenshot.

Image

After doing this (above), I immediately went back to see if the mystery guest would still be there, and here is what the screen showed.

Image

Unless that is a coincidence of epic proportions, I suspect that this “Observer” thing somehow managed to attach itself to that otherwise inaccessible forum.

Even with permissions it would need the password.

I would be stumped if I weren’t convinced this thing was purely an operative.

Before I forgot, I wanted to memorialize this strange occasion here.
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: NEW: The “Members Only” Chatbox

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

In a short list of not so great options, I chose to move these posts here. Fbenario makes a good point about this picking right back up in the CHATBOX, which we don’t want to do.

All the Best to you Dear Cluesforum Members. :)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: NEW: The “Members Only” Chatbox

Unread post by simonshack »

Sorry dear SCS,

I'm not quite sure we should keep splitting up this forum's post just as 'happily'.
For now I've reinstated the split posts back in the Chatbox.
Let's talk about it over Skype.
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: NEW: The “Members Only” Chatbox

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Simon,

That’s cool. I sent you an email.

It’s possible that a “Members Only” area isn’t a good idea- except as for a place to publish the site statistics, which may or may not be useful. That was the initial reason I created that mini forum if I recall correctly.

I still can’t get the “mint” page fixed. SMH. . .

I do think it’s helpful to have an Admin area like this however. Let’s discuss via Skype.

I’ve been thinking through how these dynamics work when we lock a topic.

It’s like there has to be a “release valve” of some kind- but where? And at what cost (or risk)?

Also, do we (wittingly or not) end up allowing potentially nefarious entities to “drive the forum” in this way?

Those are the sort of issues I’m contemplating here. And I firmly admit that my thoughts are in the development stage.

Okay, enough streaming thought from me now. :)
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Dear fellow Admins,

A couple of things real quick. One, I changed the settings such that posts here will show up under Active Topics, BUT, only for the handful of us with permissions. It’s too easy to NOT catch when another Admin posts here otherwise.

Next, I have Deactivated the account for “roses.” My instincts from the outset have been that this potential member is trouble, and it has posted nothing inconsistent with that “gut-reaction.”

Moreover, I was just looking through the various IP addresses associated with each post, and I came across 208.77.22.188. You may view this link to see my obvious concerns.

Based on a quick risk/reward analysis, I’d much prefer not to let a potential “hacker” just remain embedded here.

Hope you are all doing well.

Sincerely,
Kham
Admin
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by Kham »

That’s a interesting link to addresses by IP use.

What does this mean? Is roses working for someone or just a jerk?
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Kham » January 11th, 2019, 7:30 pm wrote:That’s a interesting link to addresses by IP use.

What does this mean? Is roses working for someone or just a jerk?
Well, michiganj kindly pointed out to me that if you check the upside down triangle (with the question mark on it) above a post, you can see the IP address associated with that post, and also all the other IP addresses used by the member.

Now, please note, our new members almost all show an IP by “sacredcowslayer.”

That’s because I use the same device to change the forum registration settings and manually sign each one up as though I’m them. Then I activate the account and send them credentials. So, my own IP is used for their “registration IP.”

Also, roses sent me an email that I turned around and posted in the “Introduce Yourself. . .” topic- then I changed the author to roses. I noted it at the top of that particular post.

Speaking of “roses,” notice that it posted 6 times (plus the one I added =7), and it only used the same IP twice.

The others showed Salt Lake City, Utah, and a couple showed somewhere in Illinois. So, we would be left to speculate.

I find it most likely that multiple people in different locations posted with that username. But, I could very well be wrong about that.

It’s not about “roses” at this point. It’s more about how to use this kind of background information responsibly, and in “close call” situations it’s probably worth looking at closely.

It’s far from perfect, but the email system and registration settings were leading to way too many bots and then constant emails to both me and Simon (and Dani).

So, for now, this will have to do.

Hope you are all having a good 2019 thus far. :)
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Admin and Mod Exchanges re Newly Registered Users

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Dear fellow Admins,

Please pay no mind to the IP addresses showing up with respect to my posts for the time being.

I’m experimenting with an AP called “HideMyAss.”

I am trying to get familiar with the various forms of obscurity that members may be using (for all sorts of reasons, from harmless to malicious).

I might start asking members to let us know via email or PM when they are using a VPN or some other IP obscuring program. That way we don’t misread the data. Of course this needs to be thought through first.

I won’t do any such thing until I’ve wrapped my mind around it, and given time for input from you first.

Warm Regards,
Kham
Admin
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by Kham »

Thanks for taking the time to research obscurities. Looking forward to the report.

Take care,

K
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Alright- I have deactivated the accounts whereby the member (none in the existing “registered members” group, after several re-activations) has not been signed in (i.e. “active”) since July 1, 2018, AND has less than 10 posts total.

When I did that, it deactivated a handful of members in the “registered users” group, but I manually fixed that.

It was still far easier than going manually through 5,000+ “members” in the “newly registered users” group.

So far I haven received any emails with complaints about this. And frankly I don’t see this as an ongoing thing, given our present registration process.

Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

Sincerely,
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Dear fellow Admins,

Simply “deactivating” an account does not accomplish what one would think.

I have massively purged “members” from the “newly registered users” group.

Still, pick one, hit Adminster User, and test the permissions of one where it shows “deactivated by Admin.”

You’ll see what I’m talking about.

That explains my Wal-Mart and Observer anomaly from a little while back.

Hmm..

Thought you’d all want to know.

When you are banning- Deactivate- ban (all three methods)- and change group accordingly.
Kham
Admin
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by Kham »

I’m not quite sure what you are saying.

Is it that one must ban an account to stop an antitrust from posting?
SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 789
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer »

Kham » January 17th, 2019, 1:56 am wrote:I’m not quite sure what you are saying.

Is it that one must ban an account to stop an antitrust from posting?
Last night I was cleaning up those old memberships, and I saw the following (and took screenshots in this order):

Image

Then I took this;

Image

Next;

Image

My thought was, “I don’t want these sleepers to be able to read through the vetting thread, given that our registered members can’t even see that process.”

So I changed that particular “member’s” group from “newly registered users” to “guest.”

Now it shows up as:

Image

I didn’t screenshot what happened when I tested the permissions of this user above (who registered in 2009 and has never posted) last night,but I did go ahead and try it on another “deactivated” account.

Here it is:

Image

Image

And;

Image

So, basically, a member who has been “deactivated” can somehow still continue to sign-in and even post AFTER being “deactivated,” unless the group and/or permissions (or banning, depending on what we are trying to do) are also changed.

That is how Observer was able to be logged in after being deactivated by Simon- until I went in and thoroughly banned it.

I’m leaving the one above alone in case you want to try for yourself to see what I’m talking about.

Hopefully this makes sense.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Workshop for Admins

Unread post by simonshack »

Dear SCS,

Videre came to visit me in Rome a few years ago - she's a good friend of Kham - so I just reactivated her account.

I understand that you wish to avoid any more surprises (such as Observer returning in spite of me deactivating his account) - but I'm not sure if we really need to pre-emptively block other accounts just because such members have never posted on the forum. Then again, I might be missing the gist of your concerns... :)
Post Reply