RationalWiki:Technical support/Archive29

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 June 2025. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

The captchas are getting unbearable[edit]

I understand that spambots can be a problem, however, the captchas on this wiki are so long and repetitive that on average I spend several minutes solving one, which makes it a nightmare to edit anything, or fix an error I made quickly, and even leave messages on people talk pages, I feel this can really drive new editors away due to how repetitive and irritating it is, which is a shame. While some captchas are fast to solve, it's really a 50/50 on whether I get a quick one or a long one where I spend more time solving the captcha than actually editing. I think we need a better captcha system for this, like Wikipedia's "type the scrambled letters" one, which doesn't take several minutes to solve, and from what I've seen combats bots well, or maybe even use an easier or better version of reCaptcha (if that's possible)? MethodsOfRationality (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Planned changes include changing that. No idea if we even need a captcha, I think bots can really go past all of them nowadays (but the crudest bots are still stopped) except the ones you craft where unique questions are used (until a spammer adds the solutions so it's automated). Spam IP blacklisting is something we can add drawing on a big database that I think does more.
This is among stuff that's remained the same for a year. But maybe I'll get server access soon myself and then I can try changing it. The RMF board may also look into hiring someone if we can't more generally sort stuff out short term. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@ApooftGnegiol Yeah I do believe AI can actually solve Captchas better than humans these days, also I'm not even sure if this wiki even has a bot problem. I like the idea of asking a unique question in the form of an image (e.g a photo asking for 8+8), not sure where I saw it though, but it was easy enough and not a hinderance. The MoR (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
The wiki does have a bot problem, although it's not nearly as bad as it was when I first got started here. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 13:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini oh, but to be fair, most bots these days can get pastcCaptchas, due to the rise of AI, though I read somewhere text based captchas seem to do a better job at keeping them away The MoR (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
It's more that even uncomplicated custom captchas work better than "good" off-the-shelf captchas because no one's written the code to target them. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
What's really funny is that some of the most effective captcha-solvers are just companies paying people in the Global South to do nothing but solve captchas all day. Carthage (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Name change request[edit]

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Requests to change username. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Getting rid of RationalWiki:LiquidThreads?[edit]

RationalWiki:LiquidThreads, besides being years out of date, is currently being uninstall from WMF wikis (see T332022 and its subtasks). I am admittedly a very casual user of RW, but I do not see any current uses of LQT.

If it is not being used anywhere, uninstalling it in parallel with WMF wikis is probably the best time to do this. Installing DiscussionTools would also be nice :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think a couple of user talk pages use it, though the vast majority of people don't. I think just not using LiquidThreads like we all are currently doing should be enough unless the extension has security issues or causes server slowdown. Plutocow (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
In the past a few used it, nowadays it doesn't seem to work properly if I remember correctly from some talk page I saw earlier (edit: could just be someone couldn't get it to work more recently, old pages using it display fine etc.). It sounds like a good idea to edit such old discussions so they end up on regular subpages (like WMF also does), then uninstall the extension later when dealing with updates. Less to worry about if the extension gets deprecated and unmaintained in the future, as otherwise it'll just be dumped whenever it breaks and we update.
Problem is, it will be lots of clicking and editing to convert those pages, unless somehow it's done by a bot. There's plenty of pages even though few users. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the extension is currently unmaintained. The WMF is currently setting an undeployment sequence (LQT is incompatible with temporary accounts, which are tentatively scheduled to be rolled out to all WMF wikis by May 2025). HouseBlaster (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Frivolous legal complaints this month to Google to deindex article, can it be identified who is sending these?[edit]

Hi,

Someone this month from the US has filed multiple frivolous defamation complaints to Google to deindex an article. Can we identify who is doing this?

Lumen have redacted their name.

Under the Defamation Act 2013 this attached site breaches a number of laws within this act. As detailed below

There must be a claim or assertion suggesting that someone has engaged in illegal, unlawful, or improper conduct, often made without concrete proof. There are many claims within this URL that claim [REDACTED] [REDACTED] has acted improperly i have attached in the following box specific text that infringe my rights.

As part of the Defamation Act 2013 any claim must be directed clearly towards a specific, identifiable individual or entity .The claims and assertions via the attached URL are directed towards [REDACTED] [REDACTED] a number of times with mentioned and tags to her name.

As part of the Defamation Act 2013 any claim or assertions must lead others to view the party negatively, thereby harming their standing in the community. This content via the attached URL labels me [REDACTED] [REDACTED] as a " NEO NAZI" and " a supporter of eugenics" which leads 3rd parties to view me in a negative and reputation damaging way. The claims are false and there is no evidence attached for 3rd party to view such assertions or claims to therefore make their own decision or judgement so it directs 3rd parties to view me negatively immediately without providing a full scenario.

There must be verifiable evidence of harm or loss that has resulted from the defamation, which can include tangible losses like financial harm or intangible ones like emotional distress. There is verifiable evidence of loss of job opportunities and funding for my studies and academia, i have been told a number of times that whilst this URL sits on Google they will not associate with me. This under the Defamation Act 2013 infringes my rights.

This URL also associates me with organisations , conferences and other academics that i have no association with which defames my character, there are some controversial conferences and academics and there is no proof at all of me attending or associating with any of these academics named.

The offending URL attached is a bias , reputation damaging site that specifically targets and abuses academics , they right unsourced comments and label myself and others in a defaming manner and they do no respond to communication to edit there mistakes and false content. It is a community site meaning hundreds of users have access to edit the site therefore i cannot pinpoint directly who to direct a defamation case to therefore the hosting site must be held responsible for not controlling users who write defaming material.

The more recent:

The attached URL shares false, misleading and unsourced claims about [REDACTED] [REDACTED] and also refers to a child birth name which was altered for legal reasons and should not be shared in the public domain as it imposes risks and threats to me and infringes my human rights. The site in questions is a public editorial site open to any member of the public to edit anonymously and therefore cannot be held accountable for the content on their site and as a result do not reply or deal with any enquiries to change or alter illegal or misleading content.

Within the attached URL there are a number of unsourced allegations and misleading claims which results in reputation damage and loss of opportunity and discredit of academic work. I have evidence to support this claim . Many statements and claims are cited with a broken URL to a fake page so they cannot be deemed reliable and this site simply advertises all such claims about me illegally and does not control or moderate the pages within .

Unproven and unsourced claims about me , details of where i work which are also false and again mislead 3rd parties of interest.

Any ideas? These complaints are very dishonest and are not even legally consistent since they were filed from the US but the person is mistakenly talking about the UK Defamation Act 2013. This does not apply to defamation law in the US (you can only block content/deindex pages on Google from the country where you live and file the complaint from). 45.76.124.89 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought at first this could be [redacted] who filed a frivolous complaint in 2021 (see his talk page or here). [redacted] and the complaint above mentions "child birth name" and eugenics. However, if you compare the complaint [redacted] filed in 2021 to the above, the writing style is very different. 45.76.124.89 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Those filings are mostly illiterate with plenty of amateur mistakes and lies. The filings are likely to be done by someone associated with the Human Diversity Foundation. I am currently writing a RW article for the Human Diversity Foundation, it will be out in the next 48 hours. The person filing that is making things up. None of our RW articles refer to any specific person within this group as a "neo-Nazi". All the articles are well sourced to multiple media exposes and newspaper sources. The lumendatabase does not work for people in the US. Whoever is filing these is clueless and is doing so in bad-faith. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
On further investigation the complaint refers to a "her". I cannot find any RW articles referring to any female as a "neo-nazi" and "supporter of eugenics". The complaints are likely hoaxing/trolling attempts to promote misinformation about RationalWiki. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The "her" may have been a typing error. The only woman I can think of is Carolyn Emerick but she publishes under her real name so it would not make sense she would complain of a "child birth name" on the page. She's also not an academic but a crackpot. Who knows. I think it remains possible this was filed by someone linked to [redacted], however, I am far from convinced. The only other person I can think of is Angelo John Gage aka Lucas Gage who changed his name. Both "neo-Nazi" and "supporter of eugenics" are found on his article, however, he is not remotely an academic. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Could it be Tara McCarthy? Her birth name is Tarasita Hanrahan (as mentioned on page). However, she is not an academic but another crackpot. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Is there some method that we [as RW] could respond to Google regarding this complaint? I suspect if someone contacts Lumen 'as RW' and asks to know who, we might find out [though there might be conditions attached] KarmaPolice (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Periodic sluggishness[edit]

I've been seeing periodic sluggishness in response times in the past few hours. Bongolian (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Creative Commons question[edit]

RW is CC 3.0. Is it permissible to upload a CC 4.0 image? The image is not in Wikimedia Commons. Bongolian (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The "wiki's license" applies to the text (and original images if nothing else is said about them). Images have individual licenses, so tag it with its license and it's fine. Likewise Wikimedia Commons has images of many different licenses. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

A query about the user rights page[edit]

This is less of a technical question and more a query about a certain kind of user rights — I didn't know where else to put this. I don't foresee this being something that I would ever be entrusted with — I'm just here to practice and improve my writing and leave the site better than I found it. But I saw a user right called "Suppressors" on the user rights list page that lacked a definition page. Would I be correct in presuming that this is related to Wikipedia's concept of "suppression" (alternatively known as oversight)? If so, I don't think including a page with a brief definition of the term would hurt. ABigBoxOfSand (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, suppression is also a thing at RationalWiki. It's usually only used to remove doxxing and such. As for making a page defining the term, we'll see if the idea gains traction. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Yep, makes sense to me. People who drag Internet drama into real life are so insufferable. ABigBoxOfSand (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not a real group, just something that Techs can add themselves to and remove themselves from as needed. The main thing it does is if you need to delete an entry from the filter log, as most suppression can be done with mod or tech rights. Plutocow (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)