On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Chris Lee theornamentalist@gmail.com wrote:
Umm, what just happened to wikipedia?
Seems normal to me.
-- Fajro
It lasted only a minute. I apologize for the urgent email sent out; wanted to make sure that it was taken care of
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Fajro faigos@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Chris Lee theornamentalist@gmail.com wrote:
Umm, what just happened to wikipedia?
Seems normal to me.
-- Fajro
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 22:08, Chris Lee theornamentalist@gmail.com wrote:
It lasted only a minute. I apologize for the urgent email sent out; wanted to make sure that it was taken care of
What was it that lasted only a minute, Chris?
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:13, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
What was it that lasted only a minute, Chris?
Vandalism, probably. I've read an article that vandalism lasts about a minute!
Impossible. I'm sure one minute has passed but I still see vandalism occasionally. :-)
g
2011/6/18 Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:13, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
What was it that lasted only a minute, Chris?
Vandalism, probably. I've read an article that vandalism lasts about a minute!
Impossible. I'm sure one minute has passed but I still see vandalism occasionally. :-)
:))) Can you please license that with CCBYSA so we can make it a tagline? :D
Strainu
Ha, to clarify, the entire background on any visited page was replaced with swastikas and porn; along the top read "brought to you by meepsheep", who I've since learned is a blocked user.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/18 Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:13, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
What was it that lasted only a minute, Chris?
Vandalism, probably. I've read an article that vandalism lasts about a
minute!
Impossible. I'm sure one minute has passed but I still see vandalism occasionally. :-)
:))) Can you please license that with CCBYSA so we can make it a tagline? :D
Strainu
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
a blocked user with a looooooooooooooong list of sock puppets _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
2011/6/18 Chris Lee theornamentalist@gmail.com
Ha, to clarify, the entire background on any visited page was replaced with swastikas and porn; along the top read "brought to you by meepsheep", who I've since learned is a blocked user.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/18 Peter Gervai grinapo@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:13, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
What was it that lasted only a minute, Chris?
Vandalism, probably. I've read an article that vandalism lasts about a
minute!
Impossible. I'm sure one minute has passed but I still see vandalism occasionally. :-)
:))) Can you please license that with CCBYSA so we can make it a tagline? :D
Strainu
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Chris Lee theornamentalist@gmail.com wrote:
Ha, to clarify, the entire background on any visited page was replaced with swastikas and porn; along the top read "brought to you by meepsheep", who I've since learned is a blocked user.
Yeah, that does happen sometimes. The cause is usually "template vandalism", where a vandal adds some content to an unprotected template that's used in a few pages. This makes it difficult for new users to find out what happened and usually freaks people out. :-)
If you run into this again, you should include a description of what happened and a link to the page you were on when you saw the issue when reporting it. If you wanted to try to fix it yourself, you could click "Related changes" in the sidebar under toolbox and then restrict that to just templates. That will show you a recent changes page just for templates included in that article.
Hope this helps!
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
Yeah, that does happen sometimes. The cause is usually "template vandalism", where a vandal adds some content to an unprotected template that's used in a few pages. This makes it difficult for new users to find out what happened and usually freaks people out. :-)
Which template did this happen on? I didn't notice any on-wiki discussions pointing to it.
-Sage
Sage Ross wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
Yeah, that does happen sometimes. The cause is usually "template vandalism", where a vandal adds some content to an unprotected template that's used in a few pages. This makes it difficult for new users to find out what happened and usually freaks people out. :-)
Which template did this happen on? I didn't notice any on-wiki discussions pointing to it.
I think it was the "Facebook" template on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Facebook&action=histo...
MZMcBride
On 19 June 2011 09:41, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
Yeah, that does happen sometimes. The cause is usually "template vandalism", where a vandal adds some content to an unprotected template that's used in a few pages. This makes it difficult for new users to find out what happened and usually freaks people out. :-)
Which template did this happen on? I didn't notice any on-wiki discussions pointing to it.
