|
|
| (195 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <noinclude> | | <noinclude> |
| {{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/TalkHeader}} | | {{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/TalkHeader}} |
| {{:UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning}}
| |
| </noinclude> | | </noinclude> |
|
| |
|
| = Bots Discussion = | | = Bots Discussion = |
| ==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) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 14:52 15 July 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| :I will only agree to it if you put it through an arduous policy process.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:53, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::I unironically agree with J3D. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]]<sup>[[Template_talk:VandalBanningNotice|POST HERE]]</sup> 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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 15:02 15 July 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::::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. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]]<sup>[[Template_talk:VandalBanningNotice|POST HERE]]</sup> 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? --[[User:Honestmistake|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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 15:16 15 July 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::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). --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]]<sup>[[Template_talk:VandalBanningNotice|POST HERE]]</sup> 15:18, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::Agreed. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:50, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::Will the bots bans be archived? or just removed weekly? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 03:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::Removed weekly, from my reading of it. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 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. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:09 16 July 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::::::::Oh my god I forgot about that, now I'm angrier than ever! --[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:black"><u><big>ϑϑℜ</big></u></span>]] 10:14, 16 July 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Spambots== | | == Return of old, already banned, bots == |
| 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. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 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? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 18:58, 14 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::I will prepare my Nekkid Romping Gnome division (NRG) for this assault. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 19:09, 14 July 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| == adbot user pages ==
| | Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)</small> |
|
| |
|
| 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. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 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. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]]<sup>[[Template_talk:VandalBanningNotice|POST HERE]]</sup> 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 ? --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 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. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]]<sup>[[Template_talk:VandalBanningNotice|POST HERE]]</sup> 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. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 17:40, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::(scheduled deletions aren't the same thing as speedy deletions) --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 17:41, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Wait.== | | == Hmm == |
| 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? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]]<sup>[[Template_talk:VandalBanningNotice|POST HERE]]</sup> 17:13, 15 July 2009 (BST)
| | It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC) |
| :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 --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 17:19, 15 July 2009 (BST) | | :Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC) |
| ::Everyone has A/VB on their watchlist anyway, or should. --[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:black"><u><big>ϑϑℜ</big></u></span>]] 10:04, 16 July 2009 (BST) | | :::More spammers stuck inside? I gather fraud attempts are way up at the moment. --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness/Quiz|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]<sup>[[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: DarkRed">Want a Location Image?]] </span> </sup> 08:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC) |
| :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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 10:26 16 July 2009 (BST)</small> | | :Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) |
| | | ::No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC) |
| == Bot Rush ==
| | :::Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC) |
| | | ::::Yeah, like acne. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC) |
| 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. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 12:38, 28 March 2011 (BST)
| | :::::Yeah.... acne.... {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig5}} 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC) |
| :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 -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 14:00, 28 March 2011 (BST) | | Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC) |
| ::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 {{tl|vndl}} template with timestamp to reduce clutter. At least for the time being. {{User:Vapor/sig}} <sub>14:22, 28 March 2011</sub> | | :Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC) |
| :::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. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 22:17, 28 March 2011 (BST) | | ::Considering we all have better things to do than continuously ban spambots, probably worth asking! {{User:Stelar/sig}} 20:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC) |
| :::I dig that. As long as the headers aren't stinking up the main A/VB contents then I'm happy. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 00:41, 29 March 2011 (BST) | | :::I guess whoever has his ear, go for it. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC) |
| ::::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. {{User:Vapor/sig}} <sub>01:14, 29 March 2011</sub> | |
