Topic on User talk:Harakoni

On https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Special:RecentChanges each entry has a 'diff' link, leading to, well, a diff of the changes.

As of this week, this link is no longer usable without logging in. This means that the whole 'Recent Changes' page is useless when not logged in. - But it is still accessible.

Note that sometimes the link is called '<n> changes' instead. - _Those still work_!!!

It would be convenient if the 'diff' links could also be restored for people not logged in - _reading_ a Wiki should not require an account and as many of these diffs are miniscule, having to search for the changes manually is a real drag.

(Also, "full disclosure", I do not have my private KeePass available at work, and sometimes to "cool down" my brain I like to browse these diffs inbetween tasks, so this affects me personally.)

Even if you want to keep the diffs restricted, you should then _also_ restrict access to the '<n> changes' type of link and _also_ to the whole 'Recent Changes' page for consistency. Just one out of them requiring login looks a lot like a configuration error (and probably is).

Thank you in advance.

Perhaps I should not have said anything: Now '<n> changes' also produces "Access denied". Alas.

The wiki recently had maintenance, and an anti-crawler protection extension was installed by Ludeon (who host the wiki on their servers) to prevent LLMs from hammering the wiki. Said LLMs were scraping revision histories and contributing to the sluggish performance of the wiki.

Sadly being able to view them without logging in was collateral damage from the change.

(This paraphrased info is from #wiki-suggestions in the Rimworld Discord from August 28, 2025, where CawsForConcern explained)

Yes. While we can't be absolutely sure its LLMs specifically (though theres good reason to suspect), its because of overly aggressive scraping. At one point we got 250,000 requests from a single IP in a single morning. I apologise for the inconvenience, but its unfortunately necessary.

Huh. Should not general purpose DoS/DDos protection help with that?

Alas, I understand. It is how it is.