I'm not sure what kind of on-wiki discussions you might expect to see, Sage. Template vandalism is not particularly rare (in fact it's so common there's a standardized OTRS response to complaints about it), and is essentially treated like any other kind of significant vandalism: revert, block, ignore. There's a bit more to addressing this particular series, but my instinct is that the English Wikipedia community has learned from past experiences that having major public discussions about how to "address" certain types of vandals and vandalism can often turn out to be a primer in how to vandalize (or be seen by the vandal as "proof" of his success), so such discussions are not very common anymore.
Risker/Anne
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what kind of on-wiki discussions you might expect to see, Sage.
I think he might have been going with Chris' assertation that every page was affected, which doesn't appear to be true - the template's transcluded on just under 1,000 pages. My guess is that all of the pages Chris saw were affected, but the vast majority of articles weren't, meaning that it's not anything new.
I recognize that this is probably a touchy issue given the controversy on the English Wikipedia over flagged revisions (which I thankfully wasn't a part of), but maybe flipping flagged revisions on for everything in the template namespace would help the cause. Certainly most edits to templates are fine, but when it comes to truly malicious vandalism (as opposed to newbie test edits, and young kids screwing around) templates are both the most affected, and the most visible. As-is, a number of highly visible templates are fully protected, so this would be a step down in many cases and a step up for many others.
I don't know if that was the template. I first saw it on the page 0.999... and then on the main page. This was after I had noticed Wikipedia's loading speed drop significantly.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Chris Lee theornamentalist@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if that was the template. I first saw it on the page 0.999... and then on the main page. This was after I had noticed Wikipedia's loading speed drop significantly.
It was this template then, which is now protected: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_arxiv&action=history
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what kind of on-wiki discussions you might expect to see, Sage.
I think he might have been going with Chris' assertation that every page was affected, which doesn't appear to be true - the template's transcluded on just under 1,000 pages. My guess is that all of the pages Chris saw were affected, but the vast majority of articles weren't, meaning that it's not anything new.
Yep, I was assuming that it actually was vandalism that appeared on every page or a huge number of pages, and thus either some admin account had been compromised or something else went a lot more wrong than the typical template vandalism.
Thanks, Max and Casey, for the diffs.
-Sage
On 06/19/2011 07:37 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
I recognize that this is probably a touchy issue given the controversy on the English Wikipedia over flagged revisions (which I thankfully wasn't a part of), but maybe flipping flagged revisions on for everything in the template namespace would help the cause. Certainly most edits to templates
Indeed. I believe that one of the main points against flagged revisions is that they will put off new users because their edits won't be immediately visible, however very few new users start by editing templates.
This is a great idea. SJ
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On 06/19/2011 07:37 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
I recognize that this is probably a touchy issue given the controversy on the English Wikipedia over flagged revisions (which I thankfully wasn't a part of), but maybe flipping flagged revisions on for everything in the template namespace would help the cause. Certainly most edits to templates
Indeed. I believe that one of the main points against flagged revisions is that they will put off new users because their edits won't be immediately visible, however very few new users start by editing templates.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Perhaps not. One of the weaknesses of flagged revisions is that it enshrines vandalism. The required review of all changes and redaction of personal attacks only adds more steps to the resolution of each episode of vandalism. Semi-protection would be more likely to halt inappropriate edits to templates without unnecessarily adding to anyone's workload.
Risker/Anne Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-----Original Message----- From: Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com Sender: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:04:32 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] en.wp HACKED?
This is a great idea. SJ
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
On 06/19/2011 07:37 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
I recognize that this is probably a touchy issue given the controversy on the English Wikipedia over flagged revisions (which I thankfully wasn't a part of), but maybe flipping flagged revisions on for everything in the template namespace would help the cause. Certainly most edits to templates
Indeed. I believe that one of the main points against flagged revisions is that they will put off new users because their edits won't be immediately visible, however very few new users start by editing templates.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org