Request:Nuke user ~DefaultTrust: impersonating, Trust List spam and ban evasion

[LoyceV]

User ~DefaultTrust created his account 6 days after theymos posted DefaultTrust changes.
He was probably trying to get on DT2 from accidentally being included but that didn't work:

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network. If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash.

He got excluded by Foxpup and didn't get any inclusions.

Last week, he posted this:

Гocпoдa Peпyтoлoги, peшил oзaбoтитcя cocтaвлeниeм cвoeгo личнoгo тpacт лиcтa и y мeня вoзник вoпpoc. Кaкoe мaкcимaльнoe кoличecтвo пoльзoвaтeлeй я мoгy внecти в cвoй тpacт лиcт?

50000 тoчнo мoжнo. Дyмaю ecли пocтapaтьcя, тo eщe тыщь 10 мoжнo, нo мнe лeнь. Ha бoльшиx цифpax зaпpoc вылeтaeт пo тaймayтy 403

Google Translate:

Gentlemen, Reputologists, I decided to attend to the compilation of my personal trust sheet and I had a question. What is the maximum number of users I can add to my trust list?

50,000 is definitely possible. I think if you try, then another 10 thousand is possible, but I'm too lazy. In large numbers, the request crashes in timeout 403

Last week, user ~DefaultTrust added 30,389 users to his Trust list, which messes with my Trust list viewer. But the username itself is impersonating DefaultTrust, and trolls the Trust system. If he gets Nuked, his Trust list doesn't show up on theymos' weekly trust data dump.
I assume it's an alt-account from another user only created for trolling.

[1714903925]

1714903925

[1714903925]

1714903925

[1714903925]

1714903925

[Last of the V8s]

Roko's Basilisk meme came true.
The machine has expressed unwillingness to have its data polluted;
and willingness to terminate a uid (aka possibly a person's account)
for 'impersonating' a data structure and 'trolling' a data structure.

[mindrust]

That was a clever and imaginative way to troll though. Smart dude. Theymos should reward him first (merits maybe?), ban after.

[LoyceV]

The machine has expressed unwillingness to have its data polluted;

Hey, I'm Verified human!
I'll blacklist the account to protect my data from spam, so this won't be a problem in the future.

and willingness to terminate a uid (aka possibly a person's account)
for 'impersonating' a data structure and 'trolling' a data structure.

I'm so glad I don't have to decide on this. All I do is make suggestions

[dragonvslinux]

User ~DefaultTrust created his account 6 days after theymos posted DefaultTrust changes.
He was probably trying to get on DT2 from accidentally being included but that didn't work:

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network. If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash.

I assume this is as it's not possible for anyone to add this user to their trust list, unless I'm mistaken ?

Last week, user ~DefaultTrust added 30,389 users to his Trust list, which messes with my Trust list viewer. But the username itself is impersonating DefaultTrust, and trolls the Trust system. If he gets Nuked, his Trust list doesn't show up on theymos' weekly trust data dump.

It sounds more like you need to ban avoid scraping trust data of this user for your trust list viewer, as opposed to the user being banned from the forum. I don't see a problem with someone testing the limits of the forums infrastructure, especially someone who is incapable of gaining any trust by looks of it.

The fact that usernames can be created starting with ~ is also a bigger problem in itself I'm assuming, so kudos for this user bringing this issue to light. I don't they are impersonating DefaultTrust what so ever though, if anything they are failing to impersonate ~DefaultTrust (distrusting DT), in a meaningless and ineffective manner.

Threat level assessment: 1/10.

edited

[TryNinja]

User ~DefaultTrust created his account 6 days after theymos posted DefaultTrust changes.
He was probably trying to get on DT2 from accidentally being included but that didn't work:

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network. If you want to trust someone whose name begins with a tilde, prefix their name with a backslash.

I assume this is as it's not possible for anyone to add this user to their trust list, unless I'm mistaken ?

You can.

Just use:

Code:

\~DefaultTrust

(In this case, don’t )

[LoyceV]

I assume this is as it's not possible for anyone to add this user to their trust list, unless I'm mistaken ?

You're mistaken, see ~Money~'s Trust list.

It sounds more like you need to ban avoid scraping trust data of this user for your trust list viewer, as opposed to the user being banned from the forum.

I'm already working on that:

NEW: Blacklist
The following users are blacklisted for Trust list spam:

• ~DefaultTrust

Being blacklisted means I don't process their Trust list. I still show inclusions/exclusions from other users.

I don't see a problem with someone testing the limits of the forums infrastructure, especially someone who is incapable of gaining any trust by looks of it.

I think the limits are about the same as the limits for the ignore list, which several people have run into already. The problem in this case is the username he's using for it.

I think he can be included by adding this:

Code:

\~DefaultTrust

Update: TryNinja beat me to it
It's weird though, when I test it (from a non-DT1 account), Chrome hangs on "Waiting for bitcointalk.org...".

The fact that usernames can be created starting with ~ is also a bigger problem in itself I'm assuming, so kudos for this user bringing this issue to light. I don't they are impersonating DefaultTrust what so ever though, if anything they are failing to impersonate ~DefaultTrust (distrusting DT), in a meaningless and ineffective manner.

I admit it was creative

Threat level assessment: 1/10.

I think you're right. Title updated: CANCEL Request.
I'll lock this topic soon.

[ChuckBuck]

  It is impossible to think of someone intentionally polluting your trusted system  But is it just creativity? I thought some talented guy with a crazy idea would ruin everything. Worrisome didn't happen, lol 

[LoyceV]

I locked this topic, but due to new information I'm unlocking it:

For Loycev: Local landmark korner (~DefaultTrust his alt) again puts his crazy experiments on forum and users  

Korner is banned, if ~DefaultTrust is his alt, he should be banned for ban evasion.

[Chlotide]

...
Korner is banned, if ~DefaultTrust is his alt, he should be banned for ban evasion.

How can you say he is alt of "X" when he has 6 posts in total and there is nothing linking them? Hunch?
To me at least the username looks interesting, smart and also funny.
Thx for your scripts (used 1 or 2 myself) but just add "if UID=X { i++}" in your code and leave the "white hat troll" live :p
If what you said is true I guess whe'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[dragonvslinux]

I locked this topic, but due to new information I'm unlocking it:

For Loycev: Local landmark korner (~DefaultTrust his alt) again puts his crazy experiments on forum and users  

Korner is banned, if ~DefaultTrust is his alt, he should be banned for ban evasion.

I'm confused. I understand unlocking the topic due to fresh accusations, but why re-open the request to nuke this user?
If there in evidence that ~DefaultTrust is an alt of korner, then I understand the request, but at the moment it sounds like hearsay.
Therefore:

Threat level assessment: 1/10.

I think you're right. Title updated: CANCEL Request.

[LoyceMobile]

If there in evidence that ~DefaultTrust is an alt of korner, then I understand the request, but at the moment it sounds like hearsay.

Ratimov made it sound like it's common knowledge on the Russian board. Maybe it's wrong indeed.
I'll lock this again if a bit.

[dragonvslinux]

If there in evidence that ~DefaultTrust is an alt of korner, then I understand the request, but at the moment it sounds like hearsay.

Ratimov made it sound like it's common knowledge on the Russian board. Maybe it's wrong indeed.
I'll lock this again if a bit.

Fair enough. I don't think you need to lock it if there's information to come to light, I was only referring to the request being re-opened to be honest.