Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

michael west-3
Recent patrol seems to be a better game than anything you can buy. Zappin
vandalism before cluebot or another rcer and bangin up counts is very cool.
ICQ is full on afternoons of did ya see that? AIV listed in 30secs. What on
earth is this game? The worst thing is that  these editors are
mentoring/tutoring new editors to slow down.

The current RC game is lame. Flagged rollback will always miss out cross-ip
abuse. Abusers never get tagged until they are met with a  real time Rcer/s
and a great deal of the abuse is to game a  GOOGLE bot abuse, cleaned within
a minute, but could well be cached for a week.

Oy I don't know how google pick and choose articles to cache. It is a game
(wp:beans lol).

Can I mess about with an American icon under a proxy for 3 days? I wouldn't
even want to try.

mike
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Risker
2008/5/2 michael west <[hidden email]>:

> Recent patrol seems to be a better game than anything you can buy. Zappin
> vandalism before cluebot or another rcer and bangin up counts is very
> cool.
> ICQ is full on afternoons of did ya see that? AIV listed in 30secs. What
> on
> earth is this game? The worst thing is that  these editors are
> mentoring/tutoring new editors to slow down.
>
> The current RC game is lame. Flagged rollback will always miss out
> cross-ip
> abuse. Abusers never get tagged until they are met with a  real time
> Rcer/s
> and a great deal of the abuse is to game a  GOOGLE bot abuse, cleaned
> within
> a minute, but could well be cached for a week.
>
> Oy I don't know how google pick and choose articles to cache. It is a game
> (wp:beans lol).
>
> Can I mess about with an American icon under a proxy for 3 days? I
> wouldn't
> even want to try.
>
> mike
>

Funny...for completely different reasons, I ran across a block that probably
resulted from exactly this "game" - relatively inexperienced user trying to
remove "sourced content", warned by 3 different users, blocked by another.
The only catch was - the now-blocked editor, as sloppy as his edits were,
was actually correct.  The information he was removing was being attributed
to references that said no such thing.  After a few similarly unpleasant
encounters, the rarely posting editor flamed out and was indef blocked.
Subsequent evidence suggests he was probably the subject of the BLP for
which he was blocked.

Speed isn't quite everything.

Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Alex G-3
How was his edit summary usage?  Quite often these gamers will use cheats
and codes such as non-summarised edits to help get exp points.  This can be
contradicted using the spell found in Special:Preferences.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Philip Sandifer-2
In reply to this post by Risker

On May 1, 2008, at 11:11 PM, Risker wrote:

> Funny...for completely different reasons, I ran across a block that  
> probably
> resulted from exactly this "game" - relatively inexperienced user  
> trying to
> remove "sourced content", warned by 3 different users, blocked by  
> another.
> The only catch was - the now-blocked editor, as sloppy as his edits  
> were,
> was actually correct.  The information he was removing was being  
> attributed
> to references that said no such thing.  After a few similarly  
> unpleasant
> encounters, the rarely posting editor flamed out and was indef  
> blocked.
> Subsequent evidence suggests he was probably the subject of the BLP  
> for
> which he was blocked.
>
> Speed isn't quite everything.

Yet another reason why our fetishistic obsession with sources needs to  
be toned down. By treating them as the be-all and end-all of content  
we make it far too easy to get utter lies through by citing them to a  
source. The worst are book sources - I know Danny, at one point,  
created a hoax article cited to a non-existent book with the ISBN of a  
Dr. Seuss book. This, of course, attracted no notice while we  
zealously remove entire accurate articles on important subjects for a  
lack of sources.

Wish I could remember what the article he created was so I could go  
delete it. He did it under a sock. It was on an African politician. I  
probably should have deleted it at the time, but I didn't feel like  
starting a fight with Danny.

/sigh

In any case, the point is, our sourcing policies have a tangental  
relationship at best to quality.

