| I can't recall the exact number of times those fellas from "GNAA" or whatever came onto our Wiki in groups and made spam page after spam page in an obvious effort to both disrupt steady activity around the Wiki and promote themselves (by my count, three times? Four?) Some of them even vandalized some of our articles in the past in order to spread their message. However, GNAA's members are far from the only people that have spammed/vandalized the Wiki en masse. I'm beginning to think that we should adopt the Wiki-lock feature, which will allow us to lock all the Wiki's pages in a single action for a set period of time in case of an emergency. Granted, the latest spam attack that we just experienced earlier today wasn't anything we couldn't handle, but I'm starting to get annoyed having to being left with large amounts of messes that these people leave for me and other Administrators to clean up, when our only deterrent is hoping for them to get bored enough to stop causing trouble. There's also the possibility that even larger, more organized attacks may occur in the future, which so many Trolls could be a part of that any active Admins who're around at the time might not be able to keep up with them, allowing these people to cause more damage faster than we can fix.
The Wiki-wide locking feature is a tool I've seen in use with M.E., when they've had some vandal/spam attacks of their own in the past, so I know the tool exists. And it works. So, I would like to see if anyone else agrees that we should impliment such a tool for future use. However, I would like to stress again that, while I think this could be a very useful tool, we should use it only in emergencies, because this feature locks all pages on the Wiki from being edited by non-Administrative staff. This tool should only be used if a situation occurs on the Wiki that becomes too much for any present Administrators to handle. So any thoughts? Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 23:54, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I support. There is a tool Wikia Staff gives out to larger wikis who get a lot of vandalism/spam, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind giving us the tool. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 23:56, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for this... So yeah I support. -- Splash the Otter C E 23:58, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
I support as well. It will drastically lower the damage and cleanup in the event of a significantly larger spam attack if we added this tool. The downside with it being for emergency use is almost a given, and with our current administrators I don't think there'll be a problem with random lockdowns. --   00:01, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why I pointed out that currently active Administrators (as in ones who're on the site doing whatever) could get overwhelmed if the spam attack in question is undoubtedly large, and having such a tool handy could help them greatly. We do have a large number of active active Administrators, yes, but not even I can be online all the time to help fix any problems that could arise. The same applies to all other Administrative staff. I'm not doubting anybody's abilities here, but I think that leaving, say, 1-3 Administrators who're dealing with an attack that has close to a hundred participants would be a bit too much to ask for the Admins in question. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 00:07, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't doubting the abilities of our fellow staff, I was just pointing out that we wouldn't have a problem with misuse of this function if it were to be implemented. --
 00:10, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, when did I say that you were doubting anyones' abilities? I thought I said that I wasn't doing that, when I was trying to get my point across? Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 00:17, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm agreeing with your points, Gen. I wasn't saying anything about doubting the staff's abilities besides agreeing with you on the fact that we won't have to worry about the misuse of the function. -- 00:29, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. My apologies for this brief misunderstanding, then. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 00:34, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite certain we already proposed this program a long time ago, but I support nonetheless. Serious Sam Heavy 00:14, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Did we now? I'll have to look at the archives. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 00:17, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I just checked the archives. I don't see anything that pertains to the feature I'm proposing in this particular site discussion. Are you sure that you weren't thinking about a previous site discussion where someone suggested that we only lock articles under certain circumstances (which didn't get passed), or perhaps the blog comment locking feature (which did pass)? Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 00:24, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm quite certain it was discussed before. Either that, or it actually didn't get created as a site discussion. I'll take a look myself. Serious Sam Heavy 00:27, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- EDIT: Odd, no such forums exist. Maybe it was entitled differently than I expected, or as I stated, non-existant to begin with. Oh well. Serious Sