Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2011

    Our recent wave of spammers have been using real names in the ’Author’ field. That doesn’t help them that much since the Automatic Spam Detector (aka Tim Porter) is (allegedly) Turing Complete. Even the massive attack on Azimuth (with over 300 pages affected) only ended up costing a small amount of time (and now that I know what to do, wouldn’t cost that again).

    However, once the page has been cleaned this new practice of using real names does still leave a trace. The “authors” list goes solely by the name, so if someone uses a fake name then the fake name appears to have edited the page. I can’t imagine many people who would like their name associated to a spam entry. Of course, everyone would know what had happened, but it still makes the authors page that bit less usable.

    We have a semi-unofficial policy of not deleting stuff and simply rolling back spam pages works fine as far as their content is concerned. But it doesn’t change the author name in the history.

    I propose that if an edit is said to have been made by a regular contributor (by which I would define a member of the nForum) but which is not made by that person (and that person would need to say so on the nForum) then I would be allowed to edit the database so that their name was no longer listed as the author of that post.

    An alternative proposal would be to apply that any post clearly identified as spam (we’d need to spell out exactly what that meant; my initial definition would be an edit that added links to external sites which were then removed once a regular member had spotted them). (These proposals are not mutually exclusive.)

    I’d choose a neutral name, maybe even the eponymous AnonymousCoward, though she’s made some very good edits so it might not do to sully her name by association.

    What do people think? If there’s serious disagreement we could put it to the steering committee, but I thought I’d try it in the open first.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2011

    I agree with both versions of the erasing proposal.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2011

    I’m okay with either proposal. Thanks, Andrew.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2011

    Yes, either or a combination is fine by me.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2011

    This sounds fine.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2011

    Sounds fine to me. Why not use a name like “Spammer” for spam edits?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2011

    No disagreement from my side, of course.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2011

    All good by me.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2011
    • (edited Nov 9th 2011)

    6: and only we would know that this is the code for a non-spammer ?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2011

    Zoran: I don’t understand.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2011

    @Mike Well, a spammer could pick it up and use it, the way our (well, some people’s) names have been used.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2011

    Why should we care if a spammer signs their edits “Spammer”? I thought the point was that when they sign an edit as one of us, we change the signature to be something else.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2011
    • (edited Nov 10th 2011)

    I like ‘AnonymousSpammer’. Maybe ‘PseudonymousSpammer’. Is there a nice Greek-derived word ending with ‘onymous’ that means a real name used fraudulently by another person? That would be ideal!

    Anyway, I have no objection whatsoever to the version of the proposal where the true bearer of the name publicly disavows the edit. Of course it’s OK to change it then!

    The version where you judge that the edit is spam could be more problematic. However, as you have described it, I have no objection.

    Either way, I’d like to hear about it on the Forum when you do this, at least initially, if only for curiosity.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2011

    Either way, I’d like to hear about it on the Forum when you do this, at least initially, if only for curiosity.

    Given that there would be no record of this in the database, this seems an eminently sensible thing for me to do.

    Regarding the name, I would prefer something that really was neutral. I’d like it if I didn’t have to evaluate the contribution to decide whether or not it was spam. Namely, if someone’s name gets assigned to an edit that they didn’t do and they complain about it in the forum then I want to be able to change the name without having to evaluate whether or not it was spam. It’s unlikely that the edit will be something other than spam, but not completely impossible. Suppose someone came along who had the same name as a regular contributor. Then the regular contributor might object. If the newcomer decided to join the community then we’d negotiate an alternative “signature”, but if not, it might still be good to change the name but to something neutral.

    So I’d like something a bit like “Not who they said they were” (though even that isn’t quite neutral enough) and the relevant page would say something like “A post signed with this name was originally signed with the name of a regular contributor. That regular contributor did not make that edit so the name was changed.”.

    I wouldn’t use AnonymousCoward for this because it should be easy for everyone to see which contributions were genuinely anonymous and which were changed.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2011

    Okay, makes sense. “AnonymousImpersonator”?

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2011

    Is there a latin version like Nemo? just to be POSH!

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2011

    Could call it “Odysseus” after what he called himself in his adventure with Polyphemous.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2011

    Go for it!