Wikipedia Sucks!

H/t to dysk, obviously.

So, an enterprising Wikipedian named Bellezzasolo wrote a tremendously useful tool, that would have shifted the power balance on Wikipedia away from vandals, to those trying to fight them. Fittingly named "Meganuke", if you have the Rollback user right, it basically let's you sit back and watch as a vandal has each of their vandalism edits reverted almost instantly.

After determining they are a vandal (usually because they are following the pattern of previous vandals, which conventional blocks don't seem to have any deterrent effect on, the so called "long term abuse" cases), you simply open their contributions page in a tab, click a button, and the code automatically refreshes the page, reverting any new edits.

This is all perfectly wiki-legal, no different to sitting there and hitting refresh then revert, as any vandal patroller would do in such a situation. They already have tools which revert all the recent edits of a vandal with one click, with grave consequences if you are ever caught missusing it, or not using it with due care and attention. Which even Administrators are not immune from doing, as a recent case (GiantSnowman) exposed. Even misuse of the tool on single edits by Administrators is common, as I just documented by Bbb23, in the Drmies thread.

The tool actually aligns with one of Wikipedia's most important principles - WP:DENY. Don't give vandals the satisfaction of seeing their edits go live, even for a minute. Just silently sit there and watch them fume as they can't figure out how people are reacting so fast. Obviously, it makes it relatively effortless to stop someone who has to go to some effort to try to do what they want to do, even if they to are using a tool to do it.

But hey, this is Wikipedia. Someone always has to complain.

There are various people wetting their knickers because they see this tool as too powerful for normal users. Apparently only Administrators should be allowed to use it, if anybody. People like GiantSnowman and Bbb23 I assume.

Not only are they missing the fact Administrators are clearly not using existing similar tools properly, they are missing the stated purpose of the tool, namely to be used only until an Administrator gets around to blocking the vandal. Which, with the current stage of the decline of Wikipedia, can be quite a while. That means more clicking for patrollers, and more time for vandal edits to be seen by readers.

Some rather excitable people are even calling this a blocking tool, as if to further argue it should be for Administrators only, on the basis it prevents all editing by the targeted user. Except if doesn't. Their edits happen, they are committed and logged, they just get reverted virtually instantly. Everyone can see the intent of each edit, and anyone except the vandal can restore them. Blocked users can't make an edit.

Wikipedia already has numerous different ways they can profile users to make bad faith assumptions about what their edits will be before they make them, and most work exactly like this tool - park their edits in a place not visible to readers, until another editor judges them for acceptability. Unlike those measures, this tool generously lets anyone see the proposed edit, just check the user contributions or article history pages.

There are some even claiming this would be an unauthorized bot. That is debatabe, given the lack of any real functionality, other than to instantly revert every edit made by a specified user. You obviously wouldn't let it run unsupervised, and the documentation makes it quite clear you should not do that. If Administrators worked fast enough to block identified vandals, then it should only need to be running for a few minutes at a time. And as I said, there is already a tool that does just that for all existing edits, with one click of a button. Call that button "start', and you have a bot, obviously.

The ways this tool could be abused by trusted users, is no different to how their other similar tools can be abused. The penalties would presumably be the same.

If there is any real threat here, it is from misuse by miscreants. But that risk is the same as for the current similar tools. The miscreant has to hang around for long enough to gain the Rollback user right, which is not given out easily. Then after one presumably very short episode of fun, they would be blocked. Since this seems to rarely (never?) happen with the other similar tools that need the Rollback right, it seems unlikely the h4cker elit3 would even bother.

Anyway, due to the outrage and panic, the tool will have probably been nuked before I even finish typing this post. Although since the code has already been widely distributed, if miscreants can find a way to abuse it, they will. The only people who will be denied its use, will be those who could have used it for the benefit of Wikipedia.

Just another example of how the Wikipedia community views its vandal fighters. They are a sub-class. Untrustworthy, presumed incompetent by default, their time considered less valuable than other editors, people who typically do virtually nothing to fight vandals, unless they happen to vandalize right infront of their face.

It is a wonder any of them even bother. Many have already left.

HTD.

Yup, deleted at 20:25. Raised as a concern, at 17:57.

Actually quite a long time for these reactionary fools.

Ahh well, back to click refresh click refresh click refresh, you plebs. Or not.

Iridescent always did know how to destroy Wikipedia.

