Forum:Spammers

This extension, mentioned here, sounds like it would help keep away the spammer bots fairly well.
 * Well, it seems ok, but does this extension also forces registered users? Personally, I don't have much of a problem with that, as I almost always preview before editing, but it can still be a bore. {EspyoT} 13:33, 17 January 2011 (EST)


 * Espyo, as indicated on the extension page, you can exempt any group you choose from having to preview. I say don't have it for logged-in users, but it would be good for anonymous editors, yes.  I'll just assume everyone agrees and tell Porple to install it...  G  P 


 * Yeah, I read it but I wasn't 100% sure if it meant that. That said, I say we install this extension. I'm sure Porplemontage will agree as well. {EspyoT} 19:06, 17 January 2011 (EST)


 * Oh, if you wanted some sort of reason for not enabling it for registered users, look at the minor edits I just made to treasure pages - this is the sort of thing a normal user might feasibly want to do, and takes much longer if you're forced to preview every edit first.  G P 


 * I agree on enabling it for anonymous users. --

Alien Billboard/journal still managed to be spammed after the force preview extension was installed. I tested it out while I was logged out and it works fine. Porple suggested requiring "a math problem to be solved by all guests (which is currently only required by guests adding new links)".


 * Mm, I guess I'm for it. I may look into if there's a way the force preview thing can be bypassed - otherwise, I guess this means this is real people spamming stuff.  I guess it accounts for the relatively low amount of such edits, at least...  G  P 


 * Just noticed after blocking that he keeps changing his IP. D'oh well. I'm also for the math thing.--


 * This is seriously getting pathetic. Can we just lock the site to anons already?! --


 * I agree with Gamefreak. On Pikmin Fanon we have already blocked anons beacuse of static ip addresses and all of that lovely suff.


 * * dynamic? Well, uh, wait to see if the captcha/whatever-you-call-it extension does anything.  I'm still a bit loathe to ban anonymous users altogether, and see it as a last resort.  G  P 


 * Yes. Dynamic. Excuse my following excuse which is copasetic. And, yes copasetic is a word. I was busy slacking off and couldn't remember the static/dynamic contrast, but likewise It doesn't matter. I think that Captcha is a very nice extension that most web sites use now. It has a toolbar-like appendage that is "supposed to help". I just think it's another random picture of words generated to not let bots detect letter characters to get past its security. Edit: Capatcha is a Human-computer challenge test to see whether the IP is a computer or a human.


 * We haven't had any spam after Porple added the math extension.


 * By the way, Peanut, this maths extension is what I meant when I said 'captcha/whatever-you-call-it'. No more spam: sounds good.  G  P 

...So, more spam. I think it would make sense to enable the captcha for logged-in users when either adding a URL or creating a page in the main namespace. I'm not sure what actions it's enabled for for anonymous users ATM, but definitely is for creating an account and isn't for every edit.  G P 


 * Yeah; sensible.--


 * The Cutting Room Floor is suffering from this too. I suggest we enable captcha when external links are added. {EspyoT} 20:29, 9 February 2011 (EST)


 * There is an extension that will prevent users from putting certain words on pages to prevent spam. Porple installed it on Pikmin Fanon and it's working fine.


 * But then you need to make changes whenever some new set of spammers crops up, and the more words you add over time, the more likely you are to interfere with legitimate edits. It's not much of a preventative measure, as you need spam to happen before you can prevent it.  G  P 


 * ...Either Porple did something, or the spammers have just given up.  G P 


 * I think it stopped. I see no spam attacks in other wikis either. {EspyoT} 09:06, 13 February 2011 (EST)


 * Well it stopped here at least, but not on other wikis, that's for sure. --

Should we start deleting spam revisions to clear up page histories?


 * Sounds pretty pointless to me.  G P 
 * Ditto. It may give a cleaner state to the history, but it's really not like it matters. {EspyoT} 10:46, 27 February 2011 (EST)


 * I also think leaving it all there is good, as there's always a chance it may have a use. Suppose someone is looking into the spammers and trying to gather information about it all for whatever reason; if they see discussion about specific instances of spamming, it's useful for them to be able to look through the page histories and find the times and content and everything.  G  P 

Would disallowing un-autoconfirmed users from creating new pages and uploading new files be a good solution to stop spammers?
 * Don't we have captcha for unconfirmed users? If so, blocking new pages/files seems like a good idea. {EspyoT} 18:21, 3 March 2011 (EST)

We need to take extreme measures. I didn't want to suggest it, but the spam is starting to become 50% of a day's edits. At least until they give up, I suggest we do something extreme. Like disabling new pages for new users altogether or something. {EspyoT} 19:12, 8 March 2011 (EST)


 * I agree. It is honestly beyond pathetic now. The wiki is looking bad with all ths crap here. Also, it's not like there is anything for users to create anyways, since we basically have every article on the wiki created. --


 * Agreed. That's what I was saying above. We should prevent them from uploading new files and creating new pages until they are autoconfirmed.


 * Sounds good.  G P 

Aren't either GP or Vol a mod here? Can't either of you do something? Or can only Porple do it? Come on, ~4 spam pages a day... {EspyoT} 19:53, 10 March 2011 (EST)


 * I'm just an admin.