User talk:AssistantWikifag/2015

Old conversations from the year 2015.

Spambot Reports 2015

It just wouldn't be a new year without more spambots! 89.98.115.140 was just tinkering with Monopoly/OccupyBoardwalk. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

pervasive vandalism from 138.180.194.3

On the Ork tactica we've been having a problem with a user stripping profanity out of the article. Now, I can see why someone might want to set the tactics page into a more serious tone, but this is 1d4chan. Also, they aren't rewriting the article, they're effectively vandalizing it. Replacing swears and 4chan colloquialisms with bowdlerized forms even when it reduces the readability of the section. Previous edits ([1] ,[2] ) from that IP reduced phrases like "Can carry a metric fuck-ton of orks and royally fuck up the shit of anything it gets in the way of." to "Can carry a metric fat man ton of orks and royally fat man up the shit of anything it gets in the way of." and then again to "Can carry a metric bubbles ton of orks and royally bubbles up the buttocksof anything it gets in the way of."

Other examples of similar behavior can be found on the tyranid tactics page, where they replaced "FUCKHUEG" with "huge". In that case at lease, the meaning and readability was maintained.

Their most recent edit is here [3]. I'mma revert it, but I figured that this might be worth bringing to your attention. The comment on their last edit suggests that they aren't going to take a revert lightly. (edit: someone else beat me to the punch on the revert.) --Hiddenkrypt (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that vandalism. I wouldn't even call it edit-warring. Like many matters which are brought to my attention, it seems to have resolved itself without my intervention, which suits me just fine, but for future reference, I will probably come down on the side of less profanity. I've got no fucking problem with profanity in general, but overdoing it makes pages hard to read, which is especially problematic on pages which are supposedly intended to inform, such as tactica. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Image rot?

I put this on Wikifag's page, but no one seemed to notice. Anyway, every now and then an image will just no longer exist out of nowhere. Case in point, the C.S. Goto picture. This seems to happen most often with images who have spaces in their filenames. 50.184.110.243 18:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well. Not sure what I can do about it, but it's annoying.--Newerfag (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Man, that is a bummer -- I liked that image. I feel like we've tried resolving this sort of thing before (you may notice that most images have a "Importing image file" edit from "Maintenance script"), but short of re-uploading or re-importing stuff, or resolving some kind of bug with a MediaWiki or server update (which is Wikifag's thing more than mine), I don't know what we can do. Sorry. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I still have it with me. Let me try reuploading it- it's not the ideal fix, but it's better than nothing. --Newerfag (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Permabanning 192.99.14.91

Hey Derpysaurus here, should we permaban anon 192.99.14.91? He has been harassing the user page of Boss Ballkrusha for countless time already, we have warned him multiple times but has ignored it. Please permaban this troll faggot's ass already. Derpysaurus

I can't help but notice that he doesn't contribute much either, all the IP Address has done so far is vandalize Boss Ballkrusha's user page, and he's been doing so several times over the past week. This is clearly a personal attack on someone. Evilexecutive (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to miss this one -- obviously 192.etc. got bored, but I'll keep an eye on Boss Ballkrusha's page for further vandalism. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting permaban for 124.184.9.18

124.184.9.18 has been blanking random pages, and adding "Trigger warning" to them. Evilexecutive (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved, thanks to another user(Whose name I suddenly forgot literally the moment I moved away from his userpage >.<)Evilexecutive (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Political matters: Putting a stop to unwanted political disputes

