Forum:Protect site

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Protect site
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 March 2009 by Azaz129.

In light of our recent string of vandalism, I have protected the site (currently for 30 minutes) and left a message on Sannse's talk page. Hopefully this will allow her time to do what she needs to do. I know it's a drastic measure, but I feel this time called for it. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was not here to help, I'm sure many of you (especially my fellow admins) would like more information on this vandal. Please see the following links: here, here, and here.-- 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I recall the impersonator, though it seems after Kirkburn blocked the IP for a year, he went away. Maybe he got lazy and forgot to use a proxy. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. Poor Lucky...and he was annoying. Shame someone that immautre can do nothing better with their time than be..annoying. Guthix crozier.png Eternalseed  Guthix's Book of Balance.png 21:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Not very likely Karlis, he tends to stick to a pattern of quickly vandalizing (increasingly) large amounts of pages, his IP is blocked, and then comes back about two weeks later to start the cycle again. We'll be seeing him again.-- 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, all we can do is wait. Protect site seemed to work, as you can disable account creation. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Kudos to Karlis, it was a very good idea. Drastic, but necessary. 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos per Bonzii. Andrew talk 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an update for everyone who is interested.... Our conversation may be found here. If the vandal returns, please post something on her talk under the section I have already started, then proceed to IRC as she suggested. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Round 2

As many may know, we were hit again today. I discussed this with sannse.

  • <Karlis|away> Not sure if you saw it, but the RSW was hit with that vandal bot today.
  • <Karlis|away> I'm sure others were targeted as well.
  • <Karlis|away> Other than Special:Protectsite, what can we do?
  • <sannse> can you give me a contribs link please? I'll have a look at the IPs
  • <Karlis|away> Yeah 1 sec
  • <Karlis|away> There's 5
  • <Karlis|away>
  • <Karlis|away>
  • <Karlis|away>
  • <Karlis|away>
  • <Karlis|away>
  • <sannse> thanks, looking
  • <Karlis|away> Yep. =D
  • <Karlis|away> I'm certain he uses a proxy.
  • <Karlis|away> Or she, don't want to be sexist. =\
  • <sannse> actually only used one IP, which Uber has blocked
  • <sannse> but yes, it is an open proxy
  • <Karlis|away> I have a feeling if somebody took the time to create a bot to do this, they aren't going to get bored anytime soon. =\
  • <Karlis|away> Do we need to have someone make an anti-vandal bot to counter this person?
  • <sannse> well, there are posibilities such as limiting the speed of edits for new users, or for users without rollback... or we could help with more monitoring of the recent changes feed looking for problems...
  • <sannse> certainly the protect site feature is a good one to use when needed...
  • <sannse> but mostly it's the good old "block, revert, ignore" routine
  • <Karlis|away> Well, we'll have to discuss within the community the possibility of the limiting speed route.
  • <sannse> *nod* Uber will be able to tell you more about the possibilities... but generally, I would be cautious about allowing this person to interfere with the editing of others
  • <Karlis|away> Yeah, that's kind of our issue with protect site.
  • <sannse> better to get us to help with clean-up rather than get in the way of editing, imo :)
  • <sannse> yeah
  • <Karlis|away> If he stops everyone from editing, he wins.

This brings up an interesting point. If we stop everyone from editing, this kid wins. Nothing he can do cannot be reverted. I feel protectsite actually may not be the best of ideas after all. I was curious though, about this ability to limiting the speed of edits for new users, or for users without rollback..., and I believe we need to discuss implementing something like this. If somebody had taken the time to create a vandal bot (as they obviously have no other life) then they're obviously not going to stop soon. Limiting the amount of times they can vandalise will reduce the chances that we will need to lock-down the site again. For more information about this feature, I was instructed to contact Uberfuzzy. I have not done this yet, as I need to go to work. I feel though, that we're in for a new wave of vandalism, and we need to take all of the necessary steps to ensure that we're ready for it. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain/expound more on what you were referring to when you said limit the number of posts made by new users or users without rollbacks. As it stands now, per our discussion with one of our projects...I see, and I could be seeing myself wrong, that if I revert vandalism...I'd then be limited in providing useful information to this wiki. Guthix crozier.png Eternalseed  Guthix's Book of Balance.png 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I haven't talked to Uberfuzzy about it yet, but I'm assuming it would mean that we could limit the amount of edits made by unregistered (or certain right classes) of users to X per minute/hour, etc. This would mean that, for example, if we limited unregistered users to 2 edits per minute, that the bot would only be able to execute its vandalism script twice per minute, making it easier for sysops to clean up, rather than once every 5 seconds. Hope that makes a little more sense. Of course, that's my sepculation, as I haven't looked further into it. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of limiting new and unregistered accounts to 2 edits per minute. This however leads way to a vandal setting up accounts, waiting for them to be no longer new (or even doing a few non-vandal edits with these puppet accounts), then implementing the bot all over. As such I would love to see something automated in the background that detects open-proxies and continues to enforce an edits per minute limitation on accounts accessing the wiki via open proxies. I would guess that pretty much most of us don't do many more than 2 edits per minute normally (especially now with SmackBot handling the automated task of price updates that many of us used to knock out). This way even established accounts that are coming through open proxies would continue to be regulated, perhaps with the limit per minute increased a bit. Yes? ~kytti khat 00:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)