Sign in or 

|
Marsden |
Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 3:31 PM EST
| Post edited: Mar 4 2010, 3:33 PM EST
Early this morning an account was registered on the Zombie Survival and Defence Wiki. Within three hours 663 pages were created and filled with links to spam websites.I am almost certain that this a spam bot. Following the dilligent work of one of my moderators the pages have been removed, but the waste of time was ridiculous and unacceptable. An obvious solution was to restrict the site to writers only, which I have done, however this will hamper growth in the long run and can only serve as a temporary solution. In lieu of this I am making two suggestions to Wetpaint : 1.) A PROPER IP ban system. Banning anonymous trolls is one thing, however why can we not I.P. ban registered users accounts? They can easily create multiple accounts which gives trolls/spammers etc. unlimited power against the actions of our moderator team. My staff and I have discussed this issue with you in the past. However all we got was information about how to IP ban anonymous edits. If we are to combat these more advanced spam bots and protect our users then we NEED access to stronger, more permenant powers regarding IP bans. 2.) Greater scrutiny in the creation of accounts and editing. Currently siging up a wetpaint account is almost as easy as it is to create a Wetpaint site. I wish to see more security features against spam bots. Also, I would like all sites to have an option to limit the amount of content a user can upload within a certain time constraint. Wetpaint staff have always been attentive in the past to problems, and I trust that they will avail to ensure the Wetpaint Community is safe. Thank you for your time spent reading this and for any resopnses which you make, Marsden. If you agree with the above then please show your support whilst we wait for Wetpaint's response. 91 out of 92 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Baby_Apple |
1. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 3:37 PM EST
I am in complete favor of an IP banning system.
23
out of
23 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Marsden |
2. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 3:42 PM EST
Let's hear it from the whole wetpaint community then!Petition for proper protection! If you support it then leave an "Aye." Support change today! 20 out of 20 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
PedroAsani |
3. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 3:57 PM EST
God yes. Cleaning up 600 pages of Canadian pharmaceutical spam is not fun.
14
out of
14 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
4. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:01 PM EST
YESS!
11
out of
12 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
5. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:05 PM EST
I'm most definitely in favor of this.12 out of 12 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Drewblet |
6. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:06 PM EST
Definitely a Yes from me.Besides, it's fun to upset SEnuke fans. 10 out of 10 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Carnack |
7. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:08 PM EST
Aye
10
out of
10 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
walrusworldstudios |
8. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:11 PM EST
This is a great feature! I am for the IP banning feature 100%. I will pass it on to Jeremy.
8
out of
8 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
9. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:11 PM EST
Come on WP!!!
9
out of
9 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Bipp |
10. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:11 PM EST
Yes, We are not asking for much just the support of Wetpaint to help up continue to enjoy our favorite sites.
6
out of
6 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
11. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:13 PM EST
As a ZSDW member for almost a year, Absolutely YES.Down with Spambots!! 6 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Naru2008 |
12. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:13 PM EST
1.) I do agree that we should be able to I.P Ban Registered Users, but, as of now, we can only see the I.P of Anonymous users Marsden. If we were to get this, it will be a while. We will not be getting updates for a while.2.) I don't really agree about the last part about this idea about how much content a user can put in a certain time. Now, yes, we need better security w/ the creating accounts, and I think we should use the Captcha box to stop bots from creating accounts. I have seen this on many sites (non-wetpaint) and it seems to be very effective in stopping bots. Of cource, this is my opinion. -Alex, WPC Moderator 6 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
13. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:15 PM EST
"Early this morning an account was registered on the Zombie Survival and Defence Wiki. Within three hours 663 pages were created and filled with links to spam websites.aye!! 5 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
jeremy_wetpaint |
14. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:21 PM EST
Here's the problem with just allowing IP banning: The type of person that is using spam bots to flood the forum us usually pretty tech savvy. Someone that is tech savvy can easily get around an IP block. Wetpaint could spend hours or days coding an IP blocking feature in for moderators, just to have it easily circumvented. It might be a lot more practical to just implement a throttle that prevents a user from posting more than X number of threads within a given time frame. This would make the moderators job a bit easier. Of course, someone could get around this by making a new account for each posts, but it would at least slow them down. The point is - there is no perfect solution to spam. 2 out of 9 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sofa.King.Cold |
15. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:22 PM EST
Aye.
6
out of
6 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
16. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:23 PM EST
aye
6
out of
6 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Marsden |
17. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:29 PM EST
"The point is - there is no perfect solution to spam."I understand where you are coming from. However, IP bans can be used for other persistant trolls which have manifested in the past. There may be no perfect way to beat spam, but there is perfect way to lose; Do nothing to combat it. We need to be proactive as a community in opposing spam. The introduction of the contribution limit would ensnare the progress of the spammers. Obviously it would be better if sites had the choice about whether they wish to implement the policy or not. Thank you for replying so quickly, Jeremy. I hope that we can work out a solution. Marsden 6 out of 6 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
18. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:37 PM EST
Ayelet things be done properly 5 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
19. RE: Petition to Wetpaint for Advanced Security to be Implemented
Mar 4 2010, 4:39 PM EST
Aye. The kittens say Aye as well.
6
out of
6 found this valuable.
Do you?
|