This brings me to the raison d'etrê of this script, the refdesk vandal. The refdesk vandal is, as is well known, a nightmare to deal with. They are running a bot that uses open proxies to hop IP addresses and avoid rate limits. Administrator intervention can take 15 minutes. By the time a manual editor is reverting a contribution, an intervening edit has been made by the vandal. This leads to vile personal attacks persisting for some length of time. A previous version of my script checked for new contributions every second, and it was overwhelmed earlier today.

Regarding bot policy, there are two distinct phases of the script. The first phase, which is rapid reversion of the existing contributions, is clearly OK re Writ Keeper's script. The second phase, which is the automated reversion, only operates at the speed of the other user. There is a significant difference to an actual block - the edits are still made, and hence can be scrutinised. A minor difference, but misuse of this tool by a non-admin would result in a quick block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You lost any sympathy from me at many times I've identified a vandal and just sat watching their contributions page, reverting any new edits on sight. If you think that's in any way appropriate, you shouldn't even be on Wikipedia, as the kind of arrogance that makes you feel entitled to revert edits without even looking at them is completely the antithesis of what we stand for. ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Somebody is either lying, or exposing themselves as someone who doesn't tackle vandalism. Knowing this guy, it could be both.

Suppose you didn't have your admin bit. An IP has, in the last 5 minutes, done nothing but add 50 goatse images to various articles linked from the Main Page, you've already reported them to WP:AIV and WP:ANI, and they're making 10 edits/minute. Would you check each and every one of their contributions before reverting? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If the edits are very obviously identical (same edit summary, same edit size) it might be safe to assume they're all identical, but otherwise at an absolute minimum I'd hover over the diff and check the popup. ‑ Iridescent 22:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Excuse the pun, but my arse.

CrowsNest wrote:Yup, deleted at 20:25. Raised as a concern, at 17:57.

Actually quite a long time for these reactionary fools.

Ahh well, back to click refresh click refresh click refresh, you plebs. Or not.

The primary complaint was the tool rolled back future edits, which made it effectively a blocking device.

Not that I myself am necessarily opposed to it, but a tool of that magnitude needs to be thoroughly discussed, at a minimum. Unintended consequences galore beneath the surface...

See:

At WPO, Midsize Jake wrote:That's too bad [it has been deleted], actually... with just a few simple modifications, it could have been used to delete the entire website.

RfB

Carrite wrote:The primary complaint was the tool rolled back future edits

Which is factual incorrect.

Carrite wrote:, which made it effectively a blocking device.

Not really, unless you also count Cluebot, ECP, PC, SP/FP, and all the other stuff which is not a block, but interrupts your ability to have your edit saved before another editor has reviewed it, as "blocking devices".

Carrite wrote:Not that I myself am necessarily opposed to it,

So what exactly do you do when you are opposed to something? Smash it with a hammer?

Carrite wrote:but a tool of that magnitude needs to be thoroughly discussed, at a minimum.

There will be no discussion, the so called discussion you triggered will now be used as evidence this tool is banned. So fuck everyone who could have actually used it to benefit Wikipedia.

Carrite wrote:Unintended consequences galore beneath the surface...

So you claimed. But what actually are they? I see none that are not similar to the largely theoretical threats posed by misuse of other tools you have to be approved to use. And if people can install this code and use it without anyone stopping them, how is that a threat restricted to this single tool? That is a design flaw. A security flaw. Wikipedia sure does seem to have a lot of them.....

Carrite wrote:

At WPO, Midsize Jake wrote:That's too bad [it has been deleted], actually... with just a few simple modifications, it could have been used to delete the entire website.

Serious claims only please. Sheesh.

Although hopefully saying stupid stuff like that now has you all on a terror watchlist.

Can you spot which one of these people is a graduate of the Ritchie333 school of Adminship.....

As Winged Bla said at the MfD, it's useful for dealing with LTAs and obvious vandals. There have been instances when vandals were free to parade on pages while their report sat at AIV without any action. The script's run can be ended by simply closing or refreshing the page, there's no real risk of abuse. If there was, it can be dealt with via revocation of the rollback right. Flooded with them hundreds 08:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We already have tools for dealing with LTAs and obvious vandals: the admin tools. If you think admins are responding too slowly, the solution is to put yourself up for RfA and help, not write a script to give you pseudo-admin powers with no community approval.

