Classic WoW Wiki talk:Violations

E-mail validation for account creation not working
Add the need to get your password from e-mail is not working to discourage spammers. I think we need something harder for them to get past, but not so far as to validate every edit.

Some suggestions: --Fandyllic 11:07 AM PST 21 Mar 2006
 * Have the password e-mail change the text around the password randomly (or randomly enough), so it is hard to parse the password, but easy for real person to figure it out. Not sure how this would be done, but it's an idea.
 * Graphic validation: Where some text is put into a graphic and warped so character ecognition can't easily parse it and that code is used to validate the account.
 * Have admins approve each account manually. This really isn't a good idea, but I'm running out of ideas.

Rustak aware of e-mail validation not working
I've been telling him about our woes via e-mail and he's going to look at getting e-mail validation on account creation before allowing accounts to edit working this weekend. He's also going to look into image validation on account creation. Cross your fingers. --Fandyllic 1:58 PM PST 25 Mar 2006

I got blocked!
The good news is we know IP blocking works. The bad news is one of the spammers (Smcn) was using my IP address. Fortunately, I'm using a dynamic IP, but it was a little bit of a pain to get a different IP.

I do think this tells us that IP blocking isn't always the good answer. Spammers aren't restricted to unique IPs if they have their own DHCP server or can manipulate the one that's giving out their IPs. --Fandyllic 12:45 PM PST 14 Mar 2006


 * well,,, that is hmm, interesting. couldn't we sic FBI or whatever on this..?  doubtful as the spammers are probably operating from some backdoor middle of nowhere country where they're lucky to have electricity in the first place... right. ? CJ 03:24, 17 March 2006 (EST)


 * I got the message that I was blocked because Smcn was using my IP as well, only the IP given wasn't mine. User:Tyroney reported the same thing. --Aeleas 11:49, 17 March 2006 (EST)

The same thing happened to me with Smcn at my school (gets boring between classes after work is done XD). Odd... --Cigawoot 14:10, 17 March 2006 (EST)


 * Old topic, but I suspect that the IP being compared for blocking may be what is seen on the greater internet (IPv6 or something) and not the local IP which is in old-style nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn in most cases. --Fandyllic 3:30 PM PDT 3:30 PM PDT 5 Sep 2006

KBot destruction
There is an easy way to identify and destroy the K-Bots, but it would require a re-working of the URL scheme. If your up to it, Rustak, I can tell you what we did. &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide|undefined 05:52, 11 Mar 2006 (EST)

Rash of spam-bots
Lately we've had a rash of spam bots. Frankly, I'm tired of it. What can we do about it? Schmidt 01:04, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)

Someone asked if we could get an IP block on these bots. If you see Special:Ipblocklist, it will say that a user was blocked because he shared an IP address with a user. So each block is an IP block. Schmidt 09:02, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)


 * There are several things, but they would require the help of the head admin / site owner.


 * 1) Require manual account activation ( that will make people less likely to edit though )
 * 2) Insert a validation image ( whatever they call it ) that requires people to type in the letters / numbers they see in that image in order to create an account. this, usually prevents a number of bots from automatically creating an account, then going ahead and posting crap. CJ 13:27, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)
 * 3) Email verification. when you create an account, send an email to validate you exist. this will stop a "few" bots, but not all.
 * 4) combination of 2+3
 * 5) IP Verification. since the spammers are unlikely to use their own IP, and blocking by IP is dubious at best.. would there be any kind of verification that could be done upon logging on to make sure the user is legit?


 * I think a validation image would work best, but any of these solutions might need either a new version of the wiki or some hack. I sent e-mail to Rustak and asked him to give his thoughts, if possible. --Fandyllic 1:34 PM PST 10 Mar 2006


 * The rash of spam bots seems to be subsiding for some reason. Maybe they read these comments and know we are actively blocking them and working on better ways to prevent them from doing their evil deeds and decided to move on. Who knows? --Fandyllic 5:52 PM PDT 4 Apr 2006

I noticed the same. I guess our active efforts have forced them to either give up or just regroup for a more vicious onslaught. Let's hope it's the former. Schmidt 22:40, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

Captcha
Argh, spammers are annoying. So, a few things: 1) new wiki hardware + mediawiki 1.5 will be ready to go in like.. a day.  The person who was supposed to rack the machine for me has avoided going in to work since apparently the air conditioning is broken and is keeping the office at ridiculously freezing temperatures (also found a nice extension to solve the image-link problem, that all works well and I modified one of the media wiki bots to go through and make most of the changes automagically).  2) I've got some spam blocking extensions in the new install that are working well for us on the mozilla wikis; I can add in something captcha based, but do you think that'll get too annoying for people doing real edits? You'd need to type the random image-words for every edit... 3) I'll turn on account email verification, it should stop some of the bots as you guys suggest. --Rustak 17:38, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)


 * More active protection would be good. This last spam bot crazy was most likely just someone with a computer automatically making accounts every few minutes, and spamming the same page over and over. A single IP block eariler would have made the whole thing quicker. Then again, I was bored enough to manaualy change back the first 50 or so changes :) --Stfrn 17:54, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)


 * ""captcha"" for every single edit would be too annoying. but it'd be a start to turn it on just for creating a new account or logging on. and then see how well that prevents problems. CJ 05:45, 11 Mar 2006 (EST)


 * I vote against validation for every edit. I don't think an IP block would work, since a smart spammer can easily hook his stuff up to a DHCP server and renew leases after every spam attempt. --Fandyllic 9:52 AM PST 12 Mar 2006


 * I think putting in Captcha's for Logon, and creating an account will at least stop this or this from happening for a while, it seems someone is using an automatic account creator. i wouldnt go as far as putting captchas on every edit.. that will just impede normal users too much. CJ 05:06, 16 March 2006 (EST)


 * Captain's log, stardate 170320061020: This matter is getting out of hand, the Borg are going rampant, and adding more spam than any sane person would want to clean up. Something needs to be done..... Perhaps a "panic" button.. that reverts "all" changes a single user made. would make cleaning up this crap easier, and faster. CJ 03:20, 17 March 2006 (EST)


 * Agreed, that's a great idea. Just one click to undo spam by a user!  Wonder how much processing power that would eat up... --Cigawoot 15:51, 17 March 2006 (EST)

In case it wasn't clear from what I added to the main article page (I added it some time ago), admins have the capacity to undo one edit with one click, and so very easily undo vandalism. Firefox and IE 7 are good for this. On a side note, IE 7 Beta 2 doesn't work for every ASP that IE 6 was good for, so I wouldn't recommend getting that right yet. Now, Mozilla doesn't either, but at least Mozilla is completely separate from IE 6; IE 7 overwrites IE 6. :-( But then again, Mozilla is way better anyw

WYBLOL vs. Schafbo and Watch Your back
Okay, WYBLOL created the now deleted guild page Watch Your Back which appears to have an unsubstantiated conversation about that guild and Months Behind which are both Dethecus (US) server Horde guilds. So, Schafbo calls WYBLOL a vandal for creating the page which is incriminating to Watch Your back (I guess). Since we can't prove the veracity of what was on the Watch Your Back page (without at least some other people giving some evidence), it could be considered vandalism, but on the other hand so could the emptying of the page by Schafbo. My solution was to delete the Watch Your Back page (and the one at User talk:WYBLOL) and remove WYBLOL from the vandal list. If WYBLOL post another pseudo guild page again without any explanation, he gets back on the vandal list. If Schafbo empties a legit Watch Your back guild page, he goes on the vandal list. -- Fandyllic (talk) 5:32 PM PDT 16 Oct 2006


 * Thanks for making a call on that mess. I was still scratching my head over it :-)  -- Mikk  (T) 20:48, 16 October 2006 (EDT)

Negue
I don't think it was intentional :-) --Tinkerer 06:26, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

Discouraging vandal bots
Is there a way to automatically limit edit frequency?
 * Like say 3 page edits per 2 minutes, or 1 per minute.
 * The timer would be for distinct pages edited per time period.
 * There would be a seperate timer (or no timer) for editing the same page again quickly to allow minor fixups if a user saw an error right after saving for example.
 * Exceeding the 'speed limit' would take the user to a hold page similar to show preview, where basically it would say 'you are editing too many different pages too quickly. This is a preview and has not been saved ... etc.'
 * Reverts would not count against the timer, so that vandal cleaners could stay ahead of vandals without the timer being activated. For example, an admin mass reverting all of a vandals edits.

I don't think that, if a reasonable pages/time ratio was selected, legitimate editors would be penalized, but bots would trip this after a couple of pages and would be popped out of the regular load/vandalize/save pattern which would stop them from progressing through the site without intervention. Also, human vandals (or specially programmed vandal bots) would only be able to change pages at a measured rate which would limit the damage that they could do before being added to Known Vandals and being blocked.

