From The Urban Dead Wiki

< UDWiki talk:Administration | Vandal Banning

May

User:Iamnotaporpoise

Seems to me that if we don't have a policy or precedent to do so, we shouldn't be banning people. It's fine if we decide that proxy usage should be bannable, but it isn't fair to ban people who couldn't have known it would get them banned at the time (obviously not talking about vandal alts who would be banned anyway).--Short round }.{ My Contributions 10:54, 1 May 2012 (BST)

Also, has anybody contacted the user to tell them not to use proxies?--Short round }.{ My Contributions 10:58, 1 May 2012 (BST)

I don't think anyone is talking about banning users using proxies. In cases where proxies are used to vandalize (sockpuppetry is a good example) its ban the proxy, warn the user. I think the current discussion is a push to consider all open proxy use vandalism. Honestly there are very few circumstances that I can think of where an open proxy could be used without the intent to conceal one's true identity. It is a question of whether that alone should be considered bad faith. Its a turbulent subject and if its to go forward in discussion, open proxies should be clearly defined and sysops who are unfamiliar with the differences would do well to stick with the old tried and true policy. ~

_{15:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)}

Well I used a proxy to access the wiki just the other day when I was having problems with my adblock. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for using proxies which all come down to accessing the wiki when you might not be able to (work, university, school, holidays, etc.) I don't think we should ever be denying users access if they aren't in some way hurting the wiki. Obviously we ban proxies as we learn about them to stop use by bots or vandal sprees, but if somebody just uses one when they need to get around some kind of system block then I don't see why they should be punished for using a device which wasn't already blocked from accessing the wiki.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 16:49, 1 May 2012 (BST)

Definitely agree. There are numerous legitimate uses for open proxies (including that some browsers default to using them, according to Wikipedia's page), none of which we should be punishing. More often than not, people innocently use them (e.g. forgetting to turn them off after using them) without even realizing that open proxies can be banned. Plus, checkuser is supposed to be reserved for suspicious accounts and suspected/confirmed vandals, rather than every single new account, so a policy along these lines wouldn't even be enforceable on a general basis.

More or less, I don't want to make being a good user a punishable offense, nor do I want the wiki to feel like a police state. That said, if someone wanted to make a policy that doubled the escalation a vandal account received if they were using an open proxy to vandalize (i.e. it'd be like adding a "resisting arrest" charge), I'd go for that. —Aich on— 19:23, 1 May 2012 (BST)

Let's face it, though, the legitimate reasons you've cited are not the norm for proxy use on UDWiki. This wiki is unique from Wikipedia in that users are players in a game in which alt abuse is rampant and probably a good three quarters of the "articles" are group pages or admin pages. If User:Tom adds a comment to discussion, and then User:Jerry uses a proxy to add to that discussion followed by User:Tom again using a different proxy, it would clearly be an attempt at deception. Is that bad faith or good or somewhere in between? Those situations arise all the time and yet the sysop's hands are tied when dealing with it. A sysop could even potentially be brought on misconduct in those situations if he is not careful. I don't know if a new policy can even begin to deal with those problems but I think that was what Axe was trying to get at. ~

_{00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)}

Axe Hack said "Granted, we never have warned a user for proxy usage before, but since it is against policy, we should reconsider our stance on proxy usage and whether they should be warranted as a punishable offense on UDWiki." He quite clearly isn't talking about weird specialised situations like the one you're talking about. He's literally talking about punishing people for using proxies, whether they're vandalising or not. That should never be vandalism alone. Vandalism is vandalism and tacking on extra punishments for it is something we'd need to discuss with the community at PD. In terms of just punishing them for how they access the sight that will never be acceptable in my view.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 00:17, 2 May 2012 (BST)

He brought two cases to A/VB; one for Iamnotaporpoise and one for Iamnotatomatoe. Certainly, it was exactly the situation I explained that has opened this discussion. Its less important how users are acessing the wiki but rather why. Call it proxy abuse vs proxy use. ~

_{00:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)}

In your Tom and Jerry example, it would be clear bad faith, so no hands are tied. And I don't know if I agree or disagree with your assertion that benign usage is not the norm. Considering we pretty much only take note of proxies when they're used to vandalize, it wouldn't surprise me if a decent number of regular folks use them without drawing attention. As for Axe's cases, I haven't seen any evidence of bad faith on either of their parts (nor of the accounts even interacting with each other), so I fail to see how they resemble "exactly the situation [you] explained" in any way. I do agree with your statement that it's more important why the user is accessing the wiki, which is why I suggested additional consequences for those vandalizing rather than punishing the ones doing no harm. I also love the distinction you're drawing between abuse and use. —Aich on— 01:19, 2 May 2012 (BST)

