Transformers Wiki talk:Community Portal/Vandalism

Our new resident vandal.....

Well, it seems that we might have a new resident vandal on our hands.

I suggest we block this guy, ban his IP if he continues, play whack-a-mole with his IPs if he's on a dynamic-IP, and if all else fails, temporarily block all account creation. ---Blackout- 14:53, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

He is likely still Assaulthead.--Rosicrucian^Talk 14:55, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, he does have Assaulthead's rabid obsession with reproduction, although this time he no longer appears to be repressing homosexual urges. I swear he'd be a perv if I thought he was old enough to understand half of this.
Still, this is starting to get out of hand. Our policy of "deny recognition" is starting to become "ignoring a problem". There was talk about contacting AT&T or something along those lines to prevent him accessing our site anymore. What happened with that? -- SFH 14:59, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

We need McFly and Scout to pull out the logs, except we haven't heard from either of them in a long while. --Lonegamer78 15:05, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, he has to run out of proxy servers sometime.....

At least, we can limit his choice of user and article names via the title blacklist. ---Blackout- 15:19, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

*takes another quick look at the RC* I really need to create the remaining SG pages tomorrow. That way, he'll stop messing around with them. ---Blackout- 15:24, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

I have to admit I keep putting off making the Ark and Nemesis articles because of all the fiction-writeups they'll need... *needs to stop procrastinating and get back into things* --Jeysie 20:10, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Er, on that score, regular backup are still being done, right? Anyone? --abates 20:46, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Look who's back.

And guess what: he's decided to confirm our suspicions and reveal that he's Assaulthead. The title of one of the articles he made is a giveaway.

But seriously, can't we just get this guy off our backs for a while by blocking him, putting his user and article names on the title blacklist and temporarily disabling account creation? At least it'll buy us some time while we try and wake up McFly and Scout. ---Blackout- 12:26, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

PLEASE, SOMEONE KILL THIS GUY ALREADY.

THANK YOU. ---Blackout- 12:17, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Alright, I need to get this off my chest.

This guy is seriously disturbed. ---Blackout- 14:33, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

We have logs going back two weeks. Anyone want an 80MB gzipped apache log? Any tracking that I've done in the past showed that he was coming from multiple IPs as he's blocked, so the sad fact is, he's NOT running out of proxies. I'd almost propose that we start looking into blocking edits from proxied users. I understand the negative implications, but this isn't exactly a hotbed of political commentary. All that said, the records I have for edits made to articles that were obviously kicked off by him have IPs coming from blocks owned by Bank of America, Best Buy, Level 3 Communications, Verizon, Bell Canada, BellSouth, and AT&T. Some of those might be editors cleaning up the mess from home, some of them might be people catching the issue from work, I don't know. We *could* attempt a banhammer of epic proportions, but I suspect that we're going to take out a lot of innocent bystanders. --McFly 11:08, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

As many have suggested, repeatedly, have we considered title/username blacklist? If only to keep the recent changes page a bit less... obscene?--Rosicrucian^Talk 11:28, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

This. Takes away all his fun. As for blocking proxies.... how common are legitimate anons using proxies? We need to have a grasp on that before we take that step. -- Repowers 11:37, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Just brainstorming ... I don't think my ideas are a good solution exactly, but maybe they'll spark something.

• 1: A waiting period for new accounts - a big turn-off for new users.
• 2: A way to flag certain keywords so that users employing them have their edits shunted into some sort of moderator-approval required place. Pornography, vagina, asshole, etc ... I suspect he'll have less fun if he can't use his naughty words. (Feasibility?)
• 3: A credit-card required for new accounts. Violations result in a fine. (Only kept for, say, a week. Has serious data-security and storage implications and opens us up to potential liability. Also a big turn off)
• 4: Some combination of 1 and 3, with a credit-card as a bypass for the waiting period.
• 5: Some combination of the above and proxy-detection.

--Jimsorenson 11:28, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I think the credit card ideas (3 and 4) are an absolute-no-no. Restricting account creation would only be worth doing if anonymous editing was disabled, which there's been heavy reluctance to do in the past. Otherwise flagging keywords = yes; restricting page creation to autoconfirmed users = yes; proxy blocking = maybe, if other measures fail. - SanityOrMadness 16:33, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

flag certain keywords

That sounds like the simplest solution, to my admittedly layman ears. Make it impossible to create an account or a new page that includes "Detour" or any of the usual dirty words. --Thylacine 2000 12:05, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

As stated above, if the title/username blacklist extension is installed, which is a very common one for MediaWiki, we can do exactly that. It has full wildcard functionality. I know some users have argued that the obscene titles and usernames are what make Assaulthead easy to spot, but I tend to disagree. The sheer volume of edits when an Assaulthead sock pops in make him easy to spot regardless of what username he's chosen or what his article titles are.--Rosicrucian^Talk 12:47, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

2 and 5 seem to be good. The credit-card idea seems to be not ideal, since the card number could be fake or using other's card. --TX55^TALK 12:51, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Hmmm ... what about we slow down new page creation and/or edits for new users only? Once every couple of minutes for your first week might be good. (Suggestion 6) --Jimsorenson 13:09, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Install the title/username blacklist extension, and flag certain keywords.

If all else fails, nuke all proxies. ---Blackout- 14:10, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, and I'd also support restricting page creation and file upload to the "autoconfirmed" group (that is, users who have been registered for X days and made Y edits), the same way page moves are already restricted. - SanityOrMadness 16:33, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

That's a good idea. It's VERY rare that a first-time editor starts off by making a new page that actually belongs here. -- Repowers 16:52, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I agree wholeheartedly with restricting page creation for new users. Also, there's very words that we'd want to ban that would be in legit article titles (a new character named Detour, maybe), so a mod could create those pages if needed. But I honestly thought such restrictions would be impossible, otherwise they'd have been put in effect ages ago. - Cattleprod 13:19, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

My own thoughts:

I agree that having creating new pages and uploading files be restricted to autoconfirmed accounts is a good idea. New editors should really be encouraged to make smaller edits and read up on image policies before tackling new articles and uploading files anyway, and any anon editor who's been around doing minor edits for a long while before getting an account is probably familiar enough with the goings-on around here to understand the wait.

I also agree that banning proxies is also a good idea. As has been said, this isn't a political site, so there's really no legitimate reason I can think of that someone should have to hide their true IP to edit here. Plus we can always possibly make a note someplace saying that if someone does actually have a legitimate reason to be behind a proxy, they can contact someone here to make an account and exception for them to use.

It might also be a good idea to require e-mail activation for new accounts. It's not that big a hassle for legitimate users, and it means that we at least have a confirmed e-mail address for any trolls (provided we disallow the "throw-away" types of e-mail domains from being used for that purpose).

Those are some lockdowns I think would minimally affect real new users, but would make it harder for trolls to sign up just to cause trouble. Especially if we install the New User log via extension or upgrade, to keep tabs on new usernames. (And we can even put any needed explanations on the lockdowns into a New User Greeting. ;) ) --Jeysie 20:15, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Turning the setting on to require a confirmed email address means that you can no longer edit anonymously (anonymous editors don't have an email address). I just tried it on my test copy of MediaWiki. --abates 20:38, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

