Vandal protection

This is a collection of old threads that have been moved from their original home.
Message
Author
User avatar
Yoghurt
Programmer
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:17 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Vandal protection

#1 Post by Yoghurt » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:08 pm

Hello everyone!
I just wanted to tell you that I have set up the Wiki spam protection to reject edits that contain "this project", "close" and "lack of activity". If for any reason an edit of yours is rejected, tell me (or tyreth) immediately so that the Regexp can be adjusted accordingly.
The same applies if the vandal changes his text.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12268
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#2 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:23 pm


User avatar
Yoghurt
Programmer
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:17 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

#3 Post by Yoghurt » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:28 pm

I already saw ;) The reason is that I was somewhat inexact in my posting. More correct would be "project","close","lack","activity" in this specific order. I can of course make it order independent but this would
a) be a very ugly regexp
b) probably trigger a few false alarms

Edit: Oh, I see. Your example could also constitute a correct english sentence. Oh well. Time for some ugly regexp.

User avatar
Yoghurt
Programmer
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:17 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

#4 Post by Yoghurt » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:48 pm

Matching is now a little bit more intelligent.

User avatar
Yoghurt
Programmer
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:17 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

#5 Post by Yoghurt » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:20 pm

he is getting annoying...

User avatar
noelte
Juggernaut
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Germany, Berlin

#6 Post by noelte » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:25 pm

I hate those vandals too. The only way to solve this problem is to introduce accounts for editing wiki. Tyreth isn't happy with this solution, but ...

At the moment only a small group is editing wiki so we might try it anyway!?
Press any key to continue or any other key to cancel.
Can COWs fly?

User avatar
Yoghurt
Programmer
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:17 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

#7 Post by Yoghurt » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:32 pm

JFYI, I've disabled the spam protection again as I refused to let me revert some changes ;)

I'm thinking of a way to let unregistered people only do 2 edits per 10 minutes or so

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12268
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#8 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:36 pm

Yoghurt wrote:I'm thinking of a way to let unregistered people only do 2 edits per 10 minutes or so
I suggested something similar to Tyreth yesterday on IRC. 2/10 is a bit harsh though... maybe make it a bit more permissive and keep lowering until he gets fed up and stops trying?

Seems like there should be some sort of batch reversion as well... for just this situation...

User avatar
noelte
Juggernaut
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Germany, Berlin

#9 Post by noelte » Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:02 pm

Hmm, i hope it helps. If i would like to be a vandal, i surely would find a way to automate it. Looking on the timestamps maybe it's already done this way.
Press any key to continue or any other key to cancel.
Can COWs fly?

User avatar
Yoghurt
Programmer
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:17 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

#10 Post by Yoghurt » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:00 pm

Anonymous users are now allowed only 3 edits per 10 minutes.

leiavoia
Space Kraken
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 6:22 pm

#11 Post by leiavoia » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:32 am

I would also vote for setting up required accounts. I don't think that is unreasonable, given that wiki editors are familiar with the project and have no reason to hide, and also the fact that anonymous folks are most likely just readers and not editors anyway.

User avatar
Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#12 Post by Daveybaby » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:12 am

Dont know if wiki has a mechanism for this, but the ideal solution would be to let anonymous users perform edits, but require them to be moderated/approved before they are actually 'posted' for all to see.
The COW Project : You have a spy in your midst.

User avatar
Rapunzel
Pupating Mass
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Germany

#13 Post by Rapunzel » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:18 am

This aproving posts in Wiki would work, but could impose the person who has to go through alle the changes with some real work, since a bot coudl easyly generate thousand of changes per secound.
Now if you only allow 3 per 10 minutes only the bot will ever post and nobody else can (so this would lock out all other anonymous Wiki editors) and the person going through alle changes would still have to go through 3*6*24 = 432 posts. This would not stop a Vandal. (Writing a bot doinf this does not take very long)
A solution woudl be to allow only users with login to edit, and that they would have to enter some number shown on a picture to validate the absence of a bot.
I hate Vandals :roll:
Dieser Text basiert ausschließlich auf frei erfundener Interpunktion und Orthographie. Jegliche Uebereinstimmungen mit geltenden Regelungen sind rein zufaellig und wurden nicht beabsichtigt.

User avatar
Yoghurt
Programmer
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 8:17 pm
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

#14 Post by Yoghurt » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:44 am

Rapunzel wrote:Now if you only allow 3 per 10 minutes only the bot will ever post and nobody else can
It's 3 edits per IP. This wont stop him disconnecting and reconnecting again, but he couldnt do anything else in the web while he is vandalizing.
I'm really against having people to register before they can comment; look at the discussion at the MainPage, I doubt these people would have commented if they had to create an account first.
And always remember: Wikipedia also works without these restrictions. The more frequent users we get, the less time vandals will have to see their "work", as it will be reverted earlier. Always remember: this one stupid person (who, IMHO should get a girlfriend ;)) wants to force us to lock down the wiki for anonymous users. Don't let him win.

And apart from that, it took me and Geoff around 3 minutes to revert all his changes he made. And I also have some more Ideas to detect/handle vandals. But I'd like to spend the little spare time I have ATM with coding for FO instead.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12268
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#15 Post by Geoff the Medio » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:38 pm

Agree with Yoghurt, as does Tyreth about not stopping all anonymous edits. Not being able to post / change is a potential turn off for an interested contributor. Having changes only show up after moderation (taking hours or days potentially) would strongly discourage useful anonymous edits.

Rather than going all out to find the most restrictive solution possible, IMO it's better to just notch up the restrictions slowly until the level at which it discourages the vandal is found, so as to avoid unnecessary inconvenience for other.

Locked