I should probably stop speaking as to why Axe brought upnthese cases. That's not really the point I wanted to make and its not really my place anyway. There are some unique proxy abuse problems I encountered as a sysop. Ban evasion comes up more often, truly. It would probably be good if the sysops had a good proxy abuse policy to supplement the existing policy. Had Corn or any other of the sneakier vandal alts used known open proxy IPs, we'd have had severly less drama I think. ~

_{02:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)}

If we could just get Kevan to enforce the existing policy's use of Wikimedia's proxy blacklist, I imagine a lot of our headaches would go away. ;) —Aich on— 02:51, 2 May 2012 (BST)

Sometimes it's as simple as wanting to keep an alt on the wiki concealed from the sysop's eye, not cause you're cheating, playing any harm or anything, just cause you don't want them to be associated with each other. I'm not saying I agree with the principle of it or anything but I don't agree with linking "proxy usage" with "ban evasion/alt abusing" 100% of the time, even if that's why proxies are primarily abused D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:38, 2 May 2012 (BST)

I should be clear that I don't agree with it either. No to ad hoc vandalism for proxy use. Yes, come up with a proxy abuse policy. ~

_{02:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)}

General Discussion

Move Bot Banning section down the page

Does anyone care if I move the Bot Banning section down the page so that it is underneath the normal reporting area. When it gets a bit long, it gets annoying scrolling down to the main reporting area. ~ _{16:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)}

I wouldn't mind and can see your reasoning. Just leave Template:VBarchivenav at the very bottom, so that it remains easy to be found. -- Spiderzed █ 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

K. I'll wait a little bit longer and do it tomorrow if there's no real objection. ~

_{16:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)}

No objection. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 18:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No objection.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and moved it. ~ _{20:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)}

Objection on no grounds what so ever!-- bitch 23:27, 4 January 2012 (bst)

I OBJECT! No I don't really, at all. And that's what I have to add here. -- AHLG T H 00:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

	OBJECTION!
	Vapor has an objection.

In before Axe Hack. ~

_{01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)}

I'd be ok with removing it altogether from A/VB and replacing the section's contents with a soft redirect. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for that if you're on board now. ~

_{22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)}

Vanished Comments

If anyone can get the right comments back please do. I don't have time to search them up but the histories are now merged. They're hidden in the revisions right now because of the re-merging of the A/VB pages. You'll only need to find the most recent revision of the A/VB talk comments. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:17, 16 May 2011 (BST)

I'm really not sure what happened to them. I believe it may have had something to do with when you moved A/VB to UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive1. It looks like discussion archives were created with the exact naming structure (see above) and probably when you moved the page you checked "move associated talk page" but when prompted you (wisely) told the wiki not to delete the existing discussion page. That's my best guess. Anyway, I can't find the comments and I don't really know what I'm looking for. They may be gone forever unless you can figure out how to dig them up yourself. ~

_{07:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)}

I know where they are and how to get them it's just a time to do it issue. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:18, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Bots Discussion

Regarding the New Header

So the way the new header is set up it rolls up a week every Saturday and the Day counter runs from 0-6. That way we can visibly keep track of when the page should be purged without actually having to go through too much trouble of browsing the votes beforehand. Should make things a little bit easier while making this page take up less space in A/VB's ToC and page. --Karek^maps?! 23:12, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Of course, it gets purged much more often than one week at this point in time. I've been purging every couple of days to keep it from breaking A/VB with unclusion calls ({{vndl}} and sigs).I like the idea, though. I think it would help if we all deciding to put all new reports at either the top or the bottom. ~

_{22:29, 12 April 2011}

It can't/shouldn't now. That was because of stuff added to both this page and the A/VB archive page that I removed and had less to do with large amounts of page use. Generally new reports have always been at the top for all admin pages.--Karek^maps?! 02:42, 13 April 2011 (BST)

We'll see. We had a lot of vandal cases in March b/c of jokes and actual legitimate vandalism. We're half way through April and already quite a bit of vandal data and the bots aren't letting up. As the month progresses both the bot page and the a/vb archive will be competing for inclusion size. Plus it looks neater if there aren't 40 bot reports. But I am willing to do the once a week purge to see how it goes. ~

