A change in the wiki security settings

[Andytrenom]

Yeah, it has become a common problem here. Even though a lot of people who do it already know they aren't supposed to act that way.

 

[Kaltias]

@Theglassman12

I do think that keeping this type of restriction specifically for the chat could be a good idea in the long run though.

I understand where you are coming from, and understand why all of this is necessary right now, but keeping this type of restriction for the chat in the future is 100% "prevent younger users from familiarizing with the wiki" territory.

As long as all of this is necessary, fine, but let's avoid turning a temporary solution in a permanent lockdown

 

[Antvasima]

@Kaltias

Okay. I am just worried that said younger users will be harrassed on an almost daily basis in the chat otherwise, but you are probably correct.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Snip

I have yet to see this hours of debating. The sock is reported since rarely does a person capable of perma-banning find them initially, and we move on. Discussion is had, sadly, but that isn't reflective of most staff but the community and is normally politely asked to stop.

I'm not saying we're going to handle things perfectly. Far from that, you are asking for some hefty requests from what are essentially kids. It could be handled better. But this? This aspect was never in our control to begin with. We had no means of stopping it and also remaining in the good graces of our host company.

Just sayin'.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Snip

I do see Kalt's point. 10 edits really isn't much to ask but users may be deterred nonetheless.

Assuming we manage to handle the current issue, I'd be fine with reverting back to previous chat moderation rules. Though more chat moderators may be needed in order to protect the chat, as it is often a case of "there's nobody here to protect it".

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, it is hard for me to find new chat moderators to recommend to the staff, as I almost never visit there myself.

Other staff members should feel free to help with supplying recommendations in this regard.

That said, discussion moderators and administrators can also kick people from the chat.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I know they can. But often few staff are there or, if they are, they go AFK. That's nothing against the staff, just that it happens. It's a common thing to just forget chat is open.

As for those in chat. I'll try to think of a few and PM you some who regular in chat.

 

[Andytrenom]

I will also try to find some potential chat mods.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the help.

 

[Sera_EX]

10 edits can be achieved in the span of literally fifteen seconds, one just needs to edit their own post repeatedly, or add ten categories to a page one at a time. But it's not like a troll will do this.

As for chat, I don't want to sound like a grandparent going "back in the my day..." But yeah, back in the day when I was a chat/content mod, Hop and I kept chat perma-free of trolls because we banned on sight. Matt was always on chat and easily kept it clean, Ryu and SD used chat far more back then than they do now. So did Cal and Monarch. It's just dying. Nowadays not too many people, especially mods even visit chat.

This is, unfortunately, a better solution to our problem for now.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Chat typically has 7-14 people in it during active hours. A fair amount are regulars. Chat is also a common target for spreading of filth. These are facts.

If a regular or two could maintain a chat mod position, then our issue in chat would be fixed.

Just to be clear. I personally frequent chat and am in it for hours a day. Same deal with Dargoo and Glassman and so on. It's just that they often aren't and I just have no ability to do much.

Making a new chat mod or two means a lot less focus on the filth in there from the RVT. So in my eyes, a new mod or two is the best decision.

 

[BertH]

This is, unfortunately, a better solution to our problem for now.

I think this sums it up very well. I will continue to talk with Antvasima privately about this setting and other options. And be assured, we take it very seriously that this prevents new people from joining the community. So thank you everyone from expressing your concerns and feedback here. But you guys need a break from all of the jerks who want to cause trouble and this is the best option at the moment. Your resilience as a community is really admirable and FANDOM continues to look for the best ways to support the health of this community.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

My thoughts on the matter align with those of Raven's here.

 

[Uradelbauer]

Yeah, this should stop them. Shame about the good users that join and get discouraged by it though

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I mostly agree with Bambu, partially with Raven.

That said, the results are, so far, pretty positive.

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah, we still get some trolls here and now, but they haven't been acting up that much of a ruckus

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, perhaps it would be a good idea to keep this protection for a while to let us have some peace and quiet, especially with the upcoming police investigation. At least until the bug that lets the trolls move profiles to user pages and that allegedly cannot be moved back is fixed.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

There is a police investigation?

