UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Allow SysOps to Ignore Spambots

A Headline

You know the deal. Even if it doesn't pass, it gets forwarded along. "Look what Amazing is doing!!! D:" - Then, as if by magic, the modification gets installed. Alternately, Amazing is re-banned and stops talking in the 3rd person. Discuss. -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 04:44, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Which extension are you recommending and how well does it keep the bots out? ~ _{04:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}

That's a bit of an unintended hidden trap, because then it opens debate as to whether or not people want that specific extension. The idea here is that the policy would become null & void as soon as any extension created to stop SpamBots is installed.

On a personal, not-actually-part-of-this-policy level, I'm as fond of ReCapcha as the next guy. -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 04:52, 15 May 2011 (BST)

The only way I'd support capcha is if it was only used for a users account creation and then first say 10 edits. Trying to decipher scribbled letters is annoying.       13:21, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I was under the impression you only needed a recapcha on registration. Have bots developed a hit or miss ability to fool them or something? If so I oppose them. Filling them in before every edit is more annoying than the bots. Its bad enough that they're a conduit to the dread lord Inglip. --Zaruthustra^{Still a Mod in His Mind} 14:43, 15 May 2011 (BST)

No method of barring bots is safe. Some are just safer than others. Even the most incomprehensible captcha can simply be relayed to humans, either by employing sweatshops in the third world or by embedding the captcha on pr0n sites so that the visitors solve the captchas for your bots. However, it would at least help to keep out the crappy ones. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 14:48, 15 May 2011 (BST)

ConfimEdit is already installed on the wiki.~ _{15:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}

It's interesting to note that while ConfirmEdit is installed, this deluge of spambots only occurred after we updated. I assume the bots can read this version of the text capchas. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 18:43, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I am pretty certain the extension has been installed for a while. Either way, the current bot swarm started before the update. Also to note, while ConfimEdit is installed, it probably isn't configured optimally to stop (or slow) the bots. It could be configured to force capcha when adding an external link until the user is autoconfirmed (at least 25 edits or 1 week since account creation). Weather this would do anything to stop or slow the bots is unknown. They seem to have the ability to bypass capcha on account creation, though it is likely humans creating accounts and bots spamming links. ~ _{19:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}

Isn't there an addon capcha that uses images? I know that is harder for most bots to get past. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:11, 15 May 2011 (BST)

There are a few different options for the type of Captcha used by the extension. The one we currently use is ReCaptcha. That's the one you see everywhere with the squiggly looking letters which are in fact images. Apparently, spammers have figured out a way around it or they're employing people in third world nations to solve puzzles to allow the spammers in. It even says in the article the Amazing linked that ReCaptcha is unfortunately no longer effective against spammers as of this year. You might be referring to FancyCaptcha, but I have no idea how much more effective it is against spambots. Probably not at all. ~ _{21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}

Well I'll be damned. I guess that's what I get for not looking at creating an account in five years.

I suppose a rewrite is in order, then, stipulating that ReCapcha needs to be configued in a way so as to better prevent Spam. Is it illegal to create a second account under current Wiki law? If not, I'll test some stuff... namely whether or not the ReCapcha is even working and doesn't let you in typing random gibberish. -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 20:10, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Wiki alts are legal, as long as you don't use them for underhanded stuff like voting multiple times, impersonating others or sockpuppeting your own position in arguments. Testing wiki-related stuff that can't be found out otherwise is definitively legal :) --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 20:32, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Okay. Uh... Capcha is kind of useless. I'm thinking I should just point that out, and only share the method in private. I suppose the only reason I've been able to rely on it in the past is because I usually combined it with "answer this question" stuff. Maybe if K-Man changes the settings to a different style of Capcha, it'd successfully lock out the droids? -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 20:56, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I'd kind of like to know what you found. Feel free to email me. ~ _{21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)}