There's no setting to require e-mail activation for new accounts, but not require e-mail addresses for editing in general? Well, that's the most utterly dumb thing I've ever heard. What were the Wiki software people thinking? --Jeysie 20:47, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Actually, it makes perfect sense. If you want an e-mail address for your users, then you don't want the option of them editing WITHOUT an e-mail address. Otherwise, you're neither fish nor fowl. - SanityOrMadness 21:25, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't see how it makes sense at all. I can think of plenty of instances where I'd be OK with guest posting, yet still want to make sure that named accounts are real people. After all, guest accounts often draw scrutiny and have to deal with extra measures like spam filters, but posting under a named account often tends to confer a bit more trust. Especially in cases like us, where with 900+ users, it's not like you can instantly tell if a given user is new or not unless they happen to be one of the regulars, but seeing an anon IP is an instant indicator to watch the edit more closely. --Jeysie 21:35, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I'd be opposed to requiring a "non-throwaway" e-mail address for an account, since not everyone HAS one (or, at least, one they can use, since employers frown muchly on the use of work e-mail addresses for such things). After the credit card thing, that's the thing most likely to turn off legit editors. - SanityOrMadness 21:25, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't mean throwaway in terms of Hotmail or GMail or what have you... pretty much everyone online is going to have at least one e-mail address they use for personal correspondence, even if it's webmail. I'm talking those temporary e-mail services like Mailinator where you can create an e-mail without registering just to answer the notification, then never use it again. If we let people use those, then requiring registration would be pointless anyway. --Jeysie 21:35, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

Guess who's back.

Can someone block him, delete his articles and actually create them? ---Blackout- 12:11, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to disable account creation for a while? ---Blackout- 14:35, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

I think that'd only be a stopgap, as he could easily just start spamming with "new articles" as an anon. --Lonegamer78 14:48, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

At present, what I'm in favor of:

• Throttling edits-per-minute down for anons and new accounts.
• Installing and implementing title blacklist for a select few words that are extremely unlikely to ever be used as legitimate article titles.

I think if we try these two on for size, we likely won't need more drastic measures.--Rosicrucian^Talk 15:08, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Extremely doesn't cut it. The words would be "never ever going to be".

On an unrelated note, this discussion has to be moved to its own page. It's becoming insanely long. ---Blackout- 15:39, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Options, then...

1. Install the title blacklist extension (now incorporating username blacklist, apparently), and add all the obscene terms you can think of to it. And Detour. A mitigation rather than solution, but one I think is pretty vital.
2. Restrict page creation and file upload (if the latter isn't restricted already) to the "autoconfirmed" group, as with page moves, preventing anons and users with less than X edits, or who have been registered for less than Y days (I think X=50 and Y=4, but I'm not 100% sure about that) from doing so. A low-disruption option, and would also make vandalism harder.
3. Throttle edits-per-minute for non-"autoconfirmed" users. Does this exist as an option?
4. More anti-vandalism extensions: AntiSpoof (prevent users from creating "confusable" nicks), AbuseFilter (req. AntiSpoof)
5. Block all proxies. This could cause problems with certain ISPs, apparently, and is something I think we should hold in reserve.
6. Require e-mail confirmation. I don't see that this would help much with you-know-who unless you required an ISP e-mail. And that would prevent a bunch of legitimate users from registering. You'd also have to disable anonymous editing (even if a workaround could be found to allow anons while requiring an e-mail to get an account, you-know-who would simply stop registering).

I leave off the credit card idea quite deliberately.

Thoughts? - SanityOrMadness 18:45, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

I think blocking anonymous proxies should be our main action, whatever else we do... that will force him to use his real IP if he wants to try something, which means we'd be able to contact his real ISP. I fail to see why any legitimate ISP would need to have its members use an anonymous/open-to-all proxy, and there's no reason an individual would need to hide their IP to make legitimate edits here, so I can't imagine anonymous proxy blocking having much of an effect on legitimate users.

I also think restricting page creation and file uploading would be the biggest help as well. Although admittedly that would mean having to patrol real articles for vandalism more closely. --Jeysie 18:57, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't think you can distinguish between open proxies and other proxies, except by checking the IP address against known open proxies. That is, if you block proxies, you block people editing from work, and from ISPs like AOL. - SanityOrMadness 19:24, 3 September 2009 (EDT

Which is why ideally, I'd say we do the least intrusive of these first, and work our way up if it proves to not be enough. As for throttling anon and new edits, doesn't Wikipedia already do this?--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:28, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

