Slim Virgin wrote:
We already have too many admins. Every time this has been looked into, we find that's it a relatively small number of admins who are active. If we want to keep on promoting others, especially in such large numbers, we should start desyopping the inactive ones.
While we're at it, why don't we start blocking all of the user accounts of users who aren't active editors? Every time this has been looked into, we find that it's a relatively small number of users who actively edit.
Has anyone here ever heard of the [[Pareto principle]]?
Slim Virgin's comment reflects the sort of paranoid attitude that really needs to be countered. Is there any evidence whatsoever that inactive sysops are actually creating a problem? If there's no evidence of a problem, what exactly would desysopping them fix?
This whole sad thread began when Jayjg asked a question during an RfA based on information that he obtained using a power (checkuser) which even regular sysops do not possess. His question was posed to CharlotteWebb, a user who has done no discernible harm to Wikipedia. As justification for the question, Slim Virgin has proposed a scenario in which the user might be making harmless anti-vandal edits for the purpose of becoming an admin, with the ultimate goal of someday getting on ArbCom and wreaking havoc. Jayjg threw in some dark mutterings about WR and added ominously that *someone* has been leaking information about deleted pages to Wikitruth.
And Jayjg accuses *other* people of engaging in conspiracy theories?
Is there any evidence whatsoever, other than the fervent imaginations of Jayjg and Slim Virgin, to support the conclusion that CharlotteWebb is a front for the anti-Wikipedia forces that Slim and J think they're fighting?
To suggest that a user might be editing via a Tor proxy with the goal of someday getting on ArbCom so they can wreak havoc is a pretty fanciful conspiracy theory all by itself. To embellish it with ad hominem references to unrelated topics such as WR and WikiTruth takes it into tinfoil hats territory.
If someone wanted to do as Slim Virgin suggests, they would actually AVOID using TOR to edit under their "Trojan horse" user account. Using TOR just makes them more likely to stand out. Instead, they'd use an AOL account or some other disposable non-TOR vehicle to build up their ratings as a "respected user" and then as a respected sysop. If they were clever, they'd also make a point of siding with Slim Virgin and Jayjg and some other influential WIkipedians in a few editorial disputes, throwing in a bit of flattery to curry favor and ensure that no one suspects them of anything. Then they'd strike, get blocked, and start the whole game over again.
In short, there's no way to absolutely prevent someone from occasionally getting admin status and using it briefly for malicious purposes that can be visibly connected to his/her user name. There's probably no way to prevent someone from getting admin status and using it indefinitely for purposes that CANNOT be visibly connected to their user name (such as looking up deleted pages).
Fortunately, most vandals and trolls lack the patience and time to engage in this sort of thing. Wikipedia's "soft security" philosophy has been based on this realization: You can't absolutely secure the website against trolls and outside critics, but you CAN create an environment in which the time consumed in fighting vandals is minimized, and one of the ways that you accomplish this is by maximizing the number of people who are able to participate. If Wikipedia starts looking for excuses to desysop people such as "they haven't been active lately," it will hurt the project rather than help it.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Jayjg ... added ominously that *someone* has been leaking information about deleted pages to Wikitruth.
There's no question that someone with at least one admin account posted deleted material to Wikitruth. How else do you imagine it got there?
To embellish it with ad hominem references to unrelated topics such as WR and WikiTruth takes it into tinfoil hats territory.
You might want to take into account that there are issues you're not aware of. And the "tinfoil hats" insult is unhelpful.
There's probably no way to prevent someone from getting admin status and using it indefinitely for purposes that CANNOT be visibly connected to their user name (such as looking up deleted pages).
As I said earlier, your argument is like that of an airline that withdraws all security measures because 100 percent security is impossible.
We can't prevent it, but we can make it harder.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Jayjg ... added ominously that *someone* has been leaking information about deleted pages to Wikitruth.
There's no question that someone with at least one admin account posted deleted material to Wikitruth. How else do you imagine it got there?
