explain xkcd talk:Crap - Revision history

FaviFake: /* Not that I'm questioning the wisdom of it, of course. */

2025-05-03T09:31:22Z

‎Not that I'm questioning the wisdom of it, of course.

172.70.90.119: /* Not that I'm questioning the wisdom of it, of course. */

2025-05-03T08:13:29Z

‎Not that I'm questioning the wisdom of it, of course.

FaviFake at 20:53, 2 May 2025

2025-05-02T20:53:52Z

172.71.241.100: /* Not that I'm questioning the wisdom of it, of course. */

2025-05-02T17:10:34Z

‎Not that I'm questioning the wisdom of it, of course.

FaviFake at 16:02, 2 May 2025

2025-05-02T16:02:27Z

FaviFake at 16:02, 2 May 2025

2025-05-02T16:02:17Z

FaviFake: Yayy

2025-05-02T15:57:16Z

Yayy

Show changes

FaviFake: oops

2025-05-02T07:55:51Z

oops

FaviFake: Created page with "#REDRECT explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Admin requests#User vandalizing rapidly"

2025-05-02T07:55:34Z

Created page with "#REDRECT explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Admin requests#User vandalizing rapidly"

New page

#REDRECT [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Admin requests#User vandalizing rapidly]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:31, 3 May 2025
Line 189:		Line 189:
	:::::While the idea of Security Through Obscurity is obviously not an ideal end-point, all I'm saying is that there's a difference between burying the Cursed Artefact Of Ancient Evil in some remote and unfrequented location, without so much as a treasure-map to indicate its position, and actually building a famous shrine about it and relying upon the apparently unfailing protections of generations of warrior-monks and apparently perpetually powered/maintained architecturally-integrated deathtraps to deter the inevitable seekers after forbidden knowledge that get drawn there.		:::::While the idea of Security Through Obscurity is obviously not an ideal end-point, all I'm saying is that there's a difference between burying the Cursed Artefact Of Ancient Evil in some remote and unfrequented location, without so much as a treasure-map to indicate its position, and actually building a famous shrine about it and relying upon the apparently unfailing protections of generations of warrior-monks and apparently perpetually powered/maintained architecturally-integrated deathtraps to deter the inevitable seekers after forbidden knowledge that get drawn there.
	:::::Obviously we lie on different parts of the spectrum from optimism to skepticism, and I suggest the 'damage' has happened now. The shift has been from the status quo that I had been previously... content with. I was merely trying to point out that this "explain explainxkcd" meta-documentation, while well intentioned, had its possibly unforseen downsides. I didn't actually intend to get into meta²-discussion about it, beyond the original intententionally downplayed comment, nor try to get you to reverse your efforts. Que sera, sera... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.119\|172.70.90.119]] 08:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)		:::::Obviously we lie on different parts of the spectrum from optimism to skepticism, and I suggest the 'damage' has happened now. The shift has been from the status quo that I had been previously... content with. I was merely trying to point out that this "explain explainxkcd" meta-documentation, while well intentioned, had its possibly unforseen downsides. I didn't actually intend to get into meta²-discussion about it, beyond the original intententionally downplayed comment, nor try to get you to reverse your efforts. Que sera, sera... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.119\|172.70.90.119]] 08:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	::::::So... If I understood all that, you suggest I don't do anything? --[[User:FaviFake\|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake\|talk]]) 09:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:13, 3 May 2025
Line 186:		Line 186:

