Sooooo am I on here or not? rofl

 ℑilver§ℑide 16:41, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)

You're not.
On a different topic, I've been reading about some problem where multiple uses of templates doesn't work after a certain number and I seem to be seeing that on this page where the template doesn't get used, but a link to the template itself appears. Is this a known MediaWiki bug?

--Fandyllic 11:27 AM PST 12 December 2005
Yes. It was fixed in 1.5 (dear god v1.6 comes out in less than a month, and we are still on 1.3!)... till then, you can simply duplicate the template. --  ℑilver§ℑide 16:57, 12 Dec 2005 (EST)

Puta vs. Pornbot

I am not quite sure the same bot is doing all of this; it seems that someone has distributed a bot that searches google for the image found at the bottom of any mediawiki installation and spams all mediawiki wikis. However this is not always the same person spamming, nor the same methods; I have seen spam for scat pr0n, lolicon (dear god), 'free' drugs, and other things, however any one spammer account only seems to post one such denomination. Anyway, for now I am redisginging the page a little to reflect said beliefs. --  ℑilver§ℑide 00:27, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)
P.S. to my opponents (sad that I have to call anybody that on a wiki) - how's that for good communication about what I do?

Vandal Template

I've changed template:vandal to be tabular. Who likes, who dislikes? It could be hammered out a little more. But the width shouldn't be set to 100%, because i have a high-res widescreen. +.+ Schmidt 22:33, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)

If we settle on the format of this template, we can subst the template in rather than calling the template each line. This way we can get the whole thing. Does anyone want it to look special in any way? I don't like the way it looks, but I can't think of a good way to format it (like with nice colors, and what-not). Also, as I said, anything I do might not look good on any other computer because the technology my computer uses is so far superior to anyone else's. haha j/k. Schmidt 23:55, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)

New vandal

Could not figure out how to add a new one. User name "Holy Shit". Destructive Vandalism removed. --Dracomage 14:16, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)


Or however you spell it, I removed him - only one edit. Not a basis for a ban or even a lsit here yet. --  ℑilver§ℑide 17:59, 17 Jan 2006 (EST)


Not sure if he warrants being added to the list yet. His only contribution has been to reintroduce a false epic coin reward rumour on the Lunar Festival page. This is getting quite a bit of attention on the Blizzard forums, so I think it's important to revert these changes as soon as they are made to demonstrate the integrity of the wiki.--Aeleas 13:41, 31 Jan 2006 (EST)

Fun fact

The vandals we see have often names made like : (A curse or explicit word in Spanish)</roll 1000>--Kirochi 15:08, 1 Feb 2006 (EST)

asian text

sniper contribs (if bot), logs talk block user Asian characters / text in FlexBar . nothing really major.


Quests was changed, I noticed too late to revert, so I manually reworked it (while making some updates) - someone should examine this more closely --Flotsam 22:57, 9 Mar 2006 (EST)

Damage control

The most recent spam bot: User:Kristchan, has been going all morning. 0800 - now, 1600, CET. If we had more admins, or at least people who could block or give temporary bans to bots. there would be much less spam to clean up.

I suggest we get either more admins with the ability to block bots, or a new kind or user permission which allows certain assigned users to block bots for up to 24 hours, so that the admins can look at their work, and make the ban last longer. a year, or permanent. CJ 08:54, 21 March 2006 (EST)