-Phil

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

michael west-3
In reply to this post by Alex G-3
2008/5/2 Alex G <[hidden email]>:

> How was his edit summary usage?  Quite often these gamers will use cheats
> and codes such as non-summarised edits to help get exp points.  This can
> be
> contradicted using the spell found in Special:Preferences.
>

Dunno - Yeah that Google gaming sounds weird. It's obvious disruptive edits
which the IP reverts. AGF says it was a sandboxing mistake, so you move on .
k maybe I am dreaming. the lulz is with google cache and that can stay there
for weeks. Ip without  a warning cus you can't really warn about a sandbox
reverse. It was only there for seconds. or am I dreaming?

mike
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Katie Chan
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 00:10 -0400, Philip Sandifer wrote:

> Yet another reason why our fetishistic obsession with sources needs to  
> be toned down. By treating them as the be-all and end-all of content  
> we make it far too easy to get utter lies through by citing them to a  
> source. The worst are book sources - I know Danny, at one point,  
> created a hoax article cited to a non-existent book with the ISBN of a  
> Dr. Seuss book. This, of course, attracted no notice while we  
> zealously remove entire accurate articles on important subjects for a  
> lack of sources.

The problem is not our obsession with sourcing. The problem is the
attitude of editors who see something is sourced, and immediately assume
the source actually stated the fact/claim.

> Wish I could remember what the article he created was so I could go  
> delete it. He did it under a sock. It was on an African politician. I  
> probably should have deleted it at the time, but I didn't feel like  
> starting a fight with Danny.

[[Edward Mipongwa]]. It was deleted end of February when he mentioned it
on his blog.

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Philip Sandifer-2

On May 2, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:

> The problem is not our obsession with sourcing. The problem is the
> attitude of editors who see something is sourced, and immediately  
> assume
> the source actually stated the fact/claim.

The latter is a fairly unavoidable consequence of the former, I should  
think. Or, perhaps more accurately, of applying the former to every  
statement in every article, which is unmanageable.

-Phil

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
Philip Sandifer wrote:
> Yet another reason why our fetishistic obsession with sources needs to  
> be toned down. By treating them as the be-all and end-all of content  
> we make it far too easy to get utter lies through by citing them to a  
> source. The worst are book sources - I know Danny, at one point,  
> created a hoax article cited to a non-existent book with the ISBN of a  
> Dr. Seuss book. This, of course, attracted no notice while we  
> zealously remove entire accurate articles on important subjects for a  
> lack of sources.
>  
This all comes from spoon-feeding readers into the expectation that
sources have been accurately interpreted.  Similarly with copyright if
we purport to guarantee that our material is reusable the reusers take
that as an excuse to avoid their own due diligence.
> Wish I could remember what the article he created was so I could go  
> delete it. He did it under a sock. It was on an African politician. I  
> probably should have deleted it at the time, but I didn't feel like  
> starting a fight with Danny.
Not starting a fight with X probably comes up more often than it
should.  We weigh accuracy against the willingness to engage in a
protracted fight with some known tendentious individual.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

WODUP
In reply to this post by Philip Sandifer-2
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Philip Sandifer <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>  Wish I could remember what the article he created was so I could go
> delete it. He did it under a sock. It was on an African politician. I
> probably should have deleted it at the time, but I didn't feel like
> starting a fight with Danny.


So it's still out there? Nice.

--
WODUP
Editor and Administrator
English Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Majorly
2008/5/3 WODUP <[hidden email]>:
>
> So it's still out there? Nice.
>

No, it was deleted in February apparently.

Something I read once... a lot of the time, users will blank a page not for
testing or malicious purposes, but because there is a serious problem with
the article. Particularly if it's with a BLP, please be especially patient
with the "vandal", as it may well be the subject themself. Discussion of the
issue can help immensely, and maybe even make a productive editor instead of
a pissed off BLP victim.

