Then again, apparently the Foundation has a PR team whose only job is to compile the latest marketing buzzwords, and they seem to really love AI. You might get some buy in. Never know.
V/r TJW/GMG
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 11:23 Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I think we need "signatures" which is my shorthand for things like a hash function or a bounding box, a means by which many non-matching accounts can be eliminated at low cost, reserving the high cost comparisons (machine or human) only for high probability candidates. It is machine-computed and *stored* on the banning/blocking of a user. When a suspect user is presented, it calculates their signature and then compares them against the pre-calculated signatures of the bad users. I don't think it is too expensive if we can find the right "signature". CPU cycles are pretty fast. I only have an average laptop CPU-wise but I burn through loads of comparisons of geographic boundaries (complex polygons with many points) thanks to bounding boxes which reduce the complex shape to the smallest rectangle that contains it. Testing intersection of polygons is expensive, testing the intersection of rectangles is trivial.
I think we can probably ignore the myriad of trivial bad guys for the purposes of signature collecting, eg blocked for vandalism after their first few edits. Sock puppets or their masters don't immediately appear as bad guys on individual edits. It's often more about long-term behaviours like POV pushing, refusal to engage in consensus building, slow burning edit wars, etc, that does not show on individual edits.
Kerry
Sent from my iPad
On 23 Aug 2019, at 11:42 pm, Timothy Wood timothyjosephwood@gmail.com wrote:
You are correct that in all but the most obvious cases, filing an SPI can be exceptionally time consuming. I'm afraid there is no obvious technical solution there that would not involve a complicated AI that is probably beyond the ability of the foundation to produce.
There is quite a bit of data available in the form of years of SPIs, but it seems like you're talking about Facebook or Google levels of machine learning, and even years of SPIs is tiny compared to the amount of data they work with.
On a separate note, frequently changing IP adresses is most often an indicator of nothing more than someone who is editing on a mobile connection. This can usually be easily verified with an online IP lookup.
V/r TJW/GMG
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 02:44 RhinosF1 rhinosf1@gmail.com wrote:
Just a note that you can still go through warnings for vandalism etc. and report to AIV.
Or at that edit speed, you may have a chance at AN at reporting for bot-like edits which will draw attention to the account.
If you ever need help, things like #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC exist so you can ask other users.
RhinosF1 Miraheze Volunteer
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:57, Kerry Raymond kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, to open a sockpuppet investigation, you must name the two (or more) accounts that you believe to be sockpuppets with "clear,
behavioural
evidence of sock puppetry" which is typically in the form of pairs of
edits
that demonstrate similar edit behaviours that are unlikely to naturally occur. Now if you spend enough time on-wiki, you develop an intuition
about
behaviours you see on your watchlist and in article edit histories.
Often I
am highly suspicious that an account is a sockpuppet, but I cannot
report
them because I don't know which other account is involved.
As a example, I recently encounted User:Shelati an account about 1 day
old
at that time with nearly 100 edits in that day all about 1-2 minutes
apart,
mostly making a similar change to a large number of Australian place infoboxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&...
fset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&...
&offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati
Genuine new users do not edit that quickly, do not use templates and do
not
mess structurally with infoboxes (at most they try to change the
values).
It "smelled" like a sockpuppet. However, as I did not recognise that
pattern
of edit behaviour as being that of any other user I was familiar with, it wasn't something I could report for sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow
after
about 2 weeks, the user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Someone must have noticed and figured out the other account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meganesia/
Archive
Two weeks and 1,279 edits later . that's over 1000 possibly problematic edits after I first suspected them. But that's nothing compared with another ongoing situation in which a very large number of different IPs are
engaged
in a pattern of problem edits on mostly Australian articles (a few different types of edits but an obvious "quack like a duck" situation). The IP
number
changes frequently (and one assumes deliberately). The edits
potentially go
back to 2013 but appear to have intensified in 2018/2019. Here's one
user's
summary of all the IP addresses involved, and the extent to which they
have
been cleaned up, given many thousands of edits are involved, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IamNotU/History_cleanup
As well as the damage done to the content (which harms the readers),
these
IP sockpuppets are consuming enormous amounts of effort to track them
down
and revert them, which could be more productively used to improve the content. We need better tools to foil these pests. So I want to put that challenge out to this list.
Kerry
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- RhinosF1 Miraheze Volunteer _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l