The spam bot User:Sandino, has been at it from 05:25, 24 March 2006 till 12:20, 24 March 2006 (The moment he was blocked). Which is about 7 hours of spam clean up. With those 7 hour he managed to corrupt 45 pages which is about one spammessage per 9 minutes. Most spambots are blocked within 12 hours of starting. So a 12 hour temporary ban would work. --Montronax 07:25, 24 March 2006 (EST)
This sounds like a great idea to me, but while I don't know a whole lot about this software, I don't see how something like that would become available. In any case, such a decision would not be left to me unless someone else gave it to me. Schmidt 07:29, 24 March 2006 (EST)
Not all bots produce spam at 1 per 10 minute, some produce 1 per 2-5 minutes. if such a user could be banned faster, there wuold be less to clean up. CJ 07:33, 24 March 2006 (EST)
I agree with CJ those spammers should be banned earlier, 7 or 8 hours of spamming is too long. --Montronax 08:02, 24 March 2006 (EST)
How many do we have that can ban? At least 1 per time zone area would be nice, like 1 in US, 1 in europa and 1 for Asia and Australia. That way we can have bans in place 24 hours a day. Btw, Im in Sweden and it looks like there is no one in europa that can ban since most bots continue untill US wakes up. Westin 08:23, 24 March 2006 (EST)
Schmidt, Fandyllic, alex and rustack.. the last 2 are not online often / barely ever. and the first 2, i "think" are in somewhat the same timezone. CJ 08:25, 24 March 2006 (EST)
I'm in U.S. Eastern time, so about GMT -5. Something like that. Sometimes I don't have a lot of time to contribute, though, because or school or work. Other than that, probably the most of the time that I'm on is either Sunday pretty much all day, maybe Saturday night; any other night I may or may not be able to help because of studying and whatnot. Schmidt 08:52, 24 March 2006 (EST)
I'm in the Netherlands, but I'm working too :) that limits my time here --Montronax 08:43, 24 March 2006 (EST)
I'm on hardly ever? I'm in the Pacific time zone and I think I've blocked more bots than anyone by a large margin. The solution is not more admins or people to block, but to institute measures to prevent them from making accounts. If we can prevent bots from making accounts, that will slow down the problem a huge amount.
Also, you can rest assured that if I block a bot, I will clean up the mess if no one has added an edit on top of the spam. Admins can do rollbacks (one click) much faster than a manual removal of spam. --Fandyllic 2:05 PM PST 25 Mar 2006
What CJ probably meant (just guessing) is that Alex and Rustak are rarely on, and he just listed our names in a wierd order, is all. Schmidt 18:33, 25 March 2006 (EST)
ack, yes, sorry CJ 02:12, 5 April 2006 (EDT)


So, why weren't all of Duuude's vandalized pages reverted by the admins? A few were (and some were by other users) but I had to do the rest myself. Also, why do some of the silly articles he created like Whore House, Urine Tide Totem or Duuude still exist and weren't deleted like his other pages? --Foogray 07:25, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure. I think I was the one that deleted the other pages. Why I wouldn't have deleted those is beyond me. Maybe I just neglected to look at all that he left for us. I'm on it now, though. Schmidt 12:37, 25 April 2006 (EDT)
I know I set those 3 listed above as a Speedy Delete. Would that have caused a problem when trying to delete them? - ClydeJr 12:46, 25 April 2006 (EDT)
I'm not sure if it would have, if I was deleting them while you were editing them. But I do know that it didn't in this case. Schmidt 13:05, 25 April 2006 (EDT)


I think King424 is a bot ... his changes are pointless and frankly, odd. -- Kirkburn 18:03, 18 June 2006 (EDT)

Definitely odd, but not quite vandalism (unless you count the 'fff'). You could add King424 as a vandal with the 'fff' change as the 1 act. That will keep him on the radar. Not enough to justify a block yet. --Fandyllic 11:20 AM PDT 19 Jun 2006

E-mail validation for account creation not working

Add the need to get your password from e-mail is not working to discourage spammers. I think we need something harder for them to get past, but not so far as to validate every edit.

Some suggestions:

  • Have the password e-mail change the text around the password randomly (or randomly enough), so it is hard to parse the password, but easy for real person to figure it out. Not sure how this would be done, but it's an idea.
  • Graphic validation: Where some text is put into a graphic and warped so character ecognition can't easily parse it and that code is used to validate the account.
  • Have admins approve each account manually. This really isn't a good idea, but I'm running out of ideas.

--Fandyllic 11:07 AM PST 21 Mar 2006

Rustak aware of e-mail validation not working

I've been telling him about our woes via e-mail and he's going to look at getting e-mail validation on account creation before allowing accounts to edit working this weekend. He's also going to look into image validation on account creation. Cross your fingers. --Fandyllic 1:58 PM PST 25 Mar 2006

I got blocked!

