vandal-contributor ratio on Citizendium vs. Wikipedia?

[bennett]

Larry had mentioned how "motivated (and pathetic)" the Citizendium vandals seem to be.  Is there any way to estimate whether the ratio of vandals to legitimate users on Citizendium is higher than on Wikipedia?

If it is, then do people at Citizendium suspect whether a large number of those vandals are Wikipedia fanatics who are hammering Citizendium because they perceive some rivalry between the two?  Or are they just losers.

[Jason "Electrawn" Potkanski]

Reigning in Vandals is a 24/7 Wikipedia job and boring janitorial task. Here, it is a once in a while thing I will programmatically and the rest of CZ systematically eliminate. Vandalism is pretty mild at Citizendium...especially after installation of a few plugins that do a bit of inference to determine if an edit is done by human or bot.

-jtp

[Stephen Ewen]

whether a large number of those vandals are Wikipedia fanatics who are hammering Citizendium because they perceive some rivalry between the two?  Or are they just losers.

Certainly the latter. 

The vandals from when we had open registration gave evidence that they had intimate knowledge of MediaWiki, and Wikipedia culture.

[Paul Derry]

I did like the "ON WHEEEEEELSSSS!!!!" titles though. 

[Jason "Electrawn" Potkanski]

For a sillier joke...add "...In Bed" to your fortune from a fortune cookie.

-jtp

[Zachary Pruckowski]

For a sillier joke...add "...In Bed" to your fortune from a fortune cookie.

I'm pretty sure that I don't want anything on wheels in bed.  And I certainly don't want to be in bed on wheels, as I live on the fourth floor.

[geni]

If it is, then do people at Citizendium suspect whether a large number of those vandals are Wikipedia fanatics who are hammering Citizendium because they perceive some rivalry between the two?

It is unlikely to be Wikipedia fanatics. More likely wikipedia vandels who have found a new target. This happens to most wiki projects with any profile.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

If it is, then do people at Citizendium suspect whether a large number of those vandals are Wikipedia fanatics who are hammering Citizendium because they perceive some rivalry between the two?

It is unlikely to be Wikipedia fanatics. More likely wikipedia vandels who have found a new target. This happens to most wiki projects with any profile.

A person who claimed to be the vandal in question claimed to be a Wikipedia contributor, specifically saying that he contributed clean-up scripts and stuff to the project.  I can't say that that's true, but a fair bit of his story appears to line up properly.  Of course, if he is a vandal, he is by definition untrustworthy, but here's his claim.

[geni]

If it is, then do people at Citizendium suspect whether a large number of those vandals are Wikipedia fanatics who are hammering Citizendium because they perceive some rivalry between the two?

It is unlikely to be Wikipedia fanatics. More likely wikipedia vandels who have found a new target. This happens to most wiki projects with any profile.

A person who claimed to be the vandal in question claimed to be a Wikipedia contributor, specifically saying that he contributed clean-up scripts and stuff to the project.  I can't say that that's true, but a fair bit of his story appears to line up properly.  Of course, if he is a vandal, he is by definition untrustworthy, but here's his claim.

There are no bots on Wikipedia that could be used for high speed account creation (it just isn’t something we ever need to do). There are a number in the hands of various vandals at least some of whom have links to some fairly sophisticated trolling groups. I don't think you source has much credibility.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

If it is, then do people at Citizendium suspect whether a large number of those vandals are Wikipedia fanatics who are hammering Citizendium because they perceive some rivalry between the two?

It is unlikely to be Wikipedia fanatics. More likely wikipedia vandels who have found a new target. This happens to most wiki projects with any profile.

A person who claimed to be the vandal in question claimed to be a Wikipedia contributor, specifically saying that he contributed clean-up scripts and stuff to the project.  I can't say that that's true, but a fair bit of his story appears to line up properly.  Of course, if he is a vandal, he is by definition untrustworthy, but here's his claim.

There are no bots on Wikipedia that could be used for high speed account creation (it just isn’t something we ever need to do). There are a number in the hands of various vandals at least some of whom have links to some fairly sophisticated trolling groups. I don't think you source has much credibility.

I didn't say the guy claiming to be the troll has much credibility.  I personally doubt it.  In fact, I even said "he is by definition untrustworthy".  I wasn't accusing WP, and certainly don't think I came across as accusatory.  If I did, I apologize.  The part of his story that lined up was that he had knowledge of Mediawiki internals, and the vandals patterns matched the patterns of a dynamic IP modem on a (very large) ISP.  The part that I meant to say "seems to line up" was that he might actually be the vandal in question (we had blocked that name for vandalism, as well as two of his email addresses).  I only mentioned it because Bennett asked specifically.  I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise.