All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XXXI

[Bob Schroeck]

Previous thread is here.

So, did we get a serial ban-evader for Christmas? It looks to me like "Chickeninvader" (and that name raises a red flag in and of itself) has the same writing style as "ilove*", down to quietly removing an example without explanation.

Am I being paranoid, or should we hold off on approving these (and rejecting the one that deletes an example without explanation) while we ask for a Checkuser? There's already one approved edit in the history.

I don't think you're being paranoid. As MilkmanConspiracy suggests, reject the deletion for failing to explain why. Request the Checkuser, and we can always point to the holiday season as the reason for any delay in further Moderation, especially since we've put up a notice to that effect.

[robkelk]

Checkuser requested.

I'm not going to reject the deletion edit today - we're supposed to be on Christmas break today. That can wait until tomorrow.

[Bob Schroeck]

I'm waiting for the dough for some dinner rolls to rise, so I just went in and cleaned up everything in the Mod queue but Chickeninvader's edits and that one misplaced trope proposal. <shrug> Christmas won't start for us for a couple of hours yet, when we go over to Peg's mom's place.

[robkelk]

Checkuser's done. I wasn't being paranoid.

[robkelk]

Checkuser's done. I wasn't being paranoid.

And NotAracham has confirmed that it's a full IP block this time, not just an account block. I've thanked them publicly.

[robkelk]

The Moderation queue's down to one entry again.

It's a trope candidate. It's similar to but not a copy of a trope by the same name on The Other Tropes Wiki. Honestly, the only things that are wrong wit it is that it's the first edit by a new user (we tend to discourage new-trope proposals by new users, but there's no actual rule against it) and it isn't in the Trope Workshop.

Do we want to let it go and immediately move it into the Trope Workshop?

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I wouldn’t mind moving it to the workshop, though I’d like to do a double take to make sure the examples aren’t just paraphrased given the name similarities.

[robkelk]

I'll wait on moving the page until you've done the check that you want to do, then.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I'll wait on moving the page until you've done the check that you want to do, then.

Sorry for the delay. I reviewed and am of the belief the content is original.

[robkelk]

No worries; I wouldn't have gotten to it until just now anyway.

[Bob Schroeck]

Well. Browsing the analytics page today, I just discovered that Universal Human Relevance System (www.uhrs.ai), a crowdsourced AI data tagging site, has been hitting us hard over the last month, better than 20 hits a day. Someone is using the wiki to train a LLM, it would appear.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

I'm kind of surprised it took this long if it’s the first: It’s a large body of human written text generally under the same license terms as Wikipedia (Which when writing this I had assumed was a source for training a lot of LLMs, but I can’t actually find a citation for that, so maybe I’m mistaken)

Are they pulling dumps or just hitting random pages? Dumps would indicate knowledge of the project , but random page hits may just be a scraper trying to suck up as much data as possible.

[MilkmanConspiracy]

Looking into it more: Based on a Reddit post from four years ago, it may be something like mechanical turk?
Edit: Just realized you already noted it was a crowdsourcing platform.

[Bob Schroeck]

Are they pulling dumps or just hitting random pages? Dumps would indicate knowledge of the project , but random page hits may just be a scraper trying to suck up as much data as possible.

It's hard to establish a clear connection with the data on the Analytics page. What I can see on a 31-day report doesn't really make much sense -- 650 visits from UHRS since the beginning of December, but nearly 40,000 visits that only looked at one page. All the usage figures are really crazy -- for instance, between 12/25 and 12/29 we were getting something like 3000 hits a day, but before and after there were big "valleys" in the data -- and we had three such peaks and valleys after 12/12, before which our daily usage was half that.

Anyway, best as I can figure from what little we can actually see on the report, UHRS doesn't seem to grabbing big blocks of pages -- but we've had way more traffic in the back half of the month than we normally get.

[robkelk]

I had a few minutes, so I made a dent in the Moderation queue... but I only got one-third of the way through.

[Labster]

Does anyone want WikiForum back?  It's back from the ashes, like a (Jack) Phoenix.

[Bob Schroeck]

It's a *.0 release... we should wait until the *.1 release just to be sure. But yes, it's about freaking time.

[robkelk]

I've always wondered why we want to turn a wiki into a social media site... but I know I'm outvoted on this one.

[robkelk]

Well, we're now down to 5544 files that don't have licence information -- mostly from TV Tropes, but I ran across an untagged file from Commons that was on the list until today.

More importantly, we're down to a dozen autogenerated sublists of files that don't have licence information... which means they can now be generated on a single wiki page.

[Bob Schroeck]

Anyone else get a juvenile message on their private board from new user Wazzupdude? I'm gonna have to say we'll need to watch this one carefully.