The good news is we know IP blocking works. The bad news is one of the spammers (Smcn) was using my IP address. Fortunately, I'm using a dynamic IP, but it was a little bit of a pain to get a different IP.

I do think this tells us that IP blocking isn't always the good answer. Spammers aren't restricted to unique IPs if they have their own DHCP server or can manipulate the one that's giving out their IPs. --Fandyllic 12:45 PM PST 14 Mar 2006

well,,, that is hmm, interesting. couldn't we sic FBI or whatever on this..? doubtful as the spammers are probably operating from some backdoor middle of nowhere country where they're lucky to have electricity in the first place... right. ? CJ 03:24, 17 March 2006 (EST)
I got the message that I was blocked because Smcn was using my IP as well, only the IP given wasn't mine. User:Tyroney reported the same thing. --Aeleas 11:49, 17 March 2006 (EST)

The same thing happened to me with Smcn at my school (gets boring between classes after work is done XD). Odd... --Cigawoot 14:10, 17 March 2006 (EST)

Old topic, but I suspect that the IP being compared for blocking may be what is seen on the greater internet (IPv6 or something) and not the local IP which is in old-style nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn in most cases. --Fandyllic 3:30 PM PDT 3:30 PM PDT 5 Sep 2006

KBot destruction

There is an easy way to identify and destroy the K-Bots, but it would require a re-working of the URL scheme. If your up to it, Rustak, I can tell you what we did.  ℑilver§ℑide 05:52, 11 Mar 2006 (EST)

Rash of spam-bots

Lately we've had a rash of spam bots. Frankly, I'm tired of it. What can we do about it? Schmidt 01:04, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)

Someone asked if we could get an IP block on these bots. If you see Special:Ipblocklist, it will say that a user was blocked because he shared an IP address with a user. So each block is an IP block. Schmidt 09:02, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)

There are several things, but they would require the help of the head admin / site owner.
  1. Require manual account activation ( that will make people less likely to edit though )
  2. Insert a validation image ( whatever they call it ) that requires people to type in the letters / numbers they see in that image in order to create an account. this, usually prevents a number of bots from automatically creating an account, then going ahead and posting crap. CJ 13:27, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)
  3. Email verification. when you create an account, send an email to validate you exist. this will stop a "few" bots, but not all.
  4. combination of 2+3
  5. IP Verification. since the spammers are unlikely to use their own IP, and blocking by IP is dubious at best.. would there be any kind of verification that could be done upon logging on to make sure the user is legit?

I think a validation image would work best, but any of these solutions might need either a new version of the wiki or some hack. I sent e-mail to Rustak and asked him to give his thoughts, if possible. --Fandyllic 1:34 PM PST 10 Mar 2006

The rash of spam bots seems to be subsiding for some reason. Maybe they read these comments and know we are actively blocking them and working on better ways to prevent them from doing their evil deeds and decided to move on. Who knows? --Fandyllic 5:52 PM PDT 4 Apr 2006

I noticed the same. I guess our active efforts have forced them to either give up or just regroup for a more vicious onslaught. Let's hope it's the former. Schmidt 22:40, 4 April 2006 (EDT)


Argh, spammers are annoying. So, a few things: 1) new wiki hardware + mediawiki 1.5 will be ready to go in like.. a day. The person who was supposed to rack the machine for me has avoided going in to work since apparently the air conditioning is broken and is keeping the office at ridiculously freezing temperatures (also found a nice extension to solve the image-link problem, that all works well and I modified one of the media wiki bots to go through and make most of the changes automagically). 2) I've got some spam blocking extensions in the new install that are working well for us on the mozilla wikis; I can add in something captcha based, but do you think that'll get too annoying for people doing real edits? You'd need to type the random image-words for every edit... 3) I'll turn on account email verification, it should stop some of the bots as you guys suggest. --Rustak 17:38, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)