Lately, I've noted multiple disputes over articles such as Female Fantasy Armor, Tumblr, and the like- normally I'd call it a flamewar or acts of vandalism, but it seems to be a byproduct of a general sentiment that political concerns (especially in regards to contentious issues such as racism, sexism, and so on) in general and the issues that crop up around the so-called "Social Justice Warriors" in particular have no place on the wiki. In order to maintain order and keep users from going at each other's throats both in talk pages and in articles, I would like to suggest a rule against bringing up political concerns in the wiki- we shouldn't need to worry about an article breaking into a tangent on why the depiction of X is "problematic", nor should we have to care about the percieved inequalities or discrimination in fictional settings. --Newerfag (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The situation regarding the Female Fantasy Armor article is worsening rapidly; half of the talk page is being taken up by ad hominems directed at the editors involved in changing the page, and the main article is looking as if it will be soon subject to a major edit war. It would be best for everyone to either protect the page or intervene in the discussion before it grows out of control or spreads to other pages. --Newerfag (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone involved, including Asorel, whom I freely admit that I have personally attacked, is edit warring or planning to at this time. I would like to revert to my previous edit, which streamlined the discussion and removed the real life section, but I've asked for TheWiseDane's permission first. --SpectralTime (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear. However, I get the feeling it might just be part of a larger problem that an official statement from AssistantWikifag would be able to clear up better. Otherwise this little drama will just replay itself on other pages instead. --Newerfag (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Without diving deeply into the specifics of those pages, I think it's safe to say that argument in an article (vs. a talk page) is poor form. I hesitate to make an absolute statement against political content in pages, because (I think) an article about a controversial topic would be incomplete without some mention of the controversy (and who's to say what political content is anyway?), but I guess if a page does spiral out of control, the only "fair" option available to us (the admins) is to squash the section in question and replace it with some wishy-washy statement that "there is controversy on this topic". Since I'd rather not be a judge of content, my primary criterion for doing this will be arguing in the article. I'll look into these specific pages in the next day or two. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a good answer.--68.204.237.58 03:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur, and commend even those I've disagreed with for (mostly) avoiding editwarring and in-article argument on the subject. --SpectralTime (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

About That Spam..

Not shown: humans tearing their hair out at CAPTCHAs that spambots are better at solving than humans.

It seems that hidden amongst the recent spam texts is a set of generation keys used for botnets. While I doubt it's harmful for anyone viewing the page(But it could be if the spammers decided to get clever and upload fucked up image files and embedding them in pages), it looks to me like someone's using these pages to control botnets. Reddit had some problems with this too, where people were using the site to store keys that deceptively simple programs used to generate entire botnets and self-replicate.

I would highly suggest looking into making the spam filter not solvable by a bot that can distinguish between "What chapter bjorn belongs to", and "what chapter does indrick boreale belong to", and apply one of literally two possible responses. If I can make a bot in under 50 lines of code that can solve the damn spambot filter, it should probably be replaced. Replacing it with randomized math wouldn't work well either, bots are pretty good at that too.Evilexecutive (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean what recently was done on Template:Board Games? Straight-up text editing doesn't get sent to the filter, and we can't block that sort of thing without blocking all anonymous users from editing (which is why I don't protect it permanently, even though it is a frequent spam target).

The filter is probably not changing. I can't change it myself because that's on the server/MediaWiki side of things, which Wikifag controls, and I don't think Wikifag is planning to change it because the trivia-based system is performing objectively better than the typical garbled-text Captcha that we used to have. The latter system failed to keep the bots out (see the picture to the side) and was a hindrance to humans. It's true that the current system is brittle, depending on the fact that the typical spambot dictionary doesn't contain traditional-gaming-specific terms (we've had to switch up the questions a couple of times) and that no attacker feels like going to the trouble of changing this, but since we switched over, the spamming has reduced by orders of magnitude -- I think it's been years since a spambot has created a page or account or posted a direct external link (which do fall under the filter). --AssistantWikifag (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

*Chuckles quietly at that picture*, that's fairly amusing actually. I'm just worried that someone might put something malicious in the wiki; as annoying as it is to have images that download shit onto your computer the moment you try to render them, they can be pretty bad. There's actually two methods I recall to making a spam-bot that can solve captchas, the first being the complicated method of using Machine Vision Programs to figure out the contents(Which is something a university student would do, not your average internet-taught spammer), or just.. Buying a bunch of chinese people to solve them by hand. Evilexecutive (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning 81.129.29.114?

Hey should we warn or at least ban 81.129.29.114? His edits consists on rapid unfunny dick jokes that has no informational value whatsoever other then being an unfunny, childish, space waster. Derpysaurus

"[W]arn or at least ban" is an interesting way to phrase things.

I gave 81.129.29.114 a day-long block -- that should let the novelty wear off, and we'll see how things go from here.

Batman

So, I get that Asorel and I (and others) have different ideas about what's /tg/-related, but given that there's a Batman Miniatures Game, there is no way that the Batman article should be reduced to a redirect to Konrad Curze. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The existence of a Batman mini game allows for the creation of an article on the Batman miniature game. An article on Batman with two sentences about the game thrown in for justification does not qualify.--Asorel (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The article mentions Batman just enough to bring people up to speed on the miniature game. If you don't like it, rewrite it, don't delete it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Reducing the article to a redirect was absolutely over the line. While I'd like to see more attention paid to the game itself, it's definitely appropriate to include some context on who this Batman fellow is, the world he lives in, and why they made a game based on it. (Also, the Alignment page has a couple of Batman-related images that would go nicely in the article.) --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)