--
Alex Newman
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Tony Sidaway
In reply to this post by michael west-3
2008/5/2 michael west <[hidden email]>:
>
>  Can I mess about with an American icon under a proxy for 3 days? I wouldn't
>  even want to try.

I'm not exactly a technophobe, having written my first computer
program while still at school, in 1973, and made my living exclusively
from programming computers in three decades.  I have become familiar
with, then expert in, software technologies devised by people who were
not even born when I left school, so I'm no stick-in-the-mud.

I do have a problem with the above posting, however, and that problem
is that it was so full of jargon that I could not really understand
it.  The quoted section is only a small part of the problem.  What, in
this context, is "an American icon"?  One of those little smudgy
pictures of a flag as sometimes used on Wikipedia, perhaps?  Or a
famous American like Madonna?  What is the meaning of "proxy" in this
context?  I suppose the most likely candidate here is an anonymizing
http proxy, a program that attempts to conceal the origin of your
online requests.

The trouble is, neither of the interpretations available from the
above analysis makes any sense.  Moreover the complaint about RC
(Recent Changes patrol, perhaps?) was incomprehensible.  "Flagged
rollback will always miss out cross-ip abuse."  Eh?

Moreover the complaint about Google caching appears to be
technologically illiterate: the content of the Google cache has
absolutely no effect on the content of Wikipedia pages.  We should no
more worry about it that we should worry about some drunk's
interpretation of a misheard conversation in a pub.

Recent changes is a necessary job, and a pretty simple one that has
become more automated over the past three years.  It is necessary to
be clear about what it involves, however: examining edits and removing
bad ones.  Failing to recognise that stark simplicity can lead, and
appears to have led here, to the adoption of obscure and confusing
jargon, the invention of problems that either don't exist or are
outside the purview of a website by any reasonable definition, and
resulting time wasted talking about non-problems.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

michael west-3
On 03/05/2008, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2008/5/2 michael west <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >  Can I mess about with an American icon under a proxy for 3 days? I
> wouldn't
> >  even want to try.
>
> I'm not exactly a technophobe, having written my first computer
> program while still at school, in 1973, and made my living exclusively
> from programming computers in three decades.  I have become familiar
> with, then expert in, software technologies devised by people who were
> not even born when I left school, so I'm no stick-in-the-mud.
>
> I do have a problem with the above posting, however, and that problem
> is that it was so full of jargon that I could not really understand
> it.  The quoted section is only a small part of the problem.  What, in
> this context, is "an American icon"?  One of those little smudgy
> pictures of a flag as sometimes used on Wikipedia, perhaps?  Or a
> famous American like Madonna?  What is the meaning of "proxy" in this
> context?  I suppose the most likely candidate here is an anonymizing
> http proxy, a program that attempts to conceal the origin of your
> online requests.
>
> The trouble is, neither of the interpretations available from the
> above analysis makes any sense.  Moreover the complaint about RC
> (Recent Changes patrol, perhaps?) was incomprehensible.  "Flagged
> rollback will always miss out cross-ip abuse."  Eh?
>
> Moreover the complaint about Google caching appears to be
> technologically illiterate: the content of the Google cache has
> absolutely no effect on the content of Wikipedia pages.  We should no
> more worry about it that we should worry about some drunk's
> interpretation of a misheard conversation in a pub.
>
> Recent changes is a necessary job, and a pretty simple one that has
> become more automated over the past three years.  It is necessary to
> be clear about what it involves, however: examining edits and removing
> bad ones.  Failing to recognise that stark simplicity can lead, and
> appears to have led here, to the adoption of obscure and confusing
> jargon, the invention of problems that either don't exist or are
> outside the purview of a website by any reasonable definition, and
> resulting time wasted talking about non-problems.


Ooops sorry Tony,  "Flagged rollback will always miss out cross-ip abuse."
was an attempt at explaining the problem where several edits have been made
by unregistered/not logged in editors who have vandalised pages and the
editor monitoring recent changes has used their automated rollback rights to
restore another vandal edit.

