• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

A change in the wiki security settings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
165,117
72,036
Hello.

First of all, this wasn't my idea, so please do not get mad at me about it.

Anyway, as you probably know, I have kept Fandom updated about our troll problems for the last months, and just received the following message from Bert Hall, Senior Director of Community Support at Fandom, basically the highest boss available to us:

"I have made a change that I hope will help with the current issues, at least for a while. It's not a long term solution but I think at this time it might the only way to stop the current harassment.

I have further defined the "autoconfirmed" group for Vs Battles to include a "minimum edit requirement" of 10. In other words, this means that no one with fewer that 10 edits can make more edits, and no one with with fewer that 10 edits can enter chat.

Obviously this keeps new, good people away as well. That is why it's not a long term solution.

It's a bit drastic, but I would like to leave it in place at least through the weekend and see how things go. Let me know what you think.

I'll be checking in tonight on my email and I'm working tomorrow of course. If it's causing problems we can make some adjustments or just revert back to how it was before."

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 think it should work in theory for now. At the very least it adds exta steps that may discourage the trolls and should make it more difficult.

I'm wondering what more can be done though. I don't think the issue is really preventative as of now, it's just that there are so many and they aren't being banned globally fast enough.
 
Being honest, a 10 edit requirements not that hard at all to reach. IIRC, you can even get a single edit just by commenting on a thread.

This requirement really shouldnt be that drastic. If anything, it would help divide the serious users, who are actually intentfully joining our site and being pro-active, from the non-serious ones who come here just to cause trouble.

Im all for it.
 
Thanks for keeping us updated. While it might be a shame for some potentially social/friendly people, it's good to keep trolls out and all that.
 
@Matthew

I think so, but I am not sure.

I can ask Bert Hall about it if you wish.
 
hmmm it sort of makes sense so the chat won't get flooded with socks (potential ones)
 
This is why a buddy of mine couldn't join, then.

Feels bad man, but I guess it is a necessary evil.
 
I have now asked Bert Hall about the specifics, but it could take a while for him to reply.
 
@Theglassman12

I am not sure, but Bert Hall told me that this is just a temporary solution.

I do think that keeping this type of restriction specifically for the chat could be a good idea in the long run though.
 
I don't see why we can't just do the usual "only let them in chat" method. Them spamming doesn't really damage any of our profiles, and it makes it easier on our hands to ban them whenever they show up
 
I thought that non autoconfirmed users couldn't make any edits on this wiki, including forum posts. Meaning that this probably would keep out new users in their entirety until it gets lifted if that is the case. Tell me if I'm wrong.
 
@Theglassman12

I thought that their constant harrassment of the chat community was being a major problem, especially for our younger members?

@Drawgon

I am not sure. As I mentioned, I have asked Bert Hall about it.
 
It is, but it's a better solution than just restricting some innocent users from trying to contribute into this wiki.
 
Until we can at least get rid of our biggest resident troll, this might be the best option.
 
@Theglassman12

Well, what I was considering is to only keep the 10 edit restriction for the chat and nothing else, as this would ensure that trolls cannot instantly enter there and harrass minors.

It obviously isn't an ideal solution, but given the extreme circumstances, it may be necessary.
 
Yeah, I got 100 edits in fairly short period of time in an arrow wiki discussion.
 
Can new users even get edits like this? It says with fewer than 10, you can't edit at all.
 
@Mr. Bambu

I am not sure, but Bert said that this would just be a temporary solution.
 
Antvasima said:
@Mr. Bambu
I am not sure, but Bert said that this would just be a temporary solution.
Click to expand...
I understand, but people mention going on forums for 10 edits. I don't think anyone can actually do that rn.

Like I fully support this temporary lockdown, it sucks but it is something that will give us time to think, just didn't understand what was being said.
 
Okay. What do you think about keeping the restriction for chat access only, if it is possible to achieve?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. What do you think about keeping the restriction for chat access only, if it is possible to achieve?
Click to expand...
It would certainly (albeit briefly) deter users from spamming chat, it would make it a lot harder for trolls of any magnitude to attack that admittedly weak point in our system. I approve.

I fear it will lead to more forum trolling, but that is easier to counter and, of course, harder to spam.
 
Yes, and forum posts would also give better evidence for the police.
 