_{03:37, 13 April 2011}

Case in point: if you check UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_03 at this very moment, it is broken due to inclusion calls. I've made a template - {{bot}} which should be a smaller inclusion size. This might help and might also trim down on the clutter. It is basically {{vndl}} without bot talk page, vandal data, or discussion links. ~

_{16:12, 13 April 2011}

Adbot section

Anyone have an actual problem with putting the adbot section back on the main page, and not archiving them for more than a few days? It's the way we used to treat adbot permas, and it was mistakenly left off the page when it was upgraded (see Hagnat's fist VB case for the month) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:52 15 July 2009 (BST)

I will only agree to it if you put it through an arduous policy process.--x o x o 14:53, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I unironically agree with J3D. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:54, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Repairs to pages that were messed up don't need to go through A/PD unless there are some real objections to the actual changes -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:02 15 July 2009 (BST)

Obviously there's no "need" but it sets a much nicer precedent because you just know how much the "give an inch take a mile" deal is played out around here. Putting this thing onto A/PD should be the number 1 choice because it safeguards against any more accidental changes of this nature as well as dealing with the precedent issue, but I would have been happy with at least some kind of attempt to open a dialogue about it first. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:06, 15 July 2009 (BST)

A spambot edit creates a page which then spawns at least 3 more (A/VB report, User Page to issue a warning? and then a record of the ban) How is that really useful or sensible? What is wrong with the idea of just report and ban in such obvious cases? --Honestmistake 15:10, 15 July 2009 (BST)

They don't get recorded on A/VD, just VB (whichever system we use). I think the creation of the user page just for the adbot template may have been so that people could easily tell that the spambot had already been dealt with, so avoiding multiple reports. But I don't see that as much of an issue, when A/VB is so quite these days. In any case, I don't see any reason whatsoever for archiving of the report -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:16 15 July 2009 (BST)

Once this drama is settled, and I have the energy I'll go back and delete the reports made plus the adbots' pages from the last few months (no matter who "wins" the old system will be in place because we all agree on that front I think). --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:18, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Agreed. --Ross^lessness 15:50, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Will the bots bans be archived? or just removed weekly? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Removed weekly, from my reading of it. Linkthewindow Talk 03:36, 16 July 2009 (BST)

How irritating, it requires the same work (because either way, you are making a record of your ban of the bot) but with the added annoyance of having to come to A/VB every week and remove them. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You're worried about having to edit A/VB once a week? The wiki is seldom that peaceful. In practice, they'll just be wiped whenever someone notices (and it doesn't even have to be a sysop, other users making new reports can do it). I think you're just pissed because of your spimbot game :p -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:09 16 July 2009 (BST)

Oh my god I forgot about that, now I'm angrier than ever! --ϑϑℜ 10:14, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Spambots

So, are any of these doing anything for you? Does it make you want to buy those stuffs? They really seem to like this wiki for some reason. -- AHLG T H 18:48, 14 July 2009 (BST)

They attack most wikis. I'm on a few at the moment who have had some troubles with them. See main page for an extra comment- if they don't agree to our demands, I shall rally a counter-spam unit to spam their contact desk. Mwa ha ha. You in? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:58, 14 July 2009 (BST)

I will prepare my Nekkid Romping Gnome division (NRG) for this assault. -- AHLG T H 19:09, 14 July 2009 (BST)

adbot user pages

should we have a schedule deletion discussion about the removal of adbot user pages ? or is it covered any of the current criteria ? IMHO, creating user pages for adbot was always stupid, and we should remove them and any reference to them from the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:03, 15 July 2009 (BST)

You should read. I've already said I'll delete all instances of the adbot template as well as the cases going back a few months. It will most likely happen either tomorrow or on the day after. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 17:07, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I did read, but what if you fail to delete them all ? what if they are created in the future ? shouldnt there be a criterion to deal with them ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:21, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I can't fail to delete them all because I simply went off "What Links Here" from the template page. Durr. As for the rest, I don't see why not. I'll go make the scheduled vote right now. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 17:26, 15 July 2009 (BST)

If you do so, remember to add a seld-delete clause on the deletion request itself once it gets approved. Nothing to be left behind of an adbot accuont. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:40, 15 July 2009 (BST)

(scheduled deletions aren't the same thing as speedy deletions) --Cyberbob 17:41, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Wait.