The google cache is not a problem for Wikipedia, though it was an attempt to
explain a modus operandae of editors who vandalise a page and quickly
restores it to an unvandalised state. Assuming good faith would point to it
being a test edit. The real motive is possibly sinister and the google cache
may well display the "is a jerk" edit.

This thread and the "Another example of a bad biographical article" thread
will hopefully become redundant when flagged/sighted revisions transform the
copy that readers see. I do also appreciate that attempts to explain some
routines in Wikipedia do often use phrases completely out of context, though
surely I am not the only one guilty.

mike
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Andrew Gray
2008/5/3 michael west <[hidden email]>:

>  The google cache is not a problem for Wikipedia, though it was an attempt to
>  explain a modus operandae of editors who vandalise a page and quickly
>  restores it to an unvandalised state. Assuming good faith would point to it
>  being a test edit. The real motive is possibly sinister and the google cache
>  may well display the "is a jerk" edit.

I'm not sold on this as anything more than a convenient way of
justifying an assumption of it being malicious.

The google cache for a given page updates anything from daily to once
a month. If we assume they vandalise, leave it for two minutes, and
clean up, then they're doing this with - at best - a 0.15% chance of
having the vandalism cached. On a low traffic page (most are), it
becomes even smaller.

It seems implausible that anyone would on the one hand be cunning and
subtle enough to systematically think of the google cache, but on the
other not realise how much of a waste of time this would be.

--
- Andrew Gray
 [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

michael west-3
2008/5/3 Andrew Gray <[hidden email]>:

> 2008/5/3 michael west <[hidden email]>:
>
> >  The google cache is not a problem for Wikipedia, though it was an
> attempt to
> >  explain a modus operandae of editors who vandalise a page and quickly
> >  restores it to an unvandalised state. Assuming good faith would point
> to it
> >  being a test edit. The real motive is possibly sinister and the google
> cache
> >  may well display the "is a jerk" edit.
>
> I'm not sold on this as anything more than a convenient way of
> justifying an assumption of it being malicious.
>
> The google cache for a given page updates anything from daily to once
> a month. If we assume they vandalise, leave it for two minutes, and
> clean up, then they're doing this with - at best - a 0.15% chance of
> having the vandalism cached. On a low traffic page (most are), it
> becomes even smaller.
>
> It seems implausible that anyone would on the one hand be cunning and
> subtle enough to systematically think of the google cache, but on the
> other not realise how much of a waste of time this would be.
>
>
Dunno plausibility could be argued about all day. Your math is outta sight,
in any given instance it would be much much lower than anything resembling
0.15%.  AGF would presume that a warning would be inappropriate because we
can't see the motive behind the edits.  Maybe I am guilty of [[WP:BEANS]]
implying  that  a new game exists, but it is certainly a strange and
annoying kind of editing when somebody vandalises, restores, vandalises and
restores ad infinitum with editors stuck (a) attempting to consider what
motive lie behind the edits and (b) [[WP:AIV]] would surely question test
edit warnings that aren't disruptive.