Antvasima said:
Yes, and forum posts would also give better evidence for the police.
Click to expand...
Easier to counter, like I said. They are easier to detect by our admins, easier to record, etc etc. A major plus is that they can also be looked at after the fact, which is not the case for chat.

Probably a good idea.
 
This is a punch in the face to the wikis growth and freedom. We always say we deal with the problems here in a manner as good as we can with heavy emphasis of not appearing totalitarian - locking down the possibility of writing, editing, chatting is just that.
 
Well, it wasn't my idea. I was just told about it by Bert Hall, and he said that it would only be temporary.
 
At least until the end of the weekend. He apparently wants to see how it works out.
 
Fandom would not have just one day woken up and decided to implement such a mechanism. They very likely decided to do so because of the continued times we as a board contacted them with problems. What they implemented is basically a 100% kin liability to every new user due to the actings of a handful. In their eyes we are not able to solve our own problems and they decide for us what is best - and what is best for them, since they have their brand to protect.

During the entire time this circus took place you will never find a single post of mine in any of the threads regarding it. Not when Kep got banned. Not when the dozens or so users got banned. Not when we had dramatical sounding "im leaving" threads nor in any rule violation where we circle around single users for hours.

The reason being is that because this is the way such situations are meant to be handled. Dealt with. Ignored. Forgotten.

One thing I never forgot however was how important it was for us to not limit 99% of the users freedom of the wiki just because we give the 1% who cause problems more attention than they deserve.

And in our efforts to give these 1% more attention than they deserve we ended up limiting exactly the 99% of the users freedom. Thats a tragedy.

Lets face it. The 1% who decides to cause problem will simply edit 10 times before going back to be a hassle.

Its the other 99% which will feel like this is an unfriendly place for newcomers and refrain from coming back.

This policy should be changed as soon as possible and we should finally start to deal with these matters as adults. In silence.
 
Well, we are genuinely not able to deal with outright criminal sockpuppet trolls on our own, and it is Fandom's platform, so I am obliged to inform their staff about such issues.

Anyway, again, this is apparently just a temporary solution that will last for a few days.
 
Raven we are a site dedicated to calculating and estimating the strength of fictional characters. We are also a site that is created and run by Fandom, like it or not. The reality of the situation is that A. they not only have the right to know about what goes on on their platform, but have the right to handle the situation in any way they like, and B. we do not have the resources to permanently fix this issue short of law enforcement, whereas Fandom does.

These are facts.

It is unfortunate to limit the flow of users in this way. I understand that, I promise you, but this is Fandom's choice and frankly there are upsides you're missing. The wiki for once is not on high alert. It sucks we're in such a lockdown but you can't say "wow this is the worst" without coming up with a viable solution to change it, aside from saying "let all the criminal scum in".

Yes, this should be changed to allow for more freedom, but that is out of our hands because of the issues the site has. Complaining about it serves no purpose aside from saying that the multiple staff efforts to protect the wiki weren't good enough when, and allow me to reiterate this point, we do not have the means to handle the problem effectively save for outside help.

We are, in general, volunteers. While I don't know the age of everyone here, I'd be willing to bet most of us are in the neighborhood of 16-21 staff wise. Expecting that group of people to counter criminal activity without some higher power giving assistance is an odd idea.
 
Regardless what a sockpuppet does - we delete the content. The sock. If necessary, report the thing to the authorities. If we are feeling good, we also make a quick note "deal with X" in the rule violation report. And thats the end of it. We dont spend hours debating how to handle them. We dont fill entire threads analyzing the reasons for why they are doing it or engaging in self pity or snarky remarks how sad their life must be. In doing so we are giving them purpose.

We are not the solution to the problem but part of it.

Anyway, this is all I am going to say on the matter for now since I can only shake my head on how it has been handled so far and seeing to where it has lead.
 
I agree with Raven about that we should handle them matter-of-fact, without unnecessary discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
Somewhat stricter upcoming word filter settings
2 3
Replies
80
Views
5K
Braking
Braking
Antvasima
I am taking a vacation
2
Replies
76
Views
7K
Zeinx1
Zeinx1
ThePrimalHunter
FC/OC vs Joke Battles Wiki Matches
Replies
1
Views
1K
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
Antvasima
  • Locked
URGENT: All Gfycat links in our wiki pages quickly need to be replaced!
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
Regarding our recent increase in advertisements
2 3
Replies
92
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top