'''OK Jimbo. You want a loving encyclopedia''' - So do I but I don't find the paste below from Durova which constitutes her "evidence" as particularly loving - do you? I would advise everyone to be very careful of making even the most innocent edit. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 16:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
So here it is the diffs are pathetic the narrative describing one of our respected editors, who I know well, repulsive. Happy with that are you Jimbo, you think an Admin like Durova will foster your happy loving encyclopedia?"
Durova's Evidence
Nobody's put their finger on this yet in a systematic way. Maybe it's for lack of time; maybe people's brains are wired differently. I need to show you not just what Wikipedia Review is doing to us, but how they're doing it.
And I'm setting this forth as a brief seminar so you can do more than recognize when it's presented to you; you can find these signs yourselves.
The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped about this.
First, the good news:
1. They're working from the same playbook.
2. They don't know this list exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=167325471 Now, the case study:
Here's a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters. !!
It's what I would call "ripened sock" - a padded history of redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work. Some of the folks at WR do this to game the community's good faith. I can tell immediately that it's not the user's first account. Soon you'll see the telltale signs as quickly as I do.
A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup.
Edit summary on the first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141874955 Correct use of page links on the second edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141877151 Knows how to create line references on the third edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=142914869 Creates an appropriately formatted stub on the fourth edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=142927003 B. They do wikignome work far too early in the account history to be genuine wikignomes. The purpose is to pad the account history with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate them against the banhammer later on.
Redirects a page on the seventh edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=144015208 This user favors redirects and stub creations. Others do RC patrol or copyediting. They continue for days, weeks, or perhaps a few months playing "useful editor."
C. Many of them tip their hands occasionally during the preparation phase.
Obscene trolling; knows German:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=156788817 This user slips for the joy of trolling. Others let down their guard momentarily for WR-related incidents. Look for behavior that seems out of character such as a sudden cluster of talk page posts or odd edit summaries.
D. They are team players.
Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger is this much of a good Samaritan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162747326 Now the moves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062162 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062161 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ve_6_%282007%29 &diff=prev&oldid=163062164
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062163 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062167 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062166 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062248 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062247 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062253 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062252 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062257 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062256 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062262 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=163062263 E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into the appearance of a legitimate editor.
I doubt Bishonen knew what this account really was. By now it looks legit to most editors. The nasty side shows itself, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162335262 F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and takes extremist positions for no apparent reason.
This rocket-to-the-sky pattern among ripened socks contrasts against sincere but troubled editors, who follow an arc with some visible cause and effect.
For contrast:
A regular problem editor will decide Wikipedia has problems after breaking 3RR and getting turned down for an unblock request.
A ripened sock heads doesn't need to be coaxed to the dark side; it just heads over to a discussion and screams foul while its own reputation is clean as a whistle.
So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians don't get more than a sense of vague unease about this account's behavior. The sock is fully ripened, the account well established, and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if anyone intervenes. I have a hunch the skilled trolls wait for events that they know will cause a lot of flurried attention onsite so the sudden launching of full implementation is less likely to be noticed in the crowd.
Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168176874 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168213973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168209114 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168487235 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168631084 G Many trolls can't resist the temptation to gloat.
Still doubt me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=168171012 Looking ahead:
Foremost, please keep mum! Many of these mistakes can be corrected and these people are very patient. They will change tactics and get even more careful if they realize how we spot them.
Oops, Durova's Mea culpa