mike
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

Todd Allen
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:57 PM, michael west <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2008/5/3 Andrew Gray <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>  > 2008/5/3 michael west <[hidden email]>:
>  >
>  > >  The google cache is not a problem for Wikipedia, though it was an
>  > attempt to
>  > >  explain a modus operandae of editors who vandalise a page and quickly
>  > >  restores it to an unvandalised state. Assuming good faith would point
>  > to it
>  > >  being a test edit. The real motive is possibly sinister and the google
>  > cache
>  > >  may well display the "is a jerk" edit.
>  >
>  > I'm not sold on this as anything more than a convenient way of
>  > justifying an assumption of it being malicious.
>  >
>  > The google cache for a given page updates anything from daily to once
>  > a month. If we assume they vandalise, leave it for two minutes, and
>  > clean up, then they're doing this with - at best - a 0.15% chance of
>  > having the vandalism cached. On a low traffic page (most are), it
>  > becomes even smaller.
>  >
>  > It seems implausible that anyone would on the one hand be cunning and
>  > subtle enough to systematically think of the google cache, but on the
>  > other not realise how much of a waste of time this would be.
>  >
>  >
>  Dunno plausibility could be argued about all day. Your math is outta sight,
>  in any given instance it would be much much lower than anything resembling
>  0.15%.  AGF would presume that a warning would be inappropriate because we
>  can't see the motive behind the edits.  Maybe I am guilty of [[WP:BEANS]]
>  implying  that  a new game exists, but it is certainly a strange and
>  annoying kind of editing when somebody vandalises, restores, vandalises and
>  restores ad infinitum with editors stuck (a) attempting to consider what
>  motive lie behind the edits and (b) [[WP:AIV]] would surely question test
>  edit warnings that aren't disruptive.
>
>  mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  [hidden email]
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I think the first thing to do with such edits would be to refer the
editor to the sandbox (which the lower level test/vandalism templates
do anyway), since they may just be making test edits to see what
happens. Of course, if they ignore that advice and persist, stronger
warnings and blocks could follow as normal. I don't see any reason or
need for special handling here.

--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Playing zap (Was the bad BLP)

michael west-3
2008/5/3 Todd Allen <[hidden email]>:

> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:57 PM, michael west <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2008/5/3 Andrew Gray <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >
> >  > 2008/5/3 michael west <[hidden email]>:
> >  >
> >  > >  The google cache is not a problem for Wikipedia, though it was an
> >  > attempt to
> >  > >  explain a modus operandae of editors who vandalise a page and
> quickly
> >  > >  restores it to an unvandalised state. Assuming good faith would
> point
> >  > to it
> >  > >  being a test edit. The real motive is possibly sinister and the
> google
> >  > cache
> >  > >  may well display the "is a jerk" edit.
> >  >
> >  > I'm not sold on this as anything more than a convenient way of
> >  > justifying an assumption of it being malicious.
> >  >
> >  > The google cache for a given page updates anything from daily to once
> >  > a month. If we assume they vandalise, leave it for two minutes, and
> >  > clean up, then they're doing this with - at best - a 0.15% chance of
> >  > having the vandalism cached. On a low traffic page (most are), it
> >  > becomes even smaller.
> >  >
> >  > It seems implausible that anyone would on the one hand be cunning and
> >  > subtle enough to systematically think of the google cache, but on the
> >  > other not realise how much of a waste of time this would be.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  Dunno plausibility could be argued about all day. Your math is outta
> sight,
> >  in any given instance it would be much much lower than anything
> resembling
> >  0.15%.  AGF would presume that a warning would be inappropriate because
> we
> >  can't see the motive behind the edits.  Maybe I am guilty of
> [[WP:BEANS]]
> >  implying  that  a new game exists, but it is certainly a strange and
> >  annoying kind of editing when somebody vandalises, restores, vandalises
> and
> >  restores ad infinitum with editors stuck (a) attempting to consider
> what
> >  motive lie behind the edits and (b) [[WP:AIV]] would surely question
> test
> >  edit warnings that aren't disruptive.
> >
> >  mike
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >  WikiEN-l mailing list
> >  [hidden email]
> >  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> I think the first thing to do with such edits would be to refer the
> editor to the sandbox (which the lower level test/vandalism templates
> do anyway), since they may just be making test edits to see what
> happens. Of course, if they ignore that advice and persist, stronger
> warnings and blocks could follow as normal. I don't see any reason or
> need for special handling here.


{{test1}} is pretty specific - it certainly can't be used in the instances
of editing explained. The edits already acknowledge that  bad edits can be
removed.  Carrying on the same  type of edits over tens of pages only
annoys and disruption is low.

BLP is a concern and recent change zapping is an issue if patrollers do it
off the cuff without evaluating the actual change of edit.

mike
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l