	::::So, what do you propose? We delete everything? I feel like we should keep something, just like we kept the entire archived discussion. Besides, finding the original code was as easy as following a link from the Community portal discussion and viewing the archived version. The upside would be that new editors wouldn't have to re-learn the tactics used by the og crapper and would have a ton of documentation to fight it. --[[User:FaviFake\|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake\|talk]]) 20:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)		::::So, what do you propose? We delete everything? I feel like we should keep something, just like we kept the entire archived discussion. Besides, finding the original code was as easy as following a link from the Community portal discussion and viewing the archived version. The upside would be that new editors wouldn't have to re-learn the tactics used by the og crapper and would have a ton of documentation to fight it. --[[User:FaviFake\|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake\|talk]]) 20:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::::While the idea of Security Through Obscurity is obviously not an ideal end-point, all I'm saying is that there's a difference between burying the Cursed Artefact Of Ancient Evil in some remote and unfrequented location, without so much as a treasure-map to indicate its position, and actually building a famous shrine about it and relying upon the apparently unfailing protections of generations of warrior-monks and apparently perpetually powered/maintained architecturally-integrated deathtraps to deter the inevitable seekers after forbidden knowledge that get drawn there.
		+	:::::Obviously we lie on different parts of the spectrum from optimism to skepticism, and I suggest the 'damage' has happened now. The shift has been from the status quo that I had been previously... content with. I was merely trying to point out that this "explain explainxkcd" meta-documentation, while well intentioned, had its possibly unforseen downsides. I didn't actually intend to get into meta²-discussion about it, beyond the original intententionally downplayed comment, nor try to get you to reverse your efforts. Que sera, sera... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.119\|172.70.90.119]] 08:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:53, 2 May 2025
Line 184:		Line 184:
	:::I... would rather not tempt fate too much. Needless to say, there are changes made to prevent the ''worst'' of that episode recurring, and direct copycat attacks are probably prevented/reverted automatically. But I was always uncomfortable ''fully'' documenting how it happened, for 'posterity', as possible inspiration for someone's future (sufficiently different) "bright ideas", re: vandalism.		:::I... would rather not tempt fate too much. Needless to say, there are changes made to prevent the ''worst'' of that episode recurring, and direct copycat attacks are probably prevented/reverted automatically. But I was always uncomfortable ''fully'' documenting how it happened, for 'posterity', as possible inspiration for someone's future (sufficiently different) "bright ideas", re: vandalism.
	:::It wasn't necesarily hidden, what we had, but it wasn't all under a big page of "hey, this is ''exactly'' what happened, once". Also, acts as an even more direct threat against other wikis that hadn't yet experienced this but (if a suitably inclined individual should find them) can find themselves subjected to a full copypasta attack (and the usual users there are unlikely to find ''our solutions'' anywhere quick enough to deal with our (old) problems. So I'm wary by proxy, as well. Hopefully I'm not inspiring anyone to do anything, by writing these possibilities, also. But script-kiddies (who couldn't actually recognise a 0-day exploit if it came out of their screen and hit them round the ears, but might have the nous to experiment with prior exploitative code) are exactly the kind of people I expect to learn from all this. Especially if nicely packaged up. (My opinion, of course. Willing to be proven wrong.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.100\|172.71.241.100]] 17:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)		:::It wasn't necesarily hidden, what we had, but it wasn't all under a big page of "hey, this is ''exactly'' what happened, once". Also, acts as an even more direct threat against other wikis that hadn't yet experienced this but (if a suitably inclined individual should find them) can find themselves subjected to a full copypasta attack (and the usual users there are unlikely to find ''our solutions'' anywhere quick enough to deal with our (old) problems. So I'm wary by proxy, as well. Hopefully I'm not inspiring anyone to do anything, by writing these possibilities, also. But script-kiddies (who couldn't actually recognise a 0-day exploit if it came out of their screen and hit them round the ears, but might have the nous to experiment with prior exploitative code) are exactly the kind of people I expect to learn from all this. Especially if nicely packaged up. (My opinion, of course. Willing to be proven wrong.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.100\|172.71.241.100]] 17:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	::::So, what do you propose? We delete everything? I feel like we should keep something, just like we kept the entire archived discussion. Besides, finding the original code was as easy as following a link from the Community portal discussion and viewing the archived version. The upside would be that new editors wouldn't have to re-learn the tactics used by the og crapper and would have a ton of documentation to fight it. --[[User:FaviFake\|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake\|talk]]) 20:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 2 May 2025
Line 182:		Line 182:

	::Wait this is making me reconsider this: it IS fixed, right? Another scriptkiddie can't just copy and paste and do this all over again, can they? --[[User:FaviFake\|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake\|talk]]) 16:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)		::Wait this is making me reconsider this: it IS fixed, right? Another scriptkiddie can't just copy and paste and do this all over again, can they? --[[User:FaviFake\|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake\|talk]]) 16:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
		+	:::I... would rather not tempt fate too much. Needless to say, there are changes made to prevent the ''worst'' of that episode recurring, and direct copycat attacks are probably prevented/reverted automatically. But I was always uncomfortable ''fully'' documenting how it happened, for 'posterity', as possible inspiration for someone's future (sufficiently different) "bright ideas", re: vandalism.
		+	:::It wasn't necesarily hidden, what we had, but it wasn't all under a big page of "hey, this is ''exactly'' what happened, once". Also, acts as an even more direct threat against other wikis that hadn't yet experienced this but (if a suitably inclined individual should find them) can find themselves subjected to a full copypasta attack (and the usual users there are unlikely to find ''our solutions'' anywhere quick enough to deal with our (old) problems. So I'm wary by proxy, as well. Hopefully I'm not inspiring anyone to do anything, by writing these possibilities, also. But script-kiddies (who couldn't actually recognise a 0-day exploit if it came out of their screen and hit them round the ears, but might have the nous to experiment with prior exploitative code) are exactly the kind of people I expect to learn from all this. Especially if nicely packaged up. (My opinion, of course. Willing to be proven wrong.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.100\|172.71.241.100]] 17:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 2 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__'''The main discussion about the vandalism happened on [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Admin requests#User vandalizing rapidly]]. This discussion is about the page itself.'''		__NOTOC__'''The main discussion about the vandalism happened on [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Admin requests#User vandalizing rapidly]]. This discussion is about the page itself.'''
		+
		+	----

	"if it contained a t it was treated as crapped"		"if it contained a t it was treated as crapped"

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 "if it contained a t it was treated as crapped"
 Shouldn't it be the other way around?
@@ Line 176: / Line 178: @@
 :Moved this from [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Admin requests]] and remoeve the redirect and added back the original discussions. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 2 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	#~~REDRECT~~ [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Admin requests#User vandalizing rapidly]]	+	#REDIRECT [[explain xkcd talk:Community portal/Admin requests#User vandalizing rapidly]]