There are many sources for deleted Wikipedia materials which do not at all require an admin account.
Are you saying you know of a particular instance of deleted materials which could not have come from anywhere but an admin? I suppose if so you're not willing to mention that instance?
On 6/19/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
There are many sources for deleted Wikipedia materials which do not at all require an admin account.
Are you saying you know of a particular instance of deleted materials which could not have come from anywhere but an admin? I suppose if so you're not willing to mention that instance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Restore_Wikitruth_info.png
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Jayjg ... added ominously that *someone* has been leaking information about deleted pages to Wikitruth.
There's no question that someone with at least one admin account posted deleted material to Wikitruth. How else do you imagine it got there?
There are many sources for deleted Wikipedia materials which do not at all require an admin account.
Well, you could suppose instead that, for every single deleted article reposted on Wiktruth, a non-admin just happened to have copied the version that was on the page prior to the deletion. As they didn't know when the deletion would happen, this involves believing that someone is copying every single version just in case, and furthermore that they're always able to predict which articles they ought to do that with, because sometimes the deletions have come without warning following a private complaint.
So: we have someone who is copying every single version of every single article just in case; or we have someone who is psychic and can intuit which articles are going to be deleted on which versions; or we have someone with an admin account who is copying deleted material.
Slim Virgin schreef:
Well, you could suppose instead that, for every single deleted article reposted on Wiktruth, a non-admin just happened to have copied the version that was on the page prior to the deletion.
I've checked some of the articles on Wikitruth; most, perhaps all of them were deleted *after* some controversy, or at least an AfD; or were un-deleted for a while. It's not impossible to regularly check an article you expect to be deleted, and then keep the last one you find. It's even possible to do this for all articles placed on AfD.
So it's not impossible for non-admins to create the site.
So: we have someone who is copying every single version of every single article just in case; or we have someone who is psychic and can intuit which articles are going to be deleted on which versions; or we have someone with an admin account who is copying deleted material.
IMHO, option 3 is still the most likely.
Eugene
On 6/18/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Slim Virgin schreef:
Well, you could suppose instead that, for every single deleted article reposted on Wiktruth, a non-admin just happened to have copied the version that was on the page prior to the deletion.
I've checked some of the articles on Wikitruth; most, perhaps all of them were deleted *after* some controversy, or at least an AfD; or were un-deleted for a while. It's not impossible to regularly check an article you expect to be deleted, and then keep the last one you find. It's even possible to do this for all articles placed on AfD.
So it's not impossible for non-admins to create the site.
So: we have someone who is copying every single version of every single article just in case; or we have someone who is psychic and can intuit which articles are going to be deleted on which versions; or we have someone with an admin account who is copying deleted material.
IMHO, option 3 is still the most likely.
Oh, I'd definitely agree with that. It's certainly the simplest solution. I was just curious as to how someone came to conclusion that "there's no question" about it.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Jayjg ... added ominously that *someone* has been leaking information about deleted pages to Wikitruth.
There's no question that someone with at least one admin account posted deleted material to Wikitruth. How else do you imagine it got there?
There are many sources for deleted Wikipedia materials which do not at all require an admin account.
Well, you could suppose instead that, for every single deleted article reposted on Wiktruth, a non-admin just happened to have copied the version that was on the page prior to the deletion. As they didn't know when the deletion would happen, this involves believing that someone is copying every single version just in case, and furthermore that they're always able to predict which articles they ought to do that with, because sometimes the deletions have come without warning following a private complaint.
I guess I'll take your word for it, since I don't have admin access and therefore can't check for myself.
That does raise an interesting possibility though. A dev could presumably look at the logs and find out which admin(s) looked at these deleted pages between the time of deletion and posting on Wikitruth. If there are a significant number of such deleted pages they can probably narrow it down enough to figure it out.
If that doesn't work, a more active technique of inserting fake information as a watermark definitely would.