This page would seem to suggest that the proxy blocking only blocks open proxies, not ISP-based ones, so I still don't see why it would be a problem. --Jeysie 19:32, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Take a look at the #technical problems section on that very page. - SanityOrMadness 19:59, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, TBH, if we can't implement that, then I don't see the other options stopping him at all; merely changing the form his vandalism will take. Whereas forcing him to use his real IP either would make him either stop rather than reveal himself, or will give us ammunition to take to his ISP. --Jeysie 20:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Looks good, although 5 and 6 should probably be left out of the 'first wave' of implementation, it could cause a lot of headaches for legit users. I honestly thought 1 and 2 were impossible, since I can think of no logical reason for them not to already be in effect. - Cattleprod 18:58, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Re item 3 - it's unlikely to have much of an effect on YKW because he only makes one or two edits a minute anyway. --abates 19:52, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Who's YKW? ---Blackout- 10:56, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

"You-Know-Who". --Detour 18:15, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

When?

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:User_rights

Yes, it requires access to LocalSettings.php, and so McFly or Scout will have to do it, but

$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage']       = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['upload']           = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['reupload']         = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['reupload-shared']  = true;

...should all be added forthwith, yes? - SanityOrMadness 23:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

If it means cutting down on seeing that junk on the Recent Changes page, HELL YES.

EDIT: A bit hasty on my response, but it could be an alternative or a secondary level next to blacklisting the words. --Lonegamer78 00:01, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Oh, blacklisting the obvious words is doable via LocalSettings.php too (or by extensions, or a combination). I forget how offhand, though. - SanityOrMadness 01:04, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Something semi-related...

If the title blacklist extension was installed, page names ending in "/" could be blocked. Spambots appear to be showing an increasing preference for those. - SanityOrMadness 18:08, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Really? Those must be popping up when I'm off-line, because I never see any of those on the RC. ---Blackout- 02:52, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Not another one.....

Lord Voldemort (read: Assaulthead) has returned.

Also, on a somewhat related note, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "deny recognition" imposed on us by Wikia in the first place? ---Blackout- 13:32, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Not imposed so much as we adopted it because it was a good idea. It's a Wikipedia policy, not a Wikia policy.--Rosicrucian^Talk 13:56, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Exactly. WAS a good idea. Now it's turned into "ignore a problem at all cost". ---Blackout- 14:02, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

It was ignore the problem. Now we're addressing it. Granted, I'd prefer to be taking more action, but we have options and we're discussing them. -- SFH 15:18, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

The six we have should do the trick. We do the main five first, and then if all else fails, we nuke all proxies. ---Blackout- 12:56, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Is there a sysop in the house

User:Assmaster needs dealt with. - SanityOrMadness 15:03, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

WOW. WHAT A SURPRISE.

---Blackout- 15:26, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

Could he finally be gone? Nah.....

Three days and no Recent Changes flooded with swear words and parts of the female anatomy YKW has never seen.

Just out of curiosity, has someone put together some actual defences yet, or is YKW just trying to think up some new article titles before he starts spamming up the RC again? ---Blackout- 08:57, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't see him yet.....could the message have finally reached as far as the brain he keeps in a jar beneath his bed? ---Blackout- 12:06, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

New vandalism

I'm going to assume that none of the admins are on right now, but we have a mild situation. -- SFH 21:34, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I remember, something like this happened on another wiki I went to. But since we're presently the only real users online, I believe, all we can do is mark the pages he makes and wait. --NCZ 21:36, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Ugh. Why do all the admins have to be offline now? --NCZ 21:56, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Probably all partying at BotCon. Lucky bastards. --Khajidha 22:05, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

That's what I thought. At least you're here, Khajidha; at least with more users we can do what we can faster. --NCZ 22:09, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

(sigh) Hopefully sooner or later the guy will realize he should actually find himself a real life. And that everything he's doing can be undone in about two clicks. --Jeysie 23:17, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Indeed. He's been at it for two. HOURS. Anyway, we really need to do something so stuff like this doesn't happen again. --NCZ 23:20, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Oh thank heavens, it's Suki!

