UDWiki:Wiki Questions

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

A page for wiki-related questions. Please consider visiting the Help pages to see if your problem is already addressed there. For questions about the game, see the FAQ.

An archive is located here.

Tolman Catastrophe

Hello again. I was updating/working on my character descriptions when I saw that the link for the Tolman Catastrophe was broken, checked it out, and found out that the page was deleted by Vapor. Normally, I don't mind wiki updates, but why was this deleted since it's a part of Malton history, after all, it pretty much destroyed the surrounding area.

--TheBardofAwesome 19:29, 19 July 2011 (BST)

It was brought up on a vote on A/D, and the deletion votes won out. Several similar pages were done at the same time. I think the information was migrated to location pages for some or all of them. 19:31, 19 July 2011 (BST)

It was up for a deletion vote. The information has been merged into Burges Towers and Tolman Power Station, as the article was too negligible to warrant its own page by the view of the voters. -- Spiderzed█ 19:33, 19 July 2011 (BST)

Alright. --TheBardofAwesome 19:46, 19 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah sorry about that. I normally don't touch User pages to edit out dead links while deleting pages. The info about The Toman Catastrophe is found at Tolman_Power_Station#Post_Outbreak so maybe you can change the link on your character page to something like [[Tolman_Power_Station#Post_Outbreak|The Tolman Catastrophe]]. People can still click the link to find out more about the incident. ~ _{19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

Spambits

Is it possible to limit page creation to autoconfirmed users? 19:37, 19 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah but Kevan has to do it. ~ _{19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

19:51, 19 July 2011 (BST)

There's discussion about it somewhere. I think the argument was that autoconfirmed users are those with 25 edits or one week under their belt and there are loads of non-spambit users we'd be fucking over by making them wait a week. I think there is a way to limit adding external links to autoconfirmed and probably even possible to whitelist certain domains (like urbandead.com). Still might limit some legitimate users and would still require Kevan's hand. I'll see if I can link you to the discussion. ~ _{20:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

Well the discussion seems to be spread out through several policy discussion pages. The most recent one came just after the wiki software update (recent and relevant info). There was also three separate policy discussions specifically addressing autoconfirmed. Uhh, I'm sure your question is probably in the somewhere but short answer is it's ultimately up to Kevan. ~ _{20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}

The answer is: yes, you can. The 'create page' ability is a seperate permission which could be un-assigned to the 'users' group and given to the 'autoconfirmed' group. However, I'd be unwilling to do that given the disruption it would cause newbies (why should they have to make 25 edits to a wiki they really aren't interested in just so they can create a group page?)

If we were going to do it then we'd probably have to create a new "page creation requests" page.

For the record, autoconfirmed groups were originally envision purely for use with semi-protection. 'Autoconfirmed' is granted after one week and 25 edits.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:55, 20 July 2011 (BST)

The only way I'd see to make it feasible would be to limit page creation in the main namespace to auto-confirmed users and then adding in a group namespace for all groups to occupy which wouldn't require auto-confirmed status. In that way people who create a wiki account only to create and maintain a group page wouldn't be hindered and no new requests page would be needed (only very special cases possibly). But I couldn't imagine all the page moves and broken links(unless redirects always happen with page moves?) that would be required *shudders* >.>        04:07, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Loosen the autoconfirm criteria then (I'm pretty sure it's do-able, given that it's one day on the big wiki). With the time issue reduced, 25 edits really isn't a lot if you edit your userpage, add links to your new group to places, and then create it. 04:09, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Considering most spambits wait a few hours to post their page and that's the only edit they make removing the time limit and just make 5 or 10 edits the requirement. Heck if you want to keep the purpose of the current auto-confirmed group just make a second group that you'll earn with very little effort (such as 5 or 10 edits) to thwart the spambits. You could even name it aptly "You not a spambit yay!"       04:20, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Second group is possible but requires some fiddling by Kevan.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

It's 4 days on Wikipedia. The whole purpose of the autoconfirmed is to protect highly visible pages from vandals, so we can't really change that - it would make semi-protection useless.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

It's doable, but quite complicated and so goodluck getting Kevan to do it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I'm pretty sure that with the way Kevan configured our wiki during the update (which was likely nearly entirely the default configuration) changing group permissions has not been enabled for any level of user (including crat). Crats can assign permissions to specific user by adding or removing them from a specific group but they can't change the actual permissions. $wgGroupPermissions would need to be configured differently before we could go changing group permissions. ~ _{07:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, giving crats the ability to change group permissions is pretty unusual for most wikis.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:28, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Oh ok, sorry I thought you meant it was something we could do ourselves in your comments above. ~ _{14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