Why does this need to be a whole separate templated page again? The only reason we use templates for admin pages is because it makes them easier to archive and this section isn't going to be archived. Surely it would be simpler just to have it as a separate heading on A/VB itself? --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 17:13, 15 July 2009 (BST)

then you'd have to check A/VB, which i believe most users dont. When they have the current month on their watchilist, they simply check it. This also make it easier to identify what this page is about, leaving the other pages to be edited by content that is relevant for those pages --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:19, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Everyone has A/VB on their watchlist anyway, or should. --ϑϑℜ 10:04, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It's a lot better off at the top of the monthly archives, it's the one that is edited the most, and where people get sent after editing one of the VB cases. No point making people go to the A/VB main page as well, just to deal with adbots. But it could be simply added to the A/VB header that gets added to the monthly archives -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:26 16 July 2009 (BST)

Bot Rush

With the current bot rush, what about changing the way bots are filed in order to cut down space that gets eaten? We could for instance use the day as header and then file the vndl-templates underneath along with the sig of the serving op. -- Spiderzed █ 12:38, 28 March 2011 (BST)

Maybe just use sig of the op and day as the sig says, as me and i think vapor have been doing. it's only a formality for accountability etc. not really important -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 14:00, 28 March 2011 (BST)

I used my own header for a bit but then just started adding to the top header. At the rate they're coming in, they're being cycled a day or two later so it doesn't matter much. We honestly could do without headers and just stack the {{vndl}} template with timestamp to reduce clutter. At least for the time being. ~

_{14:22, 28 March 2011}

Cut away headers, file the newest on the top with vndl and sig? Sounds like a plan to me. I'll change it tomorrow unless someone produces an outcry. -- Spiderzed █ 22:17, 28 March 2011 (BST)

I dig that. As long as the headers aren't stinking up the main A/VB contents then I'm happy. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 00:41, 29 March 2011 (BST)

Might just want to link to bot user pages rather than using tl:vndl. Too many template calls were killing A/VB. Had to cycle everything except today's bots. ~

_{01:14, 29 March 2011}

Othpeli

I'm amused that Othpeli created a page advertising for jobs In Christian education on a website that is about a zombie apocalypse. Granted, it is probably automated and was trawling for wikis, but it's still funny. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 01:16, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Extensions

We should totally ask for Extension:SpamBlacklist. After all, we got an update this month: why not strike while the iron's hot? ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ † 15:26, 27 April 2011 (BST)

“	We have the Username Blacklist extension. Could this help in our spambot related problem?	”
—~ _{19:33, 27 April 2011}

Not really; not only is it obsolete, but the bots are using random names which can't really be filtered. Updating to the replacement Extension:TitleBlacklist would probably help, but only somewhat. Still, every measure we can get in place will do some good. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ † 02:20, 28 April 2011 (BST)

Hmm. Well I suppose we could add it to the list of things we'd like Kevan to fix. We also have the ConfirmEdit extension which I believe can be configured by syspos without the need to access the backend. If I'm reading correctly, it can be configured to require capcha when URLs are added and has options to whitelist certain URLs, whitelist groups (like UDWiki:Autoconfirmed Users), and whitelist users with confirmed emails. There is a similar line of discussion happening on UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Semi-protection#Ideas_for_implimentation this policy discussion. ~

_{06:11, 28 April 2011}

The default configuration for ConfirmEdit has it display a CAPTCHA for adding a URL, creating an account, and messing up a login. I don't recall ever seeing any of these. Might be time to create a test account and see if any of them come up…
The only thing listed as sysop-editable for ConfirmEdit is a URL whitelist, everything else requires sysadmin privs. Our Username Blacklist is sysop-editable, but I defy you to come up with any regex that will match the bots we've been getting.
Extension:Check Spambots looks very nice… ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ † 08:02, 28 April 2011 (BST)

Spam Page

Relevant conversation moved from main page.

Got. Would you mind using the {{Spam Page}} template on them? -- boxy 07:08, 1 May 2011 (BST)

mmmk so instead of posting here? any reason? i mean i don't even look at the page to begin with. i just spot the bot in RC and report it.--

bitch 00:02, 2 May 2011 (utc)

This is why. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ † 02:58, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Also post a report here. But I'd like to see the pages wiped as soon as possible so that they don't get picked up by search bots. You don't even have to put the template on, a simple page wipe would do -- boxy 03:56, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Only if the template doesn't look like a user template but actually a notice. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:48, 2 May 2011 (BST)

so let me get this straight so i don't muck it up? post on the bots page with the {{bot|user}} thing, add {{Spam Page}} to the page and wipe it? seems like a lot of work. which would make me prone to not even bother anymore.--

bitch 13:57, 2 May 2011 (utc)

It's two more clicks pretty much. Although the template should be moved to {{BP}} probably. Spaces in templates are needlessly confusing.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:59, 2 May 2011 (BST)

