Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Wikitech

page move vandalism restrictions not working

  

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia wikitech RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


william.allen.simpson at gmail

Jul 2, 2006, 12:24 PM

Post #1 of 30 (2082 views)
Permalink
page move vandalism restrictions not working
It amazes me, but several times in the past week, I've been blindsided
by page move vandals. The current restriction apparently allows moves
automatically after a week?

So, for example, we see see "User:Thing that goes on feet"
create a new user on 2006-06-20 07:38:17, make no contributions
for over a week, and suddenly do nearly 100 moves from 2006-07-01
13:46:01 to 13:52:55.

That's right, as many as 4 moves per second!

So, I propose 2 things:

No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
1 move per minute. Just reject them. That should be easy to do
in software. And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.

No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
seconds. Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed. Of
course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
may be hurrying to fix a problem.

Heck, these days I often have to wait half a minute to see the
response anyway. But I've noticed "edits" at a rate of 2-3 per
second from "normal" editors at times, and when confronted they've
claimed they aren't using a bot. Maybe not, but slow them down
enough that others can notice the changes and react in human time
frames.

Bug 6513



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


robchur at gmail

Jul 2, 2006, 12:33 PM

Post #2 of 30 (2039 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 02/07/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson [at] gmail> wrote:
> It amazes me, but several times in the past week, I've been blindsided
> by page move vandals. The current restriction apparently allows moves
> automatically after a week?

Moves are restricted to logged-in, autoconfirmed users. Right now,
that means a user whose account has existed for 4 * 86400 seconds, or
four days.

> No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
> 1 move per minute. Just reject them. That should be easy to do
> in software. And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.

I explained on the recent bug you filed that the ping limiter was
switched off and even wrote that we'd need to rewrite it.

> No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
> seconds. Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed. Of
> course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
> may be hurrying to fix a problem.

Queuing edits brings problems of its own.


Rob Church
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


stevage at gmail

Jul 2, 2006, 1:26 PM

Post #3 of 30 (2038 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/2/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson [at] gmail> wrote:
> No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
> 1 move per minute. Just reject them. That should be easy to do
> in software. And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.
>
> No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
> seconds. Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed. Of
> course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
> may be hurrying to fix a problem.

Queueing moves? Eep. Why not just reject page move requests that take
place within 60 seconds of the last, with no restrictions for admins?

> Heck, these days I often have to wait half a minute to see the
> response anyway. But I've noticed "edits" at a rate of 2-3 per
> second from "normal" editors at times, and when confronted they've
> claimed they aren't using a bot. Maybe not, but slow them down
> enough that others can notice the changes and react in human time
> frames.

It's possible to edit at 2-3 per second without using a bot, if you
open multiple tabs in your browser, and press "save" almost
simultaneously in them all. I've done that on a number of occasions.
Also, AWB isn't a bot, but can exhibit behaviour like that.

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


xaosflux at gmail

Jul 2, 2006, 3:00 PM

Post #4 of 30 (2032 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
Restrcitions like this may have unwanted affects on large legit proxy/ ISP
proxy servers.

xaosflux

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Allen Simpson" <william.allen.simpson [at] gmail>
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l [at] wikimedia>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 3:24 PM
Subject: [Wikitech-l] page move vandalism restrictions not working


> It amazes me, but several times in the past week, I've been blindsided
> by page move vandals. The current restriction apparently allows moves
> automatically after a week?
>
> So, for example, we see see "User:Thing that goes on feet"
> create a new user on 2006-06-20 07:38:17, make no contributions
> for over a week, and suddenly do nearly 100 moves from 2006-07-01
> 13:46:01 to 13:52:55.
>
> That's right, as many as 4 moves per second!
>
> So, I propose 2 things:
>
> No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
> 1 move per minute. Just reject them. That should be easy to do
> in software. And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.
>
> No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
> seconds. Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed. Of
> course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
> may be hurrying to fix a problem.
>
> Heck, these days I often have to wait half a minute to see the
> response anyway. But I've noticed "edits" at a rate of 2-3 per
> second from "normal" editors at times, and when confronted they've
> claimed they aren't using a bot. Maybe not, but slow them down
> enough that others can notice the changes and react in human time
> frames.
>
> Bug 6513
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


stevage at gmail

Jul 2, 2006, 3:03 PM

Post #5 of 30 (2037 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/3/06, xaosflux <xaosflux [at] gmail> wrote:
> Restrcitions like this may have unwanted affects on large legit proxy/ ISP
> proxy servers.