Nah, none of these usergroup changes can be done by us. At best, we might be able to convince Kevan to let the 'crats have the power to create/alter usergroups; but that'd still require a fair bit of fiddling from him.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:19, 21 July 2011 (BST)

What about one edit? People could just create a user page. --Rosslessness 10:32, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah, we could. I am thoroughly against using the autoconfirmed group for that, though. We should set up a separate group if we're going to so it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:55, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Doing that would work wonders; can only create a page after one edit. In the restrictive system message for the "sorry you cannot create the page you're trying to make you need X edits", just add a link to the Sandbox or something, easy enough. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:47, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I'd be for a separate group. Maybe just "confirmed users". Some spambits would likely still find a way by spamming existing articles rather than creating new ones. We already see that in some cases though its more rare. I still think we should explore the option of limiting who can add external links. I think that's an option on the reCapcha extension we have. ~ _{16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

So Kevan forming a second group with the page creation permission to be earned with 5 edits would kill about all spambits. Then making it so users not in the auto-confirmed group have to enter a reCapcha to post an external link(s)? Sounds simple and solid to me.       22:34, 20 July 2011 (BST)

...are you kidding? I'd rather it be the way it is now, instead of spammers going: "Hmm. I can't make new pages, so I guess I'll just start overwriting currently existing pages." --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:33, 20 July 2011 (BST)

You figure they'd send updated bits to our little wiki? I'd say there are bigger fish to fry        00:52, 21 July 2011 (BST)

I'm not a programmer but I'd imagine spambots don't actually have anywhere near that sort of intelligence. P sure they are kamikaze bots designed to just make one page then make another if they havent been banned within the minute. If you find an actual spambot smart enough to have the line of thought you've just hypothesized above then tell me and I'll give it a medal. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:54, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Actually the old bots used to do exactly that and it's not something that would even be code intensive really. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:03, 22 July 2011 (BST)

There is likely some human intervention involved with the bits. That's how they get past recapcha for account creation. Companies will pay people in china and african nations to solve the capchas. I think the going rate is 5 american cents per 1000 capchas solved. Would they pay the extra monies to solve the extra capchas? I don't know. We really don't know how the bits would react. I actually share Akule's concerns. ~ _{01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

If we were to go through with some change i'd recommend doing only the change to adding urls at first since that works across the board without changing permissions. If we're lucky and it snuffs the bits we don't need to change anything else.if we're not, then we can consider adding the new group. ~ _{01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah I was referring to the programmers/companies updating their bits :P Just be sure only users not in the auto confirmed group have to enter capchas. I hate those things and so does everyone else.       01:37, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Just to say: It is perfectly possible to use a piece of logic which says "if <can create page> = true; create new page" and then "If <can create page> = false; goto Special:Random; edit page" (I could even give you proof-of-concept code to do it). Whether or not most of the bots are that complicated is another matter (I'd guess "no", but that is only a guess). Adding a captcha when adding external links for non-autoconfirmed users is a setting in our captcha extension; it's a matter of toggling an option on. I doubt it will have much effect, though, given that the only bot which actually seems phased by a captcha would be mine.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:19, 21 July 2011 (BST)

That's because your not making your bot run the capcha by younto solve them. Even sophisticated black-hat linkspamming programs like XRumer supposedly use a mix of human and machine to do their evil bidding. I don't know if it would help either but as you said it would be easy to toggle on, it would work well with the autoconfirm settings already in place, and even sysops would have some control over what is allowed through whitelisting. It couldn't hurt to try it. ~ _{02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

True, and it's not worth the hassle to make it work: It only becomes a problem when I mistype my password and the captcha springs up. Yeah, I believe that's the easiest way to do it. Fun fact: The framework that I use is actually capable of solving several types of captcha on its own; reCaptcha just happens to be one of the types that is impervious to it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:03, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Random thought: The best anti-bot measures are actually the ones that ask questions or give maths problems because they block essentially all auto-solving bots and merely leave the human-solving ones.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:06, 21 July 2011 (BST)

That might be something to request. I think it is also a fairly straightforward change. Would you mind doing the honors of requesting the changes fro Kevan. You seemed to have said the magic words last time. ~ _{03:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}

2+2=<>< will foil all bots! :D        03:24, 21 July 2011 (BST)