Quoting Kevin Fisher <kgf at golden.net>:

> Ignoring him won't stop the swiki from being damaged/locked/defaced.
> 
> Do you want to spend every day rolling it back and fixing it?  This is
> what's
> been going on and not surprisingly, it hasn't stopped the vandal one whit.
> I've seen things like Winamp.exe attached to pages on there for no reason..
> it's not much of a stretch to see pirated software appearing there as well.
> Then gatech (presumably) might have to deal with a visit from the BSA or 
> worse.

This is all certainly true.  Watch the Recent Changes list, and look how often
certain pages are changed: PNG, MIDI, Cheese, Squeak Swiki, and others.  If they
look okay, it's because they been recently fixed, check their history lists if
you want to see how often they get defaced.

We're already recording the domain of the person making the change, why not just
patch the code to not accept the change if the domain or IP is from a list of
IP's that the Swiki admin can manage?  Don't even complain about it, just don't
accept the change.  Kind of like the "twit bit" that some BBS's had when I was
addicted to them in the mid-80's.  If the twit bit was set, you could go through
the motions of posting a message, but the message wouldn't actually be posted. 
It would just be silently dropped on the floor.

We can ignore it, and then someone like socp-b.scsnet.com could just
destructively modify the site, and then we don't have the resource anymore.  Or
hey, we could just rename "Squeak" as "Snork" and be done with it.  Ignoring it
just means that people learn they can get away with it.  Others are encouraged
to do more if they see a reaction.  It's a no-win situation.

However, I prefer being able to have the resource.  So I'd like to defend it
somehow.

dave