Not if they're done per username, rather than per IP.

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


william.allen.simpson at gmail

Jul 2, 2006, 4:43 PM

Post #6 of 30 (2041 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/2/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson [at] gmail> wrote:
>> No bot or editor or administrator should be able to do more than
>> 1 move per minute. Just reject them. That should be easy to do
>> in software. And maybe enforcement of clearing double redirects.
>>
> Queueing moves? Eep. Why not just reject page move requests that take
> place within 60 seconds of the last, with no restrictions for admins?
>
Sorry, but that's not what I wrote in the paragraph above, "Just
reject them." I'd include the same restrictions for administrators.

There are too many administrators that may be well-meaning, but skim
without understanding instructions, or don't bother to fix double
redirects, or are quite simply technically incompetent.


>> No bot or editor should be able to do more than 1 edit per 20
>> seconds. Just queue the edit until the time has elapsed. Of
>> course, administrators should be able to go faster, as they
>> may be hurrying to fix a problem.
>
I'd thought queuing edits would be OK, with no restrictions for
administrators. Don't have any idea how hard to implement here. In
my long ago database days, it was a feature that was implementable in
foxbase, so I'm sure that the fancier tools of today would be easy.


>> Heck, these days I often have to wait half a minute to see the
>> response anyway. But I've noticed "edits" at a rate of 2-3 per
>> second from "normal" editors at times, and when confronted they've
>> claimed they aren't using a bot. Maybe not, but slow them down
>> enough that others can notice the changes and react in human time
>> frames.
>
> It's possible to edit at 2-3 per second without using a bot, if you
> open multiple tabs in your browser, and press "save" almost
> simultaneously in them all. I've done that on a number of occasions.
> Also, AWB isn't a bot, but can exhibit behaviour like that.
>
It might be possible, but it's not desirable in a shared environment.

And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


ligulem at pobox

Jul 2, 2006, 11:49 PM

Post #7 of 30 (2026 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
"William Allen Simpson" wrote
> ..
> And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.

AWB can be used in bot mode. But then, the user must be logged in and registered
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots
under the section "Bots" (a fully protected page).

And AWB cannot do page moves.

--Adrian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ligulem



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


stevage at gmail

Jul 3, 2006, 12:25 AM

Post #8 of 30 (2046 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/3/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson [at] gmail> wrote:
> Sorry, but that's not what I wrote in the paragraph above, "Just
> reject them." I'd include the same restrictions for administrators.

Why? We trust admins.

> There are too many administrators that may be well-meaning, but skim
> without understanding instructions, or don't bother to fix double
> redirects, or are quite simply technically incompetent.

Sack 'em.

> I'd thought queuing edits would be OK, with no restrictions for
> administrators. Don't have any idea how hard to implement here. In
> my long ago database days, it was a feature that was implementable in
> foxbase, so I'm sure that the fancier tools of today would be easy.

It just sounds like a lot of work for not much gain. There is
absolutely no problem whatsoever with people making fast edits
*except* on the rare cases of vandalism. Much better to *detect* the
fast edits, alert an admin, then block them if they're a vandal. In
any case 1 per 20 seconds is very slow...there are plenty of times
I've edited faster than that, and waiting for the edits to be queued
would get very tedious very quickly. And for what benefit?

> > It's possible to edit at 2-3 per second without using a bot, if you
> > open multiple tabs in your browser, and press "save" almost
> > simultaneously in them all. I've done that on a number of occasions.
> > Also, AWB isn't a bot, but can exhibit behaviour like that.
> >
> It might be possible, but it's not desirable in a shared environment.

???

> And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.

I didn't realise that, thanks.