Absolutely Not

This is just dumb. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:11, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Besides which, I can't think of a single case of a sysop being brought up for Misconduct for this reason, nor do I see how a charge on these grounds would ever stick. Sysops are volunteers, and are not required to engage in their duties in a timely fashion, or even at all, for that matter (though they'll likely get demoted eventually in the latter case). About the only time that neglecting to do your duty becomes an issue is when a sysop does so in a partial manner, but you'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that ANYONE is partial towards spammers. —Aichon— 10:03, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I really don't see the point of this, either. I mean, even assuming it was a misconductable offense to ignore adbots (it isn't), how would you be able to even prove they were doing so in the first place? There's a lot of different things to be done as sysop, and there are numerous precedents for individuals focusing on only a few of those tasks. This is coming from a guy who's (been forced into) ruling on only two or thee A/VB and A/M cases in as many years with no ill effects. Unnecessary. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 10:18, 15 May 2011 (BST)

As the person creating all of the spambots, I will be very pleased with this policy, and demand that it is passed immediately.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 10:33, 15 May 2011 (BST)

But seriously, it isn't really necessary. Not particularly a reason against, but not really a reason for.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 10:33, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Just as RHO and Karek, I think this policy would do nothing. Not harm us, but neither have any effect. It has never happened that a sys-op has been misconducted for missing spambots. And if someone would bring up such a case, he would be laughed and get bitch-slapped with his frivolous "case". --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 13:51, 15 May 2011 (BST)

If we are doing anything it should be for the opposite. Sick of having to get bots then notice Revenant has been editing for the 20 minutes they were around unbanned. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:21, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Uhm, not all of us use Recent Changes but when we do we use Dos Aquis. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:52, 15 May 2011 (BST)

As above. Bringing sysops to misconduct because they're not working hard enough at their unpaid internet job will never get traction as long as people retain a shred of common sense. Also holding the wiki hostage when we want things might work in the short run but probably won't do much to improve Kevan's general disposition towards us. --Zaruthustra^{Still a Mod in His Mind} 10:59, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Not saying it should happen but it'd be a hell of a lot more useful than this policy is imo. As it stands this policy is already in effect anyway, ops can and do ignore bots without any repercussions at all, unless you count what I said above. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:12, 15 May 2011 (BST)

He seems pretty good at noticing them when he isn't halfway through a heated argument. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:12, 15 May 2011 (BST)

It's not "holding the wiki hostage" to simply allow something to occur the owner is allowing to occur. I'm not trying to come down on the K-Man or anything, but I'm clarifying that nothing here can be "taken hostage" simply by inaction toward an ongoing problem. I've checked out the number of SpamBots seiging the site, I've looked at the discussion of said, and I'm just using my trouble-making powers for good in attempting to press the issue. After all, this is is an issue that will do no damage to anyone if pressed.

As for this not being misconduct - remember that the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are sometimes at odds. The Misconduct page states "Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services". There's certain language, of course, that appears geared toward leaving the door open for unexpected uses of the system should a new type of 'problem' arise.

Plus, let's be honest. The Policy is a statement, unrequested, on behalf of the folks I know are f'ing sick of cleaning up what could be prevented by simple installation - or now, configuration - of something. -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 20:10, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Rewrite

If this policy were to pass, it would allow all UDWiki SysOps (including bureaucrats) to ignore SpamBot behavior until such a time as the wiki's security features are adjusted for optimal SpamBot blockage.

At such point, all accumulated backlogs of SpamBot behavior could be dealt with and this policy would be rendered void.

1. This policy does not require SysOps to ignore SpamBots.
2. This policy does not require regular users to do or not do anything.
3. SpamBot-created pages could still be properly reported and all other guidelines followed.
4. This policy does make it so that any SysOp that publically chooses to abstain from SpamBot control cannot be reprimanded for doing so.

   Excluding of course the fact that Kevan can do whatever he wants.

---

Thoughts? -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 23:16, 15 May 2011 (BST)