The iPhone Wiki is no longer updated. Visit this article on The Apple Wiki for current information. |
Difference between revisions of "The iPhone Wiki:Spam"
(<hr />) |
m |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:We could figure out where they come rom and do the same to them. Secondly, we could create a filter that unless your part of a specific group you cannot do more than this many edits in this amount of time. We could try making a period where the admins have to approve the users. Lastly, we could make it so that in the first 12 hours of a user account that user could not edit pages so it would give time for the sysops to ban the users. [[User:Revolution|Revolution]] 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC) |
:We could figure out where they come rom and do the same to them. Secondly, we could create a filter that unless your part of a specific group you cannot do more than this many edits in this amount of time. We could try making a period where the admins have to approve the users. Lastly, we could make it so that in the first 12 hours of a user account that user could not edit pages so it would give time for the sysops to ban the users. [[User:Revolution|Revolution]] 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
::That might not be a good idea as we could get ou butts sued. --[[User:Balloonhead66|Balloonhead66]] |
::That might not be a good idea as we could get ou butts sued. --[[User:Balloonhead66|Balloonhead66]] |
||
− | :::Why don't we just do this apple-style and have a group of moderators approve of every comment, page edit or revision? |
+ | :::Why don't we just do this apple-style and have a group of moderators approve of every comment, page edit or revision? I would love to be a part of such group. |
− | + | ::::The extension for mediawiki [[mediawikiwiki:Extension:FlaggedRevs|FlaggedRevs]] is 1.14 and above. This wiki is running 1.12 :( --[[User:Balloonhead66|Balloonhead66]] 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 23:13, 16 March 2011
How do we combat this recent spamming of this wiki? I suggest a possible invite system or similar? --Srts 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have already blocked account signup, they must have had this account for a while. --geohot 02:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well if they don't stop, we can't have account creation disabled forever, defeats the purpose of the wiki. People like him are sad. Great work to all the sysops et all. keeping disruption to a minimal :D --Srts 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yea thanks a lot guys for putting up with this. We'll give a bit of time, and if they continue, we'll figure something out. This kid keep trying to reset my password for hosting and the wiki. Too bad he doesn't have a life. --geohot 03:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- An invite system might not be a bad idea actually Will Strafach 03:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- feel free to post their IP addresses, lol --posixninja 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if you need an extra admin to block them (and delete spam pages), I volunteer. --Dranfi
- Congrats, you're an admin --geohot 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well if they don't stop, we can't have account creation disabled forever, defeats the purpose of the wiki. People like him are sad. Great work to all the sysops et all. keeping disruption to a minimal :D --Srts 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
How many different IPs are we dealing with? Is it within a specific range? For the time being, it may be possible to blacklist an entire subnet if they are all coming from the same place. But if a botnet is doing this, may be more difficult. Is it possible for MediaWiki to require admin approval of an edit prior to it being commited? Not well versed with MediaWiki administration, just thossing out some ideas. --tsuehpsyde 17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not within a specific range. On my wiki, people post almost the exact same stuff as IP's and I get from 64.*.*.* al the way to 96.*.*.* I think it is a botnet --Balloonhead66 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- We could figure out where they come rom and do the same to them. Secondly, we could create a filter that unless your part of a specific group you cannot do more than this many edits in this amount of time. We could try making a period where the admins have to approve the users. Lastly, we could make it so that in the first 12 hours of a user account that user could not edit pages so it would give time for the sysops to ban the users. Revolution 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- That might not be a good idea as we could get ou butts sued. --Balloonhead66
- Why don't we just do this apple-style and have a group of moderators approve of every comment, page edit or revision? I would love to be a part of such group.
- The extension for mediawiki FlaggedRevs is 1.14 and above. This wiki is running 1.12 :( --Balloonhead66 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't we just do this apple-style and have a group of moderators approve of every comment, page edit or revision? I would love to be a part of such group.
- That might not be a good idea as we could get ou butts sued. --Balloonhead66
If the ones you refer to as 'they' are the pois0nhack group then 'they' don't really seem to pose much of a threat in my opinion. I agree that for the time being we could impose some kind of 12/24 hr posting limitation (maybe no more than +-300 char changes?), but no more than that since this is, after all, a public wiki. Sorry if I'm intruding on some kind of admin/mod meeting, just figured I should have my say. --adriaaan 00:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am in favor of a 12hr limit for new users, but since it's a public wiki, during this time, contributions would have to be approved by sysops. --Untagged
- Personally I think it would be good to have it so that all edits by new users a thrown into a moderation pool, then once a good amount of worthwhile contributions, that user can be "whitelisted".
- Maybe we could extend the Twitter-Service to display more information (i.e. "Main Page (-2,439) http://u.nu/5x2t3 " instead of "Main Page - http://u.nu/5x2t3"). That could allow fast detection (and reversal) of vandalism attempts because large edits by "unknown" would be easy to spot. May also add the username and/or the commit message, but then we'd have to check for anything Twitter might interpret or block. --CleanAir 13:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we add a Captchure to the logon process? I don't think all these recent spam pages are done manually. --http 06:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea http, add a Captcha to the logon process and the sign up process for some time --Whiteshinyapple 09:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC).
- Uhm better idea http, add a Captcha when making new pages. Having to fill in a captcha at every login seems to be a pain in the ass :/ the only thing the spam is doing is making new pages, (at least as far as i see.) --IMaximusX
- What I meant was for the registration process (new user), not for every login. Only geohot could implement that. --http 17:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Recaptcha might work. I requires 1.8+, but only works on the sign in, edits with a new external link (anon only), and passwork cracking. --Balloonhead66 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)