It's not a big deal. Do it, or don't do it. Just a suggestion. Just keep reporting them if we miss 'em and I'll be happy

-- boxy 07:18, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Hitting Special:NewPages and/or Special:Contributions/newbies works as a quickie check, by the way. That is all. -- AHLG T H 22:54, 3 May 2011 (BST)

I've changed my mind... don't mess with the spam pages, just report the bots here. It seems to be leading to sysops banning those who try to help out, rather than the actual spambot :( -- boxy 15:26, 29 May 2011 (BST)

DOH!--

bitch

19:39, 29 May 2011 (bst)

I have been so out of the loop. This is what I get for not checking here for a couple weeks. Sorry about whatever confusion my template has been causing... So, do we get rid of it?-- † talk ? f.u. project funny 04:46, 30 May 2011 (BST)

It's not the templates fault... just human error, is all -- boxy 13:16, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Rangeblocks

I've been using CheckUser to take a look at the IPs for a few of the spambots. To take a random sample, the last 3 I banned were from China, Bangladesh, and Brazil, probably from compromised machines.
Assuming we can't get any of the special-purpose DNSBLs loaded, I think it might be a good idea to rangeblock some of the ISPs/countries we're getting the most spam from, and leave a note to anyone who's caught by such a ban that they can request an account be created for them.
As long as we only block account creation, existing users should be unaffected.
Thoughts? ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ † 02:15, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Shouldn't be too hard. There's plenty of sources for the ranges of a bot network once you have a few of the IPs. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:38, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Aye.

Was just struck by another thought: am I the only one to find it extremely appropriate that we are under siege by a zombie botnet? ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ † 04:20, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I stopped finding things appropriate when the old ones started playing with rainbows. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:50, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Question

I refuse to read all the above, but has anyone asked Kevan to simply edit the wiki code to prevent page creation - outside the userpage - for users with < 1 edit? This would make it so you had to discuss something, edit an existng page, etc. before you had the "right" to make a new page. I mean... how many legitimate users actually sign up, then create a fully-formed page as their first act? Kevan's a smart guy, he can find and change one line of code to include "if less than one edit, disallow page creation". -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 05:56, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Short answer? Yes. Long answer? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ † 06:25, 14 May 2011 (BST)

The autoconfirmed group doesn't actually implement this: It's only designed for protecting specific pages from new users and doesn't restrict the ability to create newpages.

Such a restriction could be put in place by removing the "createpage" permission from the 'user' group, setting up a new group with the permission, and then using the $wgAutopromote setting.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:32, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Policy on pre-emptively banning spambots?

I was just wondering what the feeling was on banning new accounts where the ips resolve to those used by spambots before they've actually made any edits? To give an example: I noticed the latest spambot earlier to day; googling the ip came back as a known spammer. Would it have been acceptable to pre-emptively ban the account?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:00, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Banning known bot IPs has never been an issue in the past. Conn and myself have fairly large banned IP lists due to pre-emptively banning known bot IPs or TOR access points. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:28, 25 May 2011 (BST)

I knew that banning proxies was allowed, just wanted to check on pre-emptively banning users who weren't actually using proxies. Glad to know that common sense prevails.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!}

so it's okay to add them to the bot list early? i've gotten pretty good at spotting them.--

bitch

00:37, 26 May 2011 (bst)

Normally we use preexisting bot lists in cases like that to avoid accidentally banning real users but, yeah if you can verify beyond a doubt that it's a bot go for it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:24, 26 May 2011 (BST)

May be just ban the IP, rather than the user? -- boxy 13:18, 30 May 2011 (BST)

i can't verify anything as i have no shiny check user buttons, nor would I want it. i just go with if it's a random sounding name. 9/10 times i've been right.--

bitch

13:23, 30 May 2011 (bst)

Well, if it looks like a bot then feel free to add it and just include a note that it hasn't actually made any edits yet; we'll be sure to checkuser it before banning.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:45, 30 May 2011 (BST)

The Great Flood

It's spiraling pretty hard out of control in last couple of days. At this rate it's going to overwhelm us sooner than later, even though we currently have one of the largest pool of sysops since the wiki's inception. There's been talk over several different solutions but as far as I can tell nothing has been pushed through yet. Most solutions seem to need Kevan's assistance though, so how about trying to get it in his head that this spam problem is turning into a pretty serious issue? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:25, 7 June 2011 (BST)

