Difference between revisions of "OrbiterWiki:Village pump"
(new skin) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
: Updated to MediaWiki v1.16.2; a couple of extensions got upgraded too. --[[User:RaMan|RaMan]] 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | : Updated to MediaWiki v1.16.2; a couple of extensions got upgraded too. --[[User:RaMan|RaMan]] 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
: Enabled Vector skin. [[Media:SkinOld.png|Old skin]] vs [[Media:SkinNew.png|New skin]]. Hope you like! --[[User:RaMan|RaMan]] 18:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | : Enabled Vector skin. [[Media:SkinOld.png|Old skin]] vs [[Media:SkinNew.png|New skin]]. Hope you like! --[[User:RaMan|RaMan]] 18:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Loose gun policy for bans from a special subnet == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I just noticed some more similarities among the recent spambot activity here: Ten spambot accounts with two name patterns since December came from 118.101.0.0/16, one half of the Internet provider "TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD" (There is no spam from the other /16 of this provider). I suspect that we have a single source behind varying IP addresses there. Since this still means a 640/650 chance that somebody is not a spammer from this network, I would propose the following guideline for next 3 months: All new user accounts that are registered from this network with the pattern | ||
| + | |||
| + | <Letter> + <Random First Name> + <Random Common Family Name> + <Letter> | ||
| + | |||
| + | should be banned instantly and for infinite time. IP-Bans should be avoided, since a /16 network of DHCP addresses seems like a poor target for IP-bans. Better target the business model and prevent search engine optimization. I don't see any reason to use this user name pattern here anyway. Another pattern had been the "-Steamer" type, but I don't think this alone is a good way to identify a spammer. If it comes from the same subnet though, it would be with very high certainty a spammer. We have no legal edits from the whole /16 subnet (Booo!). | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Urwumpe|Urwumpe]] 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:23, 30 January 2012
Just a page for general OrbiterWiki discussions (for keeping the Talk:Main Page related to the main page).
View archived discussions for 2005-2007, 2008-2010.
Server move and stuff
- OrbiterWiki has moved servers. Please report any and all issues you observe, preferably by email.
- I am planning to upgrade to the most recent MediaWiki version shortly. Will notify when that's done.
- I'd like to try out the new default MediaWiki skin, which is the skin Wikipedia uses now. Any objections should be expressed here.
- I'm still hoping to switch case-insensitivity for titles back on. One day...
--RaMan 12:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Updated to MediaWiki v1.16.2; a couple of extensions got upgraded too. --RaMan 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Enabled Vector skin. Old skin vs New skin. Hope you like! --RaMan 18:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Loose gun policy for bans from a special subnet
I just noticed some more similarities among the recent spambot activity here: Ten spambot accounts with two name patterns since December came from 118.101.0.0/16, one half of the Internet provider "TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD" (There is no spam from the other /16 of this provider). I suspect that we have a single source behind varying IP addresses there. Since this still means a 640/650 chance that somebody is not a spammer from this network, I would propose the following guideline for next 3 months: All new user accounts that are registered from this network with the pattern
<Letter> + <Random First Name> + <Random Common Family Name> + <Letter>
should be banned instantly and for infinite time. IP-Bans should be avoided, since a /16 network of DHCP addresses seems like a poor target for IP-bans. Better target the business model and prevent search engine optimization. I don't see any reason to use this user name pattern here anyway. Another pattern had been the "-Steamer" type, but I don't think this alone is a good way to identify a spammer. If it comes from the same subnet though, it would be with very high certainty a spammer. We have no legal edits from the whole /16 subnet (Booo!).
Urwumpe 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)