And, weren't we going to implement blocking anons and new users from uploading pics or creating new pages? --Jeysie 23:24, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

SUKI, WE LOVE YA! <3

But yeah, I hope we get to implement that new policy soon. --Lonegamer78 23:25, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

ThankyouthankyouTHANKYOUSUKIBRITS. I'm personally a tad skeptical on the idea, since some new users do have good starts (cough, such as myself, cough cough), but I'm still completely against vandalism. --NCZ 23:28, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Newbies limited to a certain number of uploads in a 24-hour period for two months before being released to upload as many as they please (within limits, of course)? --Lonegamer78 23:35, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

A new legitimate user might show up with plenty of needed images. A limit's good, as long as when they reach the limit the error message gives clear instructions about how to ask for permission to upload more stuff. - Cattleprod 23:46, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Well, it doesn't take long to become a non-new user by wiki software standards, so I'd think a real new user would be willing to be patient, if we limit uploading and new pages to Autoconfirmed. And if we install something that keeps track of new users we can watch for any patient vandals. --Jeysie 23:48, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

NICE WORK SUKI!! Now the recent changes (for (main)) is clean.

And I vote for the limit method. --TX55^TALK 23:53, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

YAY SUKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and count me in for the limit thing. Any new user who really desires to help will understand. --Khajidha 23:57, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

I can live with that idea. --NCZ 12:34, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Now, what can we do about the images our little vandal uploaded that were then reverted? At least the picture he(?) used wasn't something vile, but I don't like having that alias appearing in the histories of the images. --Khajidha 12:32, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, same. Can the most recent revision of an image be deleted along with his spam? We did' revert it, but the image histories are still kind of ugly. --NCZ 12:34, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

It is possible for admins to delete "interim" images from histories, as I've seen them do it before. You'd have to get an admin to actually do so, though. --Jeysie 23:07, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm doing it now. It's just a real chore for the sheer volume of images. Take me awhile, but I should be able to.--Rosicrucian^Talk 23:23, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

So, what to do with the new vandal? Add the name to that black list? --Lonegamer78 01:32, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Is there anything we can do to kill this guy? Because I do not want to see this fucking idiot's crap all over the wiki. ---Blackout- 03:01, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm hoping that we could still pull the IP logs, but we'd need our IT folks to be able to do so. --Lonegamer78 03:07, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Williamfans

We have a user named Williamfans who is changing factions for various characters (i.e. giving Ultra Magnus a Decepticon faction symbol). I suspect he is an alt of the currently-blocked User:William, as they both have similar names and are both clear vandals. --NCZ 15:44, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

I'd say that's grounds enough to block the main account permanently. ---Blackout- 06:09, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Spambots

Is there a way to prevent people creating pages that have "Talk:/" in their titles? Because these spambots are starting to annoy me. ---Blackout- 14:09, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

Is there anything we can do about these spambots? I count 31 blocked spambots within the past month. ---Blackout- 04:23, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

:Yes. MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Google it and you will see the MediaWiki extension.

if proxies are blocked, innocent bystanders can be blocked.

I have a concern that when proxies are blocked, other people are blocked too. Guess how many people use proxies in the world for good purpouses? For example, 3, Verizon, BT, LGFL, and AOL use proxies! What about the open proxies? Many people use open proxies to be private, to bypass blocks on TFWiki.net or to bypass history recording. Why not make a IP block exempt flag? Please help all the users that want to be private!

