Public Account Creation Massive Accountability Nightmare, Is Wikipedia Vulnerable to the PACMAN Algorithm ??? Options

[Jonny Cache]

Public Account Creation Massive Accountability Nightmare (PACMAN)

First, as always, a totally untubular, utterly tsas;dr pre*ramble …

But it will give you time to play the game, the afoot of which is to guess what I'm talking about, before I actually get to the point of it, from a simple attention to the information that is already cached in the title, with a little bit of hint, if you really need it, from this very pre*rambling pre*ramble.

Got it yet ???

Not to worry … I'll keep talking … till you do …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 11th September 2007, 4:33am

[Joseph100]

Public Account Creation Massive Accountability Nightmare (PACMAN)

First, as always, a totally untubular, utterly tsas;dr pre*ramble …

But it will give you time to play the game, the afoot of which is to guess what I'm talking about, before I actually get to the point of it, from a simple attention to the information that is already cached in the title, with a little bit of hint, if you really need it, from this very pre*rambling pre*ramble.

Got it yet ???

Not to worry … I'll keep talking … till you do …

Jonny

Wack a Mole

[jch]

I checked Google, Babelfish, everywhere...

I can't find a Jonny Cache-to-English translator anywhere.

[Jonny Cache]

I checked Google, Babelfish, everywhere …

I can't find a Jonny Cache-to-English translator anywhere.

You've been spending waaay too much time in Wikiputia.

They wanna write a biography on a living person —

Who's the last person they'd think of consulting ???

What was yer question?

Jonny

[Jonny Cache]

Public Account Creation Massive Accountability Nightmare (PACMAN)

First, as always, a totally untubular, utterly tsas;dr pre*ramble …

But it will give you time to play the game, the afoot of which is to guess what I'm talking about, before I actually get to the point of it, from a simple attention to the information that is already cached in the title, with a little bit of hint, if you really need it, from this very pre*rambling pre*ramble.

Got it yet ???

Not to worry … I'll keep talking … till you do …

Jonny

Sorry, Dudes and Dudesses, all of the recent Xcitations at Helter-Skelter, Inc. caused me to lose the tracks of my tear on this train of thought.

What is a Public Account ???

That's an account with a widely publicized password, so that many people can use it.

Of course, it's always possible that some not-so-public-spirited person will use their turn to change the password and turn it into a private account again.

Those petty privateering privacy phanatics !!!

Oh, well, what can you do — absolutely nada …

The next best thing is a Quasi-Public Account, to wit, an account the mot de passe to wot any bannd wit worth th' sault t'will have the where-wit-all to fathom.

Not to spoil the fun nor plot, I'll leave you to mull on that for a wile …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 13th September 2007, 4:52pm

[Jonny Cache]

Cry "havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war —

No More Mister Nice Guy —

Let us begin …

The player piece that you'll need to play the WikiPac(Wo)Man Game is the Wikipedia User Role Creation Log (WP:URCL).

Check it out obsessively or occasionally, as you like it, over the ensuing days — and you will begin to notice that more and more players will appear to be just begging you to guess their passwords. I can't tell you how you'll know that — that would be a definite plot spoiler — but you will, and especially if you are a devoted φan of this φanzine.

Now, being begged to guess a password and actually being able to do it — especially in the limited number of trials that the autobotted software will permit you to try before it starts ringing bells in the few remaining organic neurons of the Borg Queen's Brain — are clearly two different things. After a while, however, you will begin to see a number of plausible patterns in the URCL datastream. Sure, more than likely the lyin's share of your first best hypotheses will quickly turn sour on you, but keep at it, you will get the hang of it, I'm sure.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 12th September 2007, 8:10pm

[Jonny Cache]

PACMAN Answers His Mail —

Questions from a Reader lead me the make these further explanations of how the PACMAN Game is supposed to work.

A Public Account (PA) is a whole nuther game. A whole lot of people eventually come to know its name and its password. You make a few edits, other folks make theirs, all with different IPs on a natural diversity of articles. If some Admin or Œuvre-Enthusiast of your work tries to Profile you or — Heaven Phorbid ! — dares to sic a Bladerunner, er, Checkuser on you, then it's going to be confusing in the Xtreme to them. Sure, they will always say "Screw The Rules" (WP:STR) and block the account anyway, but while it lasts it will be more fun than a barrel of sockmonkeys.

