Vandal protection
Vandal protection
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.
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.
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13603
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
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.
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.
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13603
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
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?Yoghurt wrote:I'm thinking of a way to let unregistered people only do 2 edits per 10 minutes or so
Seems like there should be some sort of batch reversion as well... for just this situation...
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.
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
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
Dieser Text basiert ausschließlich auf frei erfundener Interpunktion und Orthographie. Jegliche Uebereinstimmungen mit geltenden Regelungen sind rein zufaellig und wurden nicht beabsichtigt.
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.Rapunzel wrote:Now if you only allow 3 per 10 minutes only the bot will ever post and nobody else can
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.
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13603
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
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.
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.