Difference between revisions of "User:Farred"
(IP address attackers aren't the main problem) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Yes, I agree that anonymous people should not be allowed to crap up Marspedia. If we force them to create an account, that discourages a lot of spam right there. If they actually create an account and log in, it's far easier to get rid of all their crap; JamesG has a script to help mechanize spam removal. [[User:Miros1|Miros1]] 19:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | Yes, I agree that anonymous people should not be allowed to crap up Marspedia. If we force them to create an account, that discourages a lot of spam right there. If they actually create an account and log in, it's far easier to get rid of all their crap; JamesG has a script to help mechanize spam removal. [[User:Miros1|Miros1]] 19:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I have to disagree: the anonymous attacks expose their IP addresses and we can deal with them for however long we need to (180 days almost always works): they run out of IP addresses and can't attack anymore until they get new ones -- and then those get banned for 180 days too. When they create accounts they're protected: they can create new accounts continuously, and the longest the IP gets blocked is 24 hours. Give me anonymous IP attacks any day. It's the account-creating attacks that are a problem. If we want to get desperate, blocking account creation would go a lot further towards bringing the situation under control. The [[User:WHUMP|WHUMP]] script is running as I type and has been for quite awhile. I haven't thought of an algorithm for detecting damaging attacks to existing articles (so WHEMP automatically ignores such attacks), but I believe the Bad Behavior extension can help deal with those if we install it. -- [[User:Strangelv|Strangelv]] 20:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:21, 30 September 2012
Yes, I agree that anonymous people should not be allowed to crap up Marspedia. If we force them to create an account, that discourages a lot of spam right there. If they actually create an account and log in, it's far easier to get rid of all their crap; JamesG has a script to help mechanize spam removal. Miros1 19:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have to disagree: the anonymous attacks expose their IP addresses and we can deal with them for however long we need to (180 days almost always works): they run out of IP addresses and can't attack anymore until they get new ones -- and then those get banned for 180 days too. When they create accounts they're protected: they can create new accounts continuously, and the longest the IP gets blocked is 24 hours. Give me anonymous IP attacks any day. It's the account-creating attacks that are a problem. If we want to get desperate, blocking account creation would go a lot further towards bringing the situation under control. The WHUMP script is running as I type and has been for quite awhile. I haven't thought of an algorithm for detecting damaging attacks to existing articles (so WHEMP automatically ignores such attacks), but I believe the Bad Behavior extension can help deal with those if we install it. -- Strangelv 20:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