Flood? Out of control? Mate, what we got here is just a trickle - THIS is what a spam flood looks like, and as one of two active sysops on that wiki, I had to clean pretty much all of it all up. Then the wiki owner finally got off his arse after going AWOL for a few years and disabled anonymous edits, which helped to say the least. But seriously, I'd say we have more than enough sysops to deal with this little flurry. § § § Chief Seagull § § § squawk 18:44, 7 June 2011 (BST)

yeah. This. Twenty edits a day, needing 40 edits to clear and ban them. Ive had to deal with twice that on wikis as the only sop. --Rosslessness 18:47, 7 June 2011 (BST)

Probably due to my vanishing. I assume. Anyways, yeah. Given a bit of time so we can get a good enough idea of what specific bot sets this is we can actually pre-emptively block the set. So it's not really that big of a worry. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:21, 7 June 2011 (BST)

Final Solution: Deathcamps. Also, as the above. The various spin off browser game wikis get loads more (Hell rising gets none, so obviously what Amazing does works, btw)--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 22:16, 7 June 2011 (BST)

So far there's nothing remotely consistent in the IPs that I've seen. What pattern are you planning to block?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:26, 7 June 2011 (BST)

I was more referring to the fact that once we have the means to be sure of the bot's source there are, in fact, ways to find out ips controlled by the same bot source. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:56, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Here's a specific suggestion BTW (already posted on Kevan's talk page): Update parser functions. It won't necessarily help genuinly distinct bots, but it might help with identification and blocking.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:26, 7 June 2011 (BST)

The flood seems to have relented some.. --MS¤PK ^{Please Vote!} 14:50, 30 June 2011 (BST)

You were saying? ~

_{18:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)}

Well I was referring to the fact you can see bots on the page from a few days ago. Where as a few weeks ago it seemed as if the list needed cleared hourly to keep it's length reasonable. --MS¤PK ^{Please Vote!} 03:38, 1 July 2011 (BST)

Bits

I would like to add the spam image to the Bot section of A/VB and to the discussion header of this section. The example of how it would look and function is in this subheading. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 22:46, 7 June 2011 (BST)

it should say^--

bitch

01:02, 8 June 2011 (bst)

Works for me. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 01:08, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Since no one objected... --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:59, 20 June 2011 (BST)

I'm objecting now. I think it's ridiculous to put an image in the header of an admin page without good reason. I'll wait to see what other people think, but I'm leaning on the side of removing it.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 01:14, 21 June 2011 (BST)

Heh. I just saw the discussion too. I agree with Yon, it just is not good enough reason to change the header. Nice try, though. I lol'd. ~

_{01:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)}

Well, we did have a consensus of two. I'm glad you enjoyed it though. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 01:55, 21 June 2011 (BST)

If you want to reverse it until more people weigh in on the discussion, I am fine with that. I just figured that putting a small spam icon in the header wouldn't hurt anything. For example, the wiki lists this section as *40px Bits* on each edit, and is not present at all in the TOC, so it doesn't hurt any links to the individual header. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 01:52, 21 June 2011 (BST)

It hurts the links from recent changes and from the page history. I hate it here, I hate it on the suburb pages. It reduces functionality -- boxy 02:52, 21 June 2011 (BST)

I wasn't aware that it reduced functionality. That's good to know. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 13:39, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Messes up header links iirc.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:44, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Nah, it can stay this way until we decide on it, but it looks like it'll be going down. (Then again, the next five people could all be for it) --Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 10:26, 21 June 2011 (BST)

Ugh, clever but a bit too lame for my liking. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 03:26, 21 June 2011 (BST)

you guys are kidding right? this wiki is serious bizness! come on lighten up. i expect yon to have no sense of humor whatsoever but the rest of you? shame-- bitch 05:44, 21 June 2011 (bst)

Its just not that funny... its funniness doesn't outweigh its lameness, I think that's that tips it over for me. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 06:11, 21 June 2011 (BST)

But, spam is lame, and spammers are even lamer, so I had to come up with something that was equal parts funny and lame. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 13:39, 4 July 2011 (BST)

=( --Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 10:26, 21 June 2011 (BST)

Funny for a while. Just annoying after that -- boxy 10:35, 30 June 2011 (BST)

Saaaaaad faaaaace. It's funny all of the time! --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 13:39, 4 July 2011 (BST)

it's does zero harm. the page is still named correctly. and it's gives OUR wiki a little personality. okay i've now completely lost interest in reporting spambits. thanks again for ruining another small little bit of fun i had on this shitty wiki.--

bitch

13:50, 4 July 2011 (bst)