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


essjaywiki at gmail

Jul 3, 2006, 12:36 AM

Post #9 of 30 (2038 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/3/06, xaosflux <xaosflux [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> Restrcitions like this may have unwanted affects on large legit proxy/ ISP
>> proxy servers.
>>
>
> Not if they're done per username, rather than per IP.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
So, we should allow unrestricted editing if you're logged out, but not
if you're logged in? What's the point of restricting it for logged in
users if you'll inconvenience legit editors, who may then leave, and
vandals will just go right on vandalizing while logged out.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


stevage at gmail

Jul 3, 2006, 2:23 AM

Post #10 of 30 (2033 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/3/06, Essjay <essjaywiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> So, we should allow unrestricted editing if you're logged out, but not
> if you're logged in? What's the point of restricting it for logged in
> users if you'll inconvenience legit editors, who may then leave, and
> vandals will just go right on vandalizing while logged out.

Ok, maybe we should start this discussion again, I'm getting lost. Is
this about page moves or normal edits? For starters, I specifically
think we should aim *not* to "inconvenience legit editors". For anons,
if there is no way to tell the difference between 100 anons sharing
the same IP (like a proxy) making one edit each per minute, and 1 anon
making 100 edits in a minute, then I don't think we should apply any
restrictions at all.

In any case, I don't really see any major benefit in these proposed
restrictions on editing too fast...what problem is trying to be solved
here? Restrictions on page moves could be useful, to combat the rare
annoying vandal...but still.

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


essjaywiki at gmail

Jul 3, 2006, 7:00 AM

Post #11 of 30 (2024 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/3/06, Essjay <essjaywiki [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> So, we should allow unrestricted editing if you're logged out, but not
>> if you're logged in? What's the point of restricting it for logged in
>> users if you'll inconvenience legit editors, who may then leave, and
>> vandals will just go right on vandalizing while logged out.
>>
>
> Ok, maybe we should start this discussion again, I'm getting lost. Is
> this about page moves or normal edits? For starters, I specifically
> think we should aim *not* to "inconvenience legit editors". For anons,
> if there is no way to tell the difference between 100 anons sharing
> the same IP (like a proxy) making one edit each per minute, and 1 anon
> making 100 edits in a minute, then I don't think we should apply any
> restrictions at all.
>
> In any case, I don't really see any major benefit in these proposed
> restrictions on editing too fast...what problem is trying to be solved
> here? Restrictions on page moves could be useful, to combat the rare
> annoying vandal...but still.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
I think I have to agree with all of the above; it seems this delved off
as a sub-thread of the original, discussing edit throttles rather than
pagemoves. I certainly have to agree with questioning the benefit of any
change at all; we're doing pretty well without any restrictions, and if
a wiki is having a problem with pagemove vandalism, it shouldn't be that
hard for a list full of techies (Disclaimer: I'm not one.) to come up
with a pagemove-vandal-blocking-bot just like the one running on en.wiki.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


mdd4696 at gmail

Jul 3, 2006, 7:11 AM

Post #12 of 30 (2039 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
> "William Allen Simpson" wrote
> > ..
> > And AWB is capable of running without user interaction, so it's a bot.
>
> AWB can be used in bot mode. But then, the user must be logged in and registered
> at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots
> under the section "Bots" (a fully protected page).
>
> And AWB cannot do page moves.
>
> --Adrian

The source code is available to anyone with a little technical savvy...

~Mdd4696
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


william.allen.simpson at gmail

Jul 3, 2006, 10:49 AM

Post #13 of 30 (2036 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
Essjay wrote:
> I think I have to agree with all of the above; it seems this delved off
> as a sub-thread of the original, discussing edit throttles rather than
> pagemoves. I certainly have to agree with questioning the benefit of any
> change at all; we're doing pretty well without any restrictions, and if
> a wiki is having a problem with pagemove vandalism, it shouldn't be that
> hard for a list full of techies (Disclaimer: I'm not one.) to come up
> with a pagemove-vandal-blocking-bot just like the one running on en.wiki.
>
Which doesn't work well during rapid moves. Again, the proposal is to
throttle pages moves to one per minute. Not hard, the move is already
logged per user, and gives time to respond in the cases of abuse.


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


stevage at gmail

Jul 3, 2006, 1:34 PM

Post #14 of 30 (2024 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/3/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson [at] gmail> wrote:
> Which doesn't work well during rapid moves. Again, the proposal is to
> throttle pages moves to one per minute. Not hard, the move is already
> logged per user, and gives time to respond in the cases of abuse.

I wouldn't be keen if this applied to *all* users. I've done around 50
page moves in maybe 5 minutes - and I'm not a vandal. Sometimes you
want to standardise the naming for a category. In my case, I was
renaming all the French rivers from like "Garonne" to "Garonne River".

Good detection and blocking tools, definitely. Imposing a random limit
on everyone because of one or two very new users carrying out
vandalism? Let's avoid it...

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


t.starling at physics

Jul 3, 2006, 9:11 PM

Post #15 of 30 (2041 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> It amazes me, but several times in the past week, I've been blindsided
> by page move vandals. The current restriction apparently allows moves
> automatically after a week?

I'm surprised it hasn't been said yet, but the classic wiki solution to page
move vandalism is not to put up barriers to making contributions, but rather
to make vandalism easier to revert. I made a "revert" link in the page move
log a while back, but a lot of people don't know about it, and it's far from
ideal. What we really need is a big list of checkboxes on the user
contribution page, with a "select all" box. Click select all, click revert,
job done. The function would be restricted in the same way as rollback. With
the 1.5 schema, moving pages is quite a fast operation, similar to editing.

Throttling is necessary to prevent extremely high request rate attacks, but
it should be set to a level that won't inconvenience regular users. The
UserThrottle extension can be adapted for this purpose.

If you can't revert page moves in a shorter time than it takes to perform
them in the first place, then there's a problem with our user interface.

-- Tim Starling

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


stevage at gmail

Jul 4, 2006, 12:09 AM

Post #16 of 30 (2032 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/4/06, Tim Starling <t.starling [at] physics> wrote:
> I'm surprised it hasn't been said yet, but the classic wiki solution to page
> move vandalism is not to put up barriers to making contributions, but rather
> to make vandalism easier to revert. I made a "revert" link in the page move
> log a while back, but a lot of people don't know about it, and it's far from
> ideal. What we really need is a big list of checkboxes on the user
> contribution page, with a "select all" box. Click select all, click revert,
> job done. The function would be restricted in the same way as rollback. With
> the 1.5 schema, moving pages is quite a fast operation, similar to editing.

Oh, grouped rollback, lovely.

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


william.allen.simpson at gmail

Jul 4, 2006, 9:01 AM

Post #17 of 30 (2040 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/3/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Which doesn't work well during rapid moves. Again, the proposal is to
>> throttle pages moves to one per minute. Not hard, the move is already
>> logged per user, and gives time to respond in the cases of abuse.
>
> I wouldn't be keen if this applied to *all* users. I've done around 50
> page moves in maybe 5 minutes - and I'm not a vandal. Sometimes you
> want to standardise the naming for a category. In my case, I was
> renaming all the French rivers from like "Garonne" to "Garonne River".
>
You are asserting that you moved each page, checked for and fixed all
double redirects, and changed the bold page title; personally reviewing
and verifying 3 or more actions for 50 pages, all in under 5 minutes
(300 seconds, a rate of 2 seconds or less per edit). Two responses:

1) There really isn't such a rush, this isn't a competition.

2) I don't believe you.

> Good detection and blocking tools, definitely. Imposing a random limit
> on everyone because of one or two very new users carrying out
> vandalism? Let's avoid it...
>
It's not random. It brings all response times back to human scale.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


timwi at gmx

Jul 4, 2006, 11:13 AM

Post #18 of 30 (2029 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>>I wouldn't be keen if this applied to *all* users. I've done around 50
>>page moves in maybe 5 minutes - and I'm not a vandal. Sometimes you
>>want to standardise the naming for a category. In my case, I was
>>renaming all the French rivers from like "Garonne" to "Garonne River".
>
> You are asserting that you moved each page, checked for and fixed all
> double redirects, and changed the bold page title; personally reviewing
> and verifying 3 or more actions for 50 pages, all in under 5 minutes
> (300 seconds, a rate of 2 seconds or less per edit). Two responses:
>
> 1) There really isn't such a rush, this isn't a competition.

This kind of sentiment (which appears to be widespread) assumes that
everyone in the world has some sort of pressing need to do something
useful for Wikipedia. You blindly assume that everyone will perform the
same amount of work independent of how inconvenient it is or how long it
will take, supposedly because they have some inherent urge to do that
work and will not be held back by any obstruction. Has anyone ever
thought that if something is less convenient or takes more time, that
people are by logical consequence less likely to even do it at all?

> 2) I don't believe you.

You made several unreasonable assumptions above. He only said he moved
50 pages within 5 minutes (= 6 seconds per move). This is completely
reasonable and believable. You suddenly assert that the subsequent
clean-up work must also fall within those 5 minutes. Heck, even
asserting that this clean-up work was done at all is unreasonable in itself.

Timwi

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


stevage at gmail

Jul 4, 2006, 11:25 AM

Post #19 of 30 (2034 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/4/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson [at] gmail> wrote:
> > I wouldn't be keen if this applied to *all* users. I've done around 50
> > page moves in maybe 5 minutes - and I'm not a vandal. Sometimes you
> > want to standardise the naming for a category. In my case, I was
> > renaming all the French rivers from like "Garonne" to "Garonne River".
> >
> You are asserting that you moved each page, checked for and fixed all
> double redirects, and changed the bold page title; personally reviewing
> and verifying 3 or more actions for 50 pages, all in under 5 minutes
> (300 seconds, a rate of 2 seconds or less per edit). Two responses:

For what it's worth, I don't check for double redirects. I consider
something them a bot could do a lot better. And they're not that
harmful.

(which isn't to say that fixing double redirects is to be discouraged,
it's just a way of helping Wikipedia that I choose not to perform. I
figure the benefits of standard naming outweigh the temporary
downsides of the DRs. And I thoroughly reject any notion that one
should not do beneficial thing A because one didn't also do beneficial
thing B.)

> 1) There really isn't such a rush, this isn't a competition.

Ah, ok. So, I should probably only, like, make, what, one Wikipedia
edit per day?

> 2) I don't believe you.

What was the claim again, 50 pages in 5 minutes? Well, it turns out I
only managed 5 per minute:

# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Arly (moved Arly to Arly River:
consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject French
départements)) (top)
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Arly River (moved Arly to Arly
River: consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject French
départements)) (top)
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Armançon (moved Armançon to
Armançon River: consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject
French départements)) (top)
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Armançon River (moved Armançon to
Armançon River: consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject
French départements))
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Arve (moved Arve to Arve River:
consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject French
départements)) (top)
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Arve River (moved Arve to Arve
River: consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject French
départements))
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Ille (moved Ille to Ille River:
consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject French
départements)) (top)
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Ille River (moved Ille to Ille
River: consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject French
départements)) (top)
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) Huisne (moved Huisne to Huisne
River: consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject French
départements)) (top)
# 08:53, 29 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Huisne River (moved Huisne to
Huisne River: consistency (see discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject
French départements))

But hey, it's not a race :)

> It's not random. It brings all response times back to human scale.

Yay, I'm superhuman. And I wasn't even trying! Imagine if I trained a bit...

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


robchur at gmail

Jul 4, 2006, 12:28 PM

Post #20 of 30 (2030 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 04/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevage [at] gmail> wrote:
> Yay, I'm superhuman. And I wasn't even trying! Imagine if I trained a bit...

I'll put you in touch with Marvel, and the people who make those cute
plastic action figures.


Rob Church
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


beng at garagegames

Jul 4, 2006, 12:37 PM

Post #21 of 30 (2029 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevage [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>
> Yay, I'm superhuman. And I wasn't even trying! Imagine if I trained a
> bit...