I.....really don't see why anyone would need that flag here. ---Blackout- 13:02, 3 December 2010 (EST)

CU

Troll guy raised a valid point. Why don't we use CheckUser? (For the uninitiated, it's a MediaWiki extension which creates an additional usergroup called "CheckUser", which can see people's IPs) I know we have the extension installed because I saw McFly grant the userright to himself some time ago. It would mean we wouldn't have to wait for the IT people to pull the IP logs: Walky could just grant himself or someone else the userright and they would be able to see the IPs. (No need to do that, I just saw that Monzo and Scout have it too ---Blackout- 04:21, 6 December 2010 (EST))

The small glitch with that is that the CU data expires after some time. (90 days, I think) ---Blackout- 04:18, 6 December 2010 (EST)

You can find sockpuppets and trace a group of vandals to a IP address/range. It can find evidence for bans and full-scale reports for ISPs to recive. TransformersFan133 06:54, 18 December 2010 (EST)

From my experience, ISPs will only accept full-blown server logs such as those produced by Apache (or, in our case, Squid). --abates 16:14, 18 December 2010 (EST)

We could still use it to root out and block vandal IPs. ---Blackout- 04:51, 19 December 2010 (EST)

Wikipedia uses Check User to create ISP complaints, so you could do so.

If CheckUser is used, won't there be a Ombudsman Commission or some variant? Someone needs to know if Checkuser is abused to others's advantage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArchtransitLightspeed333 (talk • contribs).

I'm not entirely sure how you could abuse checkuser. --abates 07:51, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Pointing it at a user who is innocent. --Lolclerk5 06:18, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Assaulthead

You could do the following:

Modify localsettings.php so that only admins create a account. Yes, LocalSettings.php. On the front page, put the email address of one admin so that people ask for the account instead. This is to slow down Assaulthead getting the account. I remember Encyc. It had lots of spam, then they shut registration down so that vandals couldn't spam as much as before. Also, put a CAPTCHA (eg. "What is the leader of the Autobots? ) on every page creation to slow down vandals. --Lolclerk

Proxies

Maybe you could do the following:

• Block open Proxies.

• Target proxy lists like samair.ru or create some bot that blocks proxies. Hopefully it will have some page that specifies lists of proxies to block. Only sysops will edit the page.

• Implement a CAPTCHA for each image upload, page creation and page move. Bots are exempt. (Bots need the bot flag)

• Block words using an abuse filter.

Give some report page to report errors.

• Only give account creation privileges to sysops. That way, vandals are slowed down by a day. In "Log in", provide a mailto link to a admin to request an account.

• Flush out Assaulthead images. (of course only server admins can do that.)

Hope this helps, --Lolclerk5 16:55, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Spam links

As a relatively new user, every day when I log on here there seem to be a lot of spam links/stupid crap on obscure pages. Is this a sudden rash of spam atacks, or is this the "background noise" level of vandalism that every wiki falls victim to? Tom Servo the Great 08:20, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

This has been going on for more than a year now. For some reason SEO firms seem to think this site is a place where they can dump their promotional shit. --81.164.215.61 12:50, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I run a message board on another site which is maybe 100000th as popular as the wiki and also completely blocked from appearing in Google, and it still gets an average of four or five spammers a day trying to sign up. --abates 15:34, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Google ranks pages based on how many incoming links they have.

Many wikis are abandoned or poorly policed. That makes them a popular target for link-farming, because the presence of actual content on the wiki mixed in with the link spam disguises it from Google. (Sites that are JUST spam-links get discounted from its search algorithm.)

(Basically it's inevitable.) -184.100.93.138 16:00, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

True, but by default MediaWiki applies nofollow to external links so they get discounted for ranking purposes. Theoretically this should make spamming wikis less attractive, but in practice it doesn't seem to make much difference. --abates 16:29, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Still, this is a problem that needs solving at some point; isn't it? Tom Servo the Great 17:28, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Solving the problem of internet spam is something people have been working on since the 90s. It still comes down to an endless game of whack-a-mole. :) --abates 17:44, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

The Crazy Obama Guy

Can we please ban this guy and all related IP addresses ASAP? Because this is getting stupid. Tom Servo the Great 10:57, 8 November 2011 (EST)

TFMAN

This guy TFMAN is just adding bad image links into articles. It is really annoying, and I've asked him to stop several times. Can we get this guy banned? -- spyder 22:36, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I feel like an idiot now, nevermind. -- spyder 22:37, 18 May 2012 (EDT)