I agree with this mister. ^ The letter 'o' to the letter 'i'. So terrible, so serious. Why so... haha -- AHLG T H 17:42, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Um, I wasn't talking about the word spambit, only the fact that there was an image in the header which produces a borked link on recent changes and edit histories (like this section header) -- boxy 03:18, 5 July 2011 (BST)

Yes and that's reasonable but some people still find it a serious offence to the senses should the one letter exchange for a similarly purposed letter for a header that will have essentially the same meaning and intent but with a hint humour in it that some people get but apparently not all long sentence with no punctuation except the period. Such injustice. The wiki is terrible. -- AHLG T H 04:24, 5 July 2011 (BST)

Haha. The only person who thought anything was a "serious offense" was SH when I changed it back, threatening people with edit wars. I don't find it an offense. I don't find it offensive. I just think it isn't funny, and I was one of the guys who were there when Spambit Hunters were made, etc. It's just not funny, so if it's not funny, what value does it have being there? -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 05:33, 5 July 2011 (BST)

What value does it have being the other way in comparison to the 'i' way? It's arbitrary. It doesn't matter. Who gives a give. This is an analogy for the stupid and arbitrary specificity of this entire wiki and its laws. The inane seriousness. Bogging thyself down with rules that provide no actual barrier to doing. Make your life easier (not talking to you specifically, but everyone, at the same time, and not-everyone as well, at alternate times) and don't bother. I'm old now. Go away. -- AHLG T H 05:59, 5 July 2011 (BST)

Spambot IPs

Memo to all Ops: Make sure you CheckUser the bot afterwards and ban it's IP. I've CheckUser-ed quite a few of them and noticed these bots keep reusing the same IP addresses. Checking off the box that reads "Automatically block last IP address" apparently will only block that IP address for 24 hours. --AXE HACK _TALK _χIII 22:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's because it's the default for the autoblock IP as it's really only intended to stop logging into an account. I think there may be a way to adjust it that I'm just not remembering. Also, if you're blocking the IPs separate turn Anon. Only off(it defaults on) otherwise they can get around it by registering. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently only Kevan can adjust it as it's in the LocalSettings file ^Ref.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

easier for sysops

I notice the sysops that ban bots before they are reported by the rest of us still post them on here. How about we make it easier for them by promoting the use of this page only for regular uses who want the account banned? I trust sysops to manage a simple task like the banning of bots without the added drear of having to additionally put it on this page. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Unless they just enjoy seeing their name plastered all over the page as a testament to their hunting skill :P --MS¤PK ^{Please Vote!} 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually got lazy to post on this page. Some SysOp I am. xD --AXE HACK _TALK _χIII 14:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically I both encouraged that behavior and am one of the people who frequently treats the page as you state. Hopefully there will be no more Chief Seagull incidents from backsliding(don't even remember who did that actually). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it was Ross. I feel like it was. We shouldn't check to see if it was him and instead assume that it was and act with this assumption. Oh, I don't know about this Ross fellow, he who blocks the innocent folk. Not very upstanding. -- AHLG T H 02:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

than spidey went and banned me. or was it vapor? i forget?--

bitch

02:36, 19 March 2012

I never report the bots I block. Bogs down the process. I can ban many more in my limited wiki time if I just banhammer and move on to the next. I do like the "delete user page" and pre-built banning options of the bot template. Wish media wiki had some way of auto flagging bots. Special:Contributions/newbies helps and so does Special:Newpages. Perhaps we could toy with some system page to at least be able to narrow newpages down to those most likely to be bot pages. ~

_{04:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)}

I think you might just have set me up with a summer project.....--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to throw down some ideas at User:Thegeneralbot/spambotflagging.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Good input, I wasn't sure if ops still reported it or not. Good to since that since I bailed everything's gotten a bit more lax D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Instead of purging every week, purge these bots once they have been dealt with. Or something. --AXE HACK _TALK _χIII 17:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

We currently have a backlog of 32 unserved requests and the bots have begun to repeat vandalise. I understand that there are lots of fun things to do on the wiki like vomiting all over my talk page and posting questions on promotion bids, but please could system operators deal with at least a couple of requests as they come through? It would just break it up and make the wiki run a bit more smoothly. Thanks! :) --Short round }.{ My Contributions 13:26, 6 May 2012 (BST)

Auto-banning suspected bots?