Nevermind that human response time lives in the sub-one-second range. If we
had a good enough interface and fast enough servers, you could easily see
people moving ~60 articles/second, doing subsecond edits, etc.

I could especially see frequent edits from someone fixing spelling or
punctuation - pedantic, yes, but definitely adding value to the wiki.

Wikis are designed to be self-healing. Anything that reduces the capacity of
the wiki to be edited is contrary to the nature of the wiki. This implies
that there will be uneasiness - we don't always WANT things to be in flux! -
but that's what a wiki is all about. It's better to have tools that can deal
with that - for instance, by mass reverting a user's contributions - rather
than penalizing all the innocents out there.

Also - never, never, never make assumptions about what's humanly possible or
not. Physically possible, maybe. If it's a real human doing editing then
they may as well go as fast as they want to, and who are we to tell them
it's wrong?

Maybe what would make sense here would be doing something like
stochastically requesting captchas from people doing frequent edits. Give
them credit the more they answer right, so they get them less frequently.
Make sure it doesn't break on massively tabbed edits. ;) Post a safe
threshold under which you'll never get a captcha, so bots can fly under the
radar if they go slowly.

--
Ben Garney
Torque Technologies Director
GarageGames.Com, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


stevage at gmail

Jul 4, 2006, 12:55 PM

Post #22 of 30 (2039 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On 7/4/06, Ben Garney <beng [at] garagegames> wrote:
> Wikis are designed to be self-healing. Anything that reduces the capacity of
> the wiki to be edited is contrary to the nature of the wiki. This implies
> that there will be uneasiness - we don't always WANT things to be in flux! -
> but that's what a wiki is all about. It's better to have tools that can deal
> with that - for instance, by mass reverting a user's contributions - rather
> than penalizing all the innocents out there.
>
> Also - never, never, never make assumptions about what's humanly possible or
> not. Physically possible, maybe. If it's a real human doing editing then
> they may as well go as fast as they want to, and who are we to tell them
> it's wrong?

I suppose the simple example would be: if the MediaWiki interface let
me rename every single river to meet the "...River" naming convention,
in one single second, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

The answer is, "good thing". One might then argue that giving such
power to vandals is bad. But that wasn't the question: the question
was whether *I* should have such power...

Steve
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


timwi at gmx

Jul 4, 2006, 12:56 PM

Post #23 of 30 (2039 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
Tim Starling wrote:
>
> I'm surprised it hasn't been said yet, but the classic wiki solution to page
> move vandalism is not to put up barriers to making contributions, but rather
> to make vandalism easier to revert.

I'm surprised (well, rather disappointed) that this even needs saying.
It implies that most people here don't know what wiki is all about.

Timwi

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


jra at baylink

Jul 4, 2006, 1:08 PM

Post #24 of 30 (2023 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 07:13:08PM +0100, Timwi wrote:
> This kind of sentiment (which appears to be widespread) assumes that
> everyone in the world has some sort of pressing need to do something
> useful for Wikipedia. You blindly assume that everyone will perform the
> same amount of work independent of how inconvenient it is or how long it
> will take, supposedly because they have some inherent urge to do that
> work and will not be held back by any obstruction. Has anyone ever
> thought that if something is less convenient or takes more time, that
> people are by logical consequence less likely to even do it at all?

Certainly.

The curve is probably even logarithmic. The linearly easier you make a
process, the logarithmically more times people will use that process,
would be my bet.

I know it personally applies to me.

Cheers
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra [at] baylink
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


jra at baylink

Jul 4, 2006, 1:09 PM

Post #25 of 30 (2025 views)
Permalink
Re: page move vandalism restrictions not working [In reply to]
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 08:28:33PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> On 04/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevage [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Yay, I'm superhuman. And I wasn't even trying! Imagine if I trained a bit...
>
> I'll put you in touch with Marvel, and the people who make those cute
> plastic action figures.

And the award for Outstanding Effort in Understated Humor In A Mailing
List Reply goes to...

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra [at] baylink
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] wikimedia
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia wikitech RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.