More active protection would be good. This last spam bot crazy was most likely just someone with a computer automatically making accounts every few minutes, and spamming the same page over and over. A single IP block eariler would have made the whole thing quicker. Then again, I was bored enough to manaualy change back the first 50 or so changes :) --Stfrn 17:54, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)
""captcha"" for every single edit would be too annoying. but it'd be a start to turn it on just for creating a new account or logging on. and then see how well that prevents problems. CJ 05:45, 11 Mar 2006 (EST)
I vote against validation for every edit. I don't think an IP block would work, since a smart spammer can easily hook his stuff up to a DHCP server and renew leases after every spam attempt. --Fandyllic 9:52 AM PST 12 Mar 2006
I think putting in Captcha's for Logon, and creating an account will at least stop this or this from happening for a while, it seems someone is using an automatic account creator. i wouldnt go as far as putting captchas on every edit.. that will just impede normal users too much. CJ 05:06, 16 March 2006 (EST)
Captain's log, stardate 170320061020: This matter is getting out of hand, the Borg are going rampant, and adding more spam than any sane person would want to clean up. Something needs to be done..... Perhaps a "panic" button.. that reverts "all" changes a single user made. would make cleaning up this crap easier, and faster. CJ 03:20, 17 March 2006 (EST)
Agreed, that's a great idea. Just one click to undo spam by a user! Wonder how much processing power that would eat up... --Cigawoot 15:51, 17 March 2006 (EST)

In case it wasn't clear from what I added to the main article page (I added it some time ago), admins have the capacity to undo one edit with one click, and so very easily undo vandalism. Firefox and IE 7 are good for this. On a side note, IE 7 Beta 2 doesn't work for every ASP that IE 6 was good for, so I wouldn't recommend getting that right yet. Now, Mozilla doesn't either, but at least Mozilla is completely separate from IE 6; IE 7 overwrites IE 6. :-( But then again, Mozilla is way better anyw

WYBLOL vs. Schafbo and Watch Your back

Okay, WYBLOL created the now deleted guild page Watch Your Back which appears to have an unsubstantiated conversation about that guild and Months Behind which are both Dethecus (US) server Horde guilds. So, Schafbo calls WYBLOL a vandal for creating the page which is incriminating to Watch Your back (I guess). Since we can't prove the veracity of what was on the Watch Your Back page (without at least some other people giving some evidence), it could be considered vandalism, but on the other hand so could the emptying of the page by Schafbo. My solution was to delete the Watch Your Back page (and the one at User talk:WYBLOL) and remove WYBLOL from the vandal list. If WYBLOL post another pseudo guild page again without any explanation, he gets back on the vandal list. If Schafbo empties a legit Watch Your back guild page, he goes on the vandal list. --Fandyllic (talk) 5:32 PM PDT 16 Oct 2006

Thanks for making a call on that mess. I was still scratching my head over it :-)   --Mikk (T) 20:48, 16 October 2006 (EDT)


I don't think it was intentional :-) --Tinkerer 06:26, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

page size

time for archive 3? :P User:CrazyJack/Sig 09:15, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Yup.   --Mikk (T) 09:39, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Known_vandals Spazzz entry odd

What's going on here? What does "Reverted ban. Learn how to revert!" mean? --Fandyllic (talk) 2:55 PM PST 6 Nov 2006

User talk:Kirkburn#Known vandals Spazzz entry odd :) -- Kirkburn (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2006 (EST)


I spoke to Ghrenaahi in-game about why he vandalized the User:TM41/Equinox page. The conversation went something like this:

Me: "Why were you vandalizing the Equinox page on"

Ghrenaahi: "because he's a f*cking ninja and he's ignoring me"

Me: "He ninjaed you? Where?"

He described that Equinox supposedly ninjaed a "good fist weapon that dropped off the cannoneer in Stratholme".

Ghrenahi: "so in my book he's now a freaking asshole and i'll keep on vandalisin his f*cking self-proclaimed web infos on wowwiki.. anyway, whether or not he wrote it, the page should promote what he is : a possible ninja."

I say we definetly ban this guy for more than 1 week if he keeps at it. Anyone agree?

--TM41 18:35, 18 November 2006 (EST)