I've been looking into writing a bot to automatically deal with spambots and so far I believe I've worked out how to make it check for new pages that are made by new users which include external links and then to blank the page and report them. However, it seems to me that the main problem isn't so much identification as simply the sheer number of bots that need banning. Therefore, I was wondering what people's opinions would be on having a bot that automatically deletes the pages of and/or bans suspected spambots?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:14, 8 May 2012 (BST)

I'm not sure how I feel about a bot auto banning accounts it finds. Is there any other way to confirm the spambitism of said accounts? Because I have seen several group pages created by a new account with an external link going to their forums.

-Maybe rather process the page automatically at certain times like every 8 hours and ban accounts only on that page. --MS¤PK ^{Please Vote!} 00:12, 9 May 2012 (BST)

If by "the page" you mean this one, wouldn't it also ban the users who report them? -- † talk ? f.u. project funny 04:49, 9 May 2012 (BST)

Not beyond all doubt, but I could write something that (for example) checked to see if the page that they had just created has the same title as their username. Processing the page automatically is kinda doable but parsing text is kinda a pain.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:07, 9 May 2012 (BST)

You may not be able to find a reliable pattern for all bots, but a few surely would help out, no? To ease the load. Could it distinguish between urls with the same domain, like Urban Dead? Could it distinguish all forum links, since that's a common external link newbies use? -- AHLG T H 17:07, 9 May 2012 (BST)

Well if it identified that the bot created a page with the same name as it's username, what does it do when they spam their own userpage instead of a new page? But I agree that is a good way to get bots separate from new users --MS¤PK ^{Please Vote!} 23:25, 9 May 2012 (BST)

Depends on how strict you want it to be. It could be set up to ban new users who post external links to their userpage, but that does sound link it might create some false positives.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:21, 10 May 2012 (BST)

Yes, it would. The worry is that it would be liable to pick up a few false positives and ban legitimate new users. It could probably be set up to use a regex to check for links to urbandead and commonly used forum sites.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:21, 10 May 2012 (BST)

I don't know if I like the concept of users being banned without the ability for somebody to check the case. Bots are good for admin tasks which require mass edits, but when it comes to banning what could be normal users I feel it's a step too far. What if it bans users who post new pages with external links for legitimate reasons? There would be no accountability for that action (i.e. no misconduct) because nobody would have made that decision. Very dangerous water in my opinion.--Short round }.{ My Contributions 17:14, 9 May 2012 (BST)

Do eet! And make it run automatically every 45 minutes. Seriously, though it sounds like you're on the right track. Depending on how well it identifies sapm, you could at least have it report them. ~

_{22:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)}

I'm with Shorty on this one. And there are legitimate new users who make their user page in the mainspace using their own name. -- † talk ? f.u. project funny 04:18, 10 May 2012 (BST)

hmmm, you're kinda right. I'd just rather like it to do something more effective than just report them. Perhaps it could require confirmation from a human? That would eliminate false positives but also reduce its effectiveness by requiring a human to be supervising it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:21, 10 May 2012 (BST)

This is a separate but related request, but if the bot has the ability to block (sounds like it may from what you're suggesting above) how about having it ban blacklisted proxy IPs. Karek says he did a manual block several years ago but its probably time to do it again. Generalbot would probably help a lot if it has the ability to do it. ~ _{16:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)}

It does have the ability to block, though it does of course need a sysop account (It could be set up to automatically switch to my account for blocking, though). I've been considering having it cross-reference checkuser data with bot blacklists, but wasn't sure if there was an appropriate interface. However, it someone can find by a good blacklist of proxy IPs then it shouldn't be difficult to have generalbot autoban them.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:21, 10 May 2012 (BST)

http://www.stopforumspam.com/downloads has a blacklist you can download as a CSV with over 200,000 blacklisted IP addresses. You may also want to check with Karek to see what he used last time. Of course, Kevan could just reconfigure the wiki to automatically run checks for blacklisted IPs and save everyone the trouble. Someone just needs to present him with a solid spam blocking plan I think. ~

_{18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)}

This is probably moot now. Kevan came through with some wiki updates. I'd say keep whatever you were working in your bag o' tricks in case some similar is needed in the future. ~

_{00:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)}

wtf...

WTF... spambits can do this? -- † talk ? f.u. project funny 11:12, 17 May 2012 (BST)

Is that some OP power? --MS¤PK ^{Please Vote!} 01:35, 19 May 2012 (BST)

That comes as standard on a lot of wikis, actually. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ † 09:33, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Probable reason for recent bot deluge

During my recent spambit crusade, I stumbled across a probable reason that we had so much of it lately. There's a new toy on the market for spammers and it is evil. I thought I'd share. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbnVGhnI7g0ed ~ _{00:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)}