New one

Someone keeps on making new user pages that are news articles. -- spyder 15:55, 13 June 2012 (EDT)

The recent rash of spambots

As you probably know, there was recent flood of spambots today. I'd like to talk about what happened and what we can do about it. A few points:

1. What's the best way for non-admin editors to help? Obviously, blanking the spam pages and marking them for speedy deletion is a must, but what's the best way to find them? I was mostly using Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages; are there other special pages that can be helpful in tracking down spam pages that I should know about?
2. Is there a way to hide page creation and deletion in the Recent Changes? I find it unsettling that it was nigh-impossible to see anything but spam in Recent Changes. If someone had been, say, vandalizing pre-existing at the same time that was going on, it could've ages before we found out.
3. Another thing that worries me is the sheer size of some of those spam pages; many of them reached several hundred bytes. Is there a way to limit the size of pages created by new users?
4. It would be nice if we could prevent the creation of pages with words like "Printer" and "Tech support" that would be extremely unlikely to ever show up in a regular, non-spam page.

Thoughts? -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2016 (EST)

1 is unnecessary, since admins can mass delete pages created by an user. Just point out any spambot accounts overlooked. Saix (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2016 (EST)

FYI to any reading admins, I would preemptively block any accounts created today. Some may be delayed spammers. Saix (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2016 (EST)

I think that's all of them. Regarding the suggestions above, "printer" is in legit use on some pages, and I don't think there's a way to limit the page size of new pages created by new users. --abates (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2016 (EST)

Well, thanks for looking into it at least, abates. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2016 (EST)

I think this should be addressed on the main page so we can tell potential new users that they would have to create their accounts some other time. Also, it would be a good idea to ban new account creation until (maybe) Friday just to be sure. Ed (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2016 (EST)

It is on the main page, specifically Main Page/editing-tips. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2016 (EST)

Is it possible to allow new users to edit but not create new pages? --Khajidha (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2016 (EST)

Yes, though I think it would still let them create user/user talk pages. I'll need to do some checking into that. --abates (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2016 (EST)

Yeah, userspace pages are the one area new accounts should be able to create pages in. They could still inundate us with worthless user pages, but it would seem less annoying to me. --Khajidha (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2016 (EST)

It's easier to filter out of the recent changes page, for starters. Saix (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2016 (EST)

I've set things up so new users can't create or move pages - hopefully no one currently signed up should be affected. Also I've done some things to block the spammers directly. At some point I'll switch registrations on again and see if everything's worked. --abates (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Nice work, abates. I hope we get to re-enable registrations soon. -Foffy the Sheep (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2016 (EST)

Given the nearly novella length user names that some of these spambots are using lately, is there any way to set an upper limit on user name size? Say, 20 characters?--Khajidha (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2016 (EST)

User name length is hardcoded unfortunately, and there's no setting to make it shorter. --abates (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Dang. --Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Registration is temporarily disabled again now anyway. --abates (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Yeah, but that prevents anybody from joining. I was hoping that limiting user names would at least reduce the number of spam accounts without unduly burdening legitimate contributors.--Khajidha (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2016 (EST)

It's an idea, but lots of the spambots just seem to sign up using generic 4-letter gibberish names. Grum (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2016 (EST)

Hammerstar

Can someone please take care of this guy? He's made twelve edits within the first two hours of creating his account (the first only minutes afterwards) and none of them have been of any substance; just bad jokes, cursing, and defacing the articles of the shows he doesn't like. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2018 (EST)

Thanks much. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2018 (EST)

Transformers(Fan)1001

We've got a case of multiple accounts being used (and not subtly at that): Transformers1001 and TransformersFan1001. The two accounts were created the exact same day, make very similar edits (i.e. the kind that have to keep getting reverted), and are never active at the same time. Note that when one account stops making edits, the other starts. Can someone please just ban them both? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2018 (EDT)