And didn't Our Phearless Leader, Jimbo Wales, once say that's just what Wikipedia is all about? I think he did, I'm sure of it.

One note of caution — you must always examine the Contribution History of each PA very carefully before you wade into its edit stream. It is crucial to check whether some other player has gone beyond the bounds of your personal style, in which case you just quit using that particular account — there's always plenty more where that came from. Some players will use their turns at the wheel to change the password and privateer the account, mostly Ripofflicans, I'm guessing — but who cares? — you've got a million of 'em. It's not like it's real monkeys or anything, so even ALFers can burn all the funny monkeys they have the fits to print with absolutely no scruples about the ruples. So where's the ↓side?

The main thing is that you need a method of ‹Name, Password› pair creation that is truly generative, so that you are not limited by finitary constraints on the imagination, but can still compute the password just by looking at the name.

For obvious reasons, I cannot discuss in open forum my own Favorite Games in the potentially humongous computational class of PACMAN algorithms, so it behooves me once again to leave the rest to your own imagination and human recognizance. It's all we've got to beat the bot. So you'd better get kraken — time's a wastin' !!!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 14th September 2007, 2:40pm

[Kato]

One note of caution — you must always examine the Contribution History of each PA very carefully before you wade into its edit stream. It is crucial to check whether some other player has gone beyond the bounds of your personal style, in which case you just quit using that particular account — there's always plenty more where that came from. Some players will use their turns at the wheel to change the password and privateer the account, mostly Ripofflicans, I'm guessing — but who cares? — you've got a million of 'em. It's not like it's real monkeys or anything, so even ALFers can burn all the funny monkeys they have the fits to print with absolutely no scruples about the ruples. So where's the ↓side?

Hmmm.

[Jonny Cache]

Tips & Trix From The PACMAN Masters —

So you say you've been sampling the WP:URCL stream for daze now and you're just not having any luck sussin' out the passwords thereof?

Why do you think that is, Homer ???

D'Oh, maybe it's because yer so buzy φishin' and supervisin' and generally lol-e-gagging on your beehind that yer just not contributing any φish to the pot yerself.

Did you ever think o'that ???

Too many passive-aggressives and not enough aggressive-passives — yet another symptom of Wikipediac Overdoze.

So next time we'll discuss a few techniques for becoming a more aggressive password passer.

It's All For The Grater Gory Of The Game —

Soh Wot Cud Bee Bad Wit Dat ???

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 16th September 2007, 3:42pm

[Jonny Cache]

PACMAN Tool Box —

• Special:Listusers
• Special:Log/Newusers

This Reporter is pleased to report that the PACMAN Subverse of Wikipedia has been evolving swimmingly from its humble beginnings with a Wimpie toward its hopeful end with a BOING !!!

For those of you who just came in, it will be sufficient to remind you that a quasi-public account is simply an account with an easily abdeuceable password, frequently one whose hand is tipped by the username itself.

It is such a thrill to find an account whose password you succeed in guessing — like finding a soulmate, a stranger passing in the night who thinks just a little bit the same way you do.

And I can see smaller subverses of the larger PACMAN subverse already forming, groups of people who all think more or less the same way about the most fitting relationship between a password and username.

How long will it take for this vector to go viral ???

Now there's a worthy excuse for a poll !!!

Okay, go ahead and bet …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 18th October 2007, 5:48am

[thekohser]

For those who still haven't received the JonnyTranslator2200 on back-order, here's a nifty example:

Do you think the User:LBJ's collie has a hard-to-deduce password?

Now, if someone is going to make their password that easy to crack, are they not just inviting others to use their account for whatever purposes they wish (building up "Good Samaritan" edits, voting on AfD's, gaining adminship, etc.).

All that's required is that nobody mess with the system and ever change the password.

Loads of potential.

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

For those who still haven't received the JonnyTranslator2200 on back-order, here's a nifty example:

Do you think the User:LBJ's collie has a hard-to-deduce password?

Now, if someone is going to make their password that easy to crack, are they not just inviting others to use their account for whatever purposes they wish (building up "Good Samaritan" edits, voting on AfD's, gaining adminship, etc.)

All that's required is that nobody mess with the system and ever change the password.