So: we have someone who is copying every single version of every single article just in case;
I actually tried this for a while, but it was years ago when the traffic was much much lower :).
or we have someone who is psychic and can intuit which articles are going to be deleted on which versions; or we have someone with an admin account who is copying deleted material.
Could it be someone who works at Answers Corporation or some other place with a live feed?
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: There are many sources for deleted Wikipedia materials which do not at all require an admin account.
Well, you could suppose instead that, for every single deleted article reposted on Wiktruth, a non-admin just happened to have copied the version that was on the page prior to the deletion. As they didn't know when the deletion would happen, this involves believing that someone is copying every single version just in case, and furthermore that they're always able to predict which articles they ought to do that with, because sometimes the deletions have come without warning following a private complaint.
I guess I'll take your word for it, since I don't have admin access and therefore can't check for myself.
That does raise an interesting possibility though. A dev could presumably look at the logs and find out which admin(s) looked at these deleted pages between the time of deletion and posting on Wikitruth. If there are a significant number of such deleted pages they can probably narrow it down enough to figure it out.
I don't know why this wasn't done. Maybe the logs aren't kept for long, or maybe it would be a huge job.
If that doesn't work, a more active technique of inserting fake information as a watermark definitely would.
Could we really have a different watermark for every account that viewed the page? If people knew this was being done, would they be able to remove the watermark (assuming they were technically competent)?
So: we have someone who is copying every single version of every single article just in case;
I actually tried this for a while, but it was years ago when the traffic was much much lower :).
LOL!
or we have someone who is psychic and can intuit which articles are going to be deleted on which versions; or we have someone with an admin account who is copying deleted material.
Could it be someone who works at Answers Corporation or some other place with a live feed?
The easiest way to do it would be to acquire an admin account based on a few months of reverting vandalism. Occam's Razor applies.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
If that doesn't work, a more active technique of inserting fake information as a watermark definitely would.
Could we really have a different watermark for every account that viewed the page? If people knew this was being done, would they be able to remove the watermark (assuming they were technically competent)?
Uniquely watermark the displayed page? Easy, for moderately viewed pages.
Watermark the wiki source views/edits? Very hard.
The difficulty is in making changes that are content-neutral. Adding extra period or spaces or the occasional 1<->l O<->0 swap in text documents are harmless. In wiki source, not so harmless.
On 6/18/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
If that doesn't work, a more active technique of inserting fake information as a watermark definitely would.
Could we really have a different watermark for every account that viewed the page? If people knew this was being done, would they be able to remove the watermark (assuming they were technically competent)?
Uniquely watermark the displayed page? Easy, for moderately viewed pages.
Watermark the wiki source views/edits? Very hard.
The difficulty is in making changes that are content-neutral. Adding extra period or spaces or the occasional 1<->l O<->0 swap in text documents are harmless. In wiki source, not so harmless.
Sorry, George, you've lost me. If you have time, would you mind explaining in a bit more detail?
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If that doesn't work, a more active technique of inserting fake information as a watermark definitely would.
Could we really have a different watermark for every account that viewed the page? If people knew this was being done, would they be able to remove the watermark (assuming they were technically competent)?
A different watermark for every admin account that views a deleted page seems possible. If Wikitruth knows it's being done, and they have a lot of admin accounts, it'd be harder to make the watermark difficult to remove. Still possible, though.
You say Wikitruth always had the exact last version of the deleted page. As a really simple watermark, just add in some extra version right at the end. If you're dealing with multiple admin accounts, though, you'd have to use more complicated techniques.
Is it worth the trouble? I don't know.
On 19/06/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Slim Virgin's comment reflects the sort of paranoid attitude that really needs to be countered. Is there any evidence whatsoever that inactive sysops are actually creating a problem? If there's no evidence of a problem, what exactly would desysopping them fix?
Half a dozen inactive admin accounts have been cracked and used for vandalism, though one presumes that the same problem would have occured had they been active but not logged in at the time. One "went rogue" a few months after leaving, with a spate of vandalism, but was dealt with.
So, yes, but nothing significant in the long term.