I'd go further than Swarm: if you think using semi-automated tools like this is remotely okay, there's no way you're competent enough to be trusted with rollback or similar advanced rights. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you listening vandal fighters? THEY THINK YOU ARE FUCKING INCOMPETENT. They think Adminship is the only true measure of competence.

Which is hilarious, for all the obvious reasons, and in this case, the specific reason that I named two Administrators above who misuse this supposedly powerful user right. And I certainly didn't see this puffed up chump getting involved when one of them interfered with the community review of the other's actions.

No, just like the never solved issue of the weird selection of TFA's, the solution from the die-hard cultists is always the same. Work harder to fix Wikipedia, but only in the ways I tell you to, as your boss, an Administrator. Work that I can't be bothered to do myself, because that's not my area of interest. Until you pass RfA and become my equal, you will just have to wait for me to get around to what you want me to do to make your time here more efficient and effective. I'm not your servant. Where did you ever get the idea I'm some kind of janitor? PAH!

Why are you even bothering, people? I wouldn't give my time for these fools even if they were paying me. I gladly give my time to expose them for what they are, who they are.

The guy who wrote this tool is an Oxford student, studying in Maths and Computing. And he's the idiot according to these people. Seriously......

My comment was directed more at Bellezzasolo (who wrote the script) – but of course not passing RfA should also be a pretty obvious sign that the community doesn't trust you with the tools 'meganuke' tries to replicate. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There you go. Passing RfA at Wikipedia is superior to an Oxbridge education. I guess they need something to cling onto in their miserable lives. Perhaps I am being unfair. Joe Roe after all does have an MA in archaeology, although he doesn't say from where. That world renowned occupation which deals with software and systems design.

Classic Wikipedia......

I can't believe anyone would even think that this is remotely okay. WTF??? Swarm {talk} 03:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe they put up with this shit from their so called Administrators.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=926

....but they do.

Boing! said Zebedee at Wikipediocracy....

You should be able to write a script that would automate any action that you can do manually with the permissions you possess, which includes usage of any tools (like Twinkle) that you might have installed/enabled. After all, everything we do manually consists of submitting a URL with various arguments appended, and a script can do exactly the same - only a lot faster.

And that is exactly what they did, you moron.

Perhaps if you bothered to figure out what the tool does before you commented, you might have added value to Wikipedia. Instead, you said this.....

setting an attack script to blindly revert all future edits is... whoa!

.....which is a gross mischaracterization. Since when was reverting vandals considered an "attack"? Since when was this a tool that prevents future edits at all? It acts on already made edits.

I will say it again, why would anyone willingly submit to being judged by people like this. Tell them to go fuck themselves.

Seriously......

I'd be interested to see some examples (preferably with diffs) so I can judge this problem for myself. From my experience, the Trump and main page vandalism is generally dealt with quickly and effectively, and AIV reports are cleared out pretty fast. The problem I have with this script is as well as the issue to wreck absolute havoc with good faith edits as described above, it's effectively a non-admin's way of circumventing they don't have a block button, and solving the same problem but without any community consensus to do so and without any evaluation of the risks and side effects. I wouldn't recommend anything more than a trout slap to Bellezzasolo for doing it, and to say if they really want to fix the issue correctly, they should file a request for adminship, or work with the WMF to provide better anti-vandalism tools. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to know Ritchie's ability to assess risks and side effects, need only look at our forum to see what he does. RfA does not weed out incompetence. It's not much of a stretch to see how some people might think it is OK to vandalize Trump's article, taking inspiration from Ritchie's own postings and other nonsense.

If these idiots want Administrators, or laughably the very WMF they regularly spit hate toward, to be the only people allowed to tackle vandalism on an effective scale, in way that would actually act as a deterrent, then I say let them have it. Withdraw your labour. Use it where it will be appreciated.

CrowsNest wrote:The guy who wrote this tool is an Oxford student, studying in Maths and Computing. And he's the idiot according to these people. Seriously......

My comment was directed more at Bellezzasolo (who wrote the script) – but of course not passing RfA should also be a pretty obvious sign that the community doesn't trust you with the tools 'meganuke' tries to replicate. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There you go. Passing RfA at Wikipedia is superior to an Oxbridge education. I guess they need something to cling onto in their miserable lives.

Passing RFA on Wikipedia is a tin-plated PhD in basement dwelling. That's all. Most of them barely qualify to bus tables (and someone them literally do).