Loads of potential.

Greg

"All that's required is that nobody mess with the system and ever change the password."

Ay, there's the rub …

Greg provides us with a cute idea, but like a lot of cute ideas — Wikipedia for one — it's just a tad too cute to live.

Still, it does inspire us in the right direction.

When we stop to consider why any tactic in this class of PACMAN strategies — let's call it a Magic Finite Look-Up Table or a Magic FLUT — is bound to fail in the long run, it comes down to a couple of factors.

• The finite cardinality of the FLUT.
• The public singing out of the key.

On that note, it's back to the drawing room one more time.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 19th October 2007, 7:20pm

[Jonny Cache]

It's fun while it lasts, and there is certainly no harm in keeping it up while it does — TWSS !!! — but I think that most folks see by now that the Magic FLUT class of destroyers in the PACMAN Shipyard of AlGoreRhythms have about as much chance of maintaining their long-term viability as Al Gore has Rhythm.

I mean, just look what some e-hole did with Poor Old LBJ's Poor Old Collie Dog — worse than that time that LBJ his own self held up his Beagle Pup in Ear Suspended Bondage In Mid Air (ESBIMA).

That's the way it always seems to go with Public Spirited Adventures (PSA's) when this or that gang of privateering pirates just can't seem to resist converting its juiciest bits and pieces of eight into their WP:OWN Special Purpose Accounts (SPA's).

But the general class of PACMAN algorithms is legion — we have scarcely scratched the Veneer-o-Pedia off WikiPandora's Big Chest, just busting at the semes of conceivable tactics that might be tried.

So what are some other species and subspecies of stratagems that might be tried in this genus urloci?

Exorcise For The Raider …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 22nd October 2007, 6:08pm

[Jonny Cache]

I do declare, there are times when I think that the Revuers here are just as clueless as the Wikipediots there, but I know that at least a few of you have tumbled to the fact that there is a salient connection between the theme of this thread and our most recent episode of Sockpuppet Theatre.

Which, all in all, I have to regard as a Smashing Wiki-Pumpkin Success.

So let's move on to Phase 3.

By way of Review — no, the other Review — our study here has two components:

• A function φ : Strings → Strings, that maps a syntactic Username to its unique Password.
• A question as to just how much Swiss Cheese can be squeezed out of the RocksInTheirHeads website that we all know and loathe as Wikipedia by means of the virally widespread usage of the appropriate family Φ of password functions φ.

Sorry, but this kind of math-mentation makes me tired, especially on a Friday night, so I'll have to run to the fridge for an ice-cold beer and try to slough it off.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 27th October 2007, 5:34am

[Jonny Cache]

I have deliberately avoided discussing too many concrete examples of Quasi-Public (QP) or Easily Guessable (EG) password functions φ : Usernames → Passwords because each one I specify can then be defended against by siteware developers who take the trouble to do so — not that Wikipediot developers are known for taking any special pains in this area, but who knows, maybe someday they will. If Wikipedia survives the first wave of PACMANKIND, that is.

But perhaps just a bit more concreteness will help to amplify the trickle of PACMANIACS that I currenty spy in the User Role Creation Stream (URCS).

The simplest possible QP or EG φ would probably be the identity map φ1 : s → s, but of course that option is already blocked by Wikipedia's account creation dialogue.

Another very simple QP or EG φ would be the backward map φ2 that reverses the sequence of characters in the username in order to get the password. For example φ2 : "jonnycache" → "ehcacynnoj".

I think that you probably see one of the problems with this whole business, to wit, the fact that there are so many different perfectly plausible QP password functions to choose from that a big part of the problem in making them EG is that there needs to be some clue in the username itself as which QP function it "intends" you to use. Of course, the username string could leave it up to pure guesswork on your part in order to get the password, a cop-out tactic like quickly defeats the whole idea of being EG.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 28th October 2007, 3:32am

[Jonny Cache]

I don't know about you, but I find that thinking up new user names eventually begins to tax my imagination — a thing that not even the IRS has been able to do … yet … thank goodness, but keep your fingers crossed. And when it comes to e-cutely comical and wikidly funny user names, my sense of humour gets taxed to the max even qwiker.