 

[Antvasima]

The most extreme harrassment has been reported to the police 3 times over.

 

[NoOneCanJustDeflectTheEmeraldSplash]

I'm just glad I'm still able to edit TBH.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

If it is not a good idea we can ask him to change it back, but this extra security for the chat seems like a good idea to me at least.

I agree with Dargoo Faust. This seems like a good short term solution.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Free the wiki. Let new users come by freely.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Bert can you explain to us what types of edits the new users must have in order to contribute to this wiki?

 

[AKM sama]

@Bert can you explain to us what types of edits the new users must have in order to contribute to this wiki?

New users can't contribute. The users who already have 10 edits here can contribute here. That's what I am getting from Ant.

 

[Theglassman12]

are you serious?? So basically we're just flat out preventing anyone from contributing at all in the wiki.

 

[Torlikoff]

It'd be a necessary evil, but the drawbacks are too much. It's certainly efficient though

 

[AKM sama]

Yes.

No, I think that only people who already have over 10 edits in this wiki are allowed to edit until the restriction is lifted, and given that there will likely be a police investigation soon about the relentless harrassment, rape and death threats, child pornography, etcetera, that might take a while.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It's not necessary, and it's not benefitial. I'd much rather have to deal with troll and harrassment, but still have an open wiki that can grow and thrive, then live in a closed, stagnating environment isolated from harm.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Torlikoff but before, all we had to deal with were chat spammers, and they hardly did any damage to the wiki aside from just being a nuisance. Heck, I'd argue that having the previous method is a WAY better solution since they're practically exposing themselves before they can do any real damage.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

It's not necessary, and it's not benefitial. I'd much rather have to deal with troll and harrassment, but still have an open wiki that can grow and thrive, then live in a closed, stagnating environment isolated from harm.

I honestly feel like you're blowing this massively out of proportion.

In all likelyhood, this is a knee-jerk reaction that will last for a relatively short time, in order to let FANDOM get a hold on the situation.

 

[Torlikoff]

Yeah, I'm saying it's not worth it. It helps a little, but the drawbacks are too huge to be considered necessary

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

I agree with Matt and Glassman. We can't allow a bunch of idiots to prevent our community from growing.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'll say it again: This isn't permament, stop freaking out, guys.

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

With all due respect, this issue is not up to me to decide, it is up to the Fandom staff, and you are not the one who has taken the main brunt of hundreds of instances of relentless criminal harrassment, on top of all the regular overwork, I am, so I can see Bert's point of view of giving the wiki a break for a little while. We already have several hundred active members, so we can technically make do for the time being.

That said, you can talk with Bert about it yourself if you wish.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Keyword, this is a "short term" solution, meaning this standard will be lifted in a few days before. And I agree that we should be more open, but we don't always have enough active Admins to deal with situations like this. If we did we wouldn't have to. Also, this wasn't Antvasima's decision, but rather the Fandom staff who were just trying to help. We're welcome to ask Fandom what would be better methods, but I do need to emphasize this. Yelling or cursing at them is never a good idea regardless of whether or not it's poorly handed.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

I wanna give my word here,but i'm too sleepy right now....

But for short,i'm myself kinda neutral with this whole security,but i myself agreeing with Mashu and Kagamine.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I am going to bed now. I hope that this will not have turned into a chaotic mess of accusations when I wake up tomorrow.

 

[Theglassman12]

@DDM No one is yelling or cursing at anyone here. We're just expressing our opinions on the matter. But I digress.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Until I hear actual word from Bert or others from FANDOM explaining how long this will last, I will not be calm and expect this to be lifted "A few days from now". If it does, great, but I'd rather be sure.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

@DDM No one is yelling or cursing at anyone here. We're just expressing our opinions on the matter. But I digress.

He's attempting to prevent people from doing so in the foreseeable future, he's not directing it here.