--Dga 11:33, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * Overall a good idea, but it would be awful for some fast editors who want to Categorize a list of things or something alike. Also, it may kill the HELPFUL bots. --Tinkerer 11:41, 3 November 2006 (EST)
 * What Tinkerer said. And I don't think it would be easily made tbh, seeing the structure of the wiki --Adys 11:57, 3 November 2006 (EST)


 * Nooooo don't do that !!! bots dont spam that much anyway,, real people do.. *cough me cough*. I think the random image things may help to some degree.
 * Perhaps analyze the type of edits being done..? lots of http http http means the bot is inserting spam obviously.  how many wiki editors really add http addresses frequently? most wikilinks are just wikilinks  12:54, 3 November 2006 (EST)


 * When I mass change pages I submit one page every ~5-10s. I'd _hate_ a limit like that.
 * And to spot spammers, use RC - it counts occurences of suspicious words, including "http".
 * -- Mikk (T) 17:57, 3 November 2006 (EST)


 * How easy would it be to create an "exceptions" list, for people (and bots) with a known track record of useful edits? --Eirik Ratcatcher 13:50, 15 February 2007 (EST)

page size
time for archive 3? :P 09:15, 6 November 2006 (EST)


 * Yup.  -- Mikk  (T) 09:39, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Known_vandals Spazzz entry odd
What's going on here? What does "Reverted ban. Learn how to revert!" mean? -- Fandyllic (talk) 2:55 PM PST 6 Nov 2006


 * &rarr; User talk:Kirkburn :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Ghrenaahi
I spoke to Ghrenaahi in-game about why he vandalized the Equinox page. The conversation went something like this:

Me: "Why were you vandalizing the Equinox page on wowwiki.com?"

Ghrenaahi: "because he's a f*cking ninja and he's ignoring me"

Me: "He ninjaed you? Where?"

He described that Equinox supposedly ninjaed a "good fist weapon that dropped off the cannoneer in Stratholme".

Ghrenahi: "so in my book he's now a freaking asshole and i'll keep on vandalisin his f*cking self-proclaimed web infos on wowwiki.. anyway, whether or not he wrote it, the page should promote what he is : a possible ninja."

I say we definetly ban this guy for more than 1 week if he keeps at it. Anyone agree?

--TM41 18:35, 18 November 2006 (EST)

Gsdkp
Moved from Main article -- 06:08, 15 February 2007 (EST)

has been repeatedly adding his own site as a loot link, but the site apparantly only lets people download his addon. I've repeatedly reverted him, explaining that the links are dead. Reverts back without explanation. Appears to be pure self-aggrandazment rather than any attempt to be helpful.
 * Permaban reverted. This is not the way to go about it, and the links work. User has been notified of the problem.--
 * I agree, any loot information is better than none, perhaps he could put a bit more effort in to link wowhead/thott/alla and the item names in the boss article. --Lukian

Moved from Village pump

Whats the Wiki policy on advertising? User:Gsdkp has been adding links to his site all over the place. Theres Gsdkp too. Personally I dont like the idea, but thats just me.--Syzgyn 14:20, 14 February 2007 (EST)


 * It's not advertising, merely adding further external resources for the wiki. It is justified, even though the site's owner seems to have some issues with his site and links to it. He has been informed of it, and they have been given the ok to be on the wiki. -- 21:36, 14 February 2007 (EST)


 * Advertising occurs when someone's putting those external links center-stage on the article. For instance, if someone puts a link to an external instance guide in the introduction of an instance article, that's advertising. It isn't advertising if the editor puts it at the bottom in the External Links or Sources section. 10:23, 15 February 2007 (EST)


 * It's pretty obvious that its Marketing the site intentionally. I just don't like the idea of someone using the wiki to promote their own site.  Especially since they're not adding any real information in, just a link.  If they added in the actual drops and at least put forth an effort, then I wouldn't mind as much. --Syzgyn 22:25, 15 February 2007 (EST)


 * Yeah, it's not like thott, alla and wowhead are adding info is it? they don't get free advertising by providing a good source of info do they? ¬_¬ seriously.. think before you speak. Of course it's gettting them visitors and attention, but thy deserve it as long as it's proving quality information, if that were to change, they'd be gone in a heartbeat. -- 22:34, 15 February 2007 (EST)