So wouldn't it be luverly if there were a place somewhere where we might find already at the ready some sort of resource for automatically generating a veritable plethora of largely unused user names x, and, as an x-tra added bogus, their passwords φ(x) under some Quasi-Public (QP) and Easily Guessable (EG) password function φ : Strings → Strings?

Now, where might we find such a PACMAN Pandora's Box?

You Know The Drill — Exorcise For The Raider …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 29th October 2007, 9:30pm

[Jonny Cache]

I don't know about you, but I find that thinking up new user names eventually begins to tax my imagination — a thing that not even the IRS has been able to do … yet … thank goodness, but keep your fingers crossed. And when it comes to e-cutely comical and wikidly funny user names, my sense of humour gets taxed to the max even qwiker.

So wouldn't it be luverly if there were a place somewhere where we might find already at the ready some sort of resource for automatically generating a veritable plethora of largely unused user names x, and, as an x-tra added bogus, their passwords φ(x) under some Quasi-Public (QP) and Easily Guessable (EG) password function φ : Strings → Strings?

Now, where might we find such a PACMAN Pandora's Box?

You Know The Drill — Exorcise For The Raider …

Jonny

Here's a hint —

Look at the Handy Dandy service that the Captcha dialogue provides when you go to create a new account with Wikipedia. It gives you a wonky visual image of two English words spliced together, say, "handydandy", and it requires you to type them into a slot — as a turing test of whether you are a sighted type of sentient entity, I guess — before it lets you create the account.

Let's say that you happen to be operating under the influence of a diminished imaginative capacity at the moment in question and just cannot think of a suitable user name. Well, why not take the one in front of your face? Continuing with the above example, you could most readily take "Handydandy" as your user name.

As far as cooking up an easy to remember password goes, why not make it "dandyhandy"?

Of all the services that Wikipedia provides, this has got to be the one with the most potential to cure the ills that WikiΦlesh is err to.

Go Forth And Mutify …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 29th October 2007, 9:06pm

[Jonny Cache]

I don't know about you, but I find that thinking up new user names eventually begins to tax my imagination — a thing that not even the IRS has been able to do … yet … thank goodness, but keep your fingers crossed. And when it comes to e-cutely comical and wikidly funny user names, my sense of humour gets taxed to the max even qwiker.

So wouldn't it be luverly if there were a place somewhere where we might find already at the ready some sort of resource for automatically generating a veritable plethora of largely unused user names x, and, as an x-tra added bogus, their passwords φ(x) under some Quasi-Public (QP) and Easily Guessable (EG) password function φ : Strings → Strings?

Now, where might we find such a PACMAN Pandora's Box?

You Know The Drill — Exorcise For The Raider …

Jonny

Here's a hint —

Look at the Handy Dandy service that the Captcha dialogue provides when you go to create a new account with Wikipedia. It gives you a wonky visual image of two English words spliced together, say, "handydandy", and it requires you to type them into a slot — as a turing test of whether you are a sighted type of sentient entity, I guess — before it lets you create the account.

Let's say that you happen to be operating under the influence of a diminished imaginative capacity at the moment in question and just cannot think of a suitable user name. Well, why not take the one in front of your face? Continuing with the above example, you could most readily take "Handydandy" as your user name.

As far as cooking up an easy to remember password goes, why not make it "dandyhandy"?

Of all the services that Wikipedia provides, this has got to be the one with the most potential to cure the ills that WikiΦlesh is err to.

Go Forth And Mutify …

Jonny

I did not think to check b4-hand, but I see that there is already an English Wikipedia account under the name of "Handydandy", or close enough to be confused with it, and I sincerely hope that the user in question has not already been snagged as a sock by one of the 2-faced double agents of Wikiputia who constantly pore over our site looking for anything that might pass for incriminating information, in the time-honoured Wikipediot style not caring the least bit whether it's true or false so long as it's good and juicy and gives them that fast temporary feeling of power to suck on it for as long as it lasts. No offense, Jaranda.

Next time I'll be more considerate a4thought and make up examples like "555-Handy-Dandy" with passwords like Handy-Dandy-555" — damn! I'd better run check to make sure there isn't one like that already.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 29th October 2007, 9:40pm

[LamontStormstar]

Hmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=166264830

Even odder, the account that said sock was Awbrey later was blocked as a sock Awbrey

[Moulton]

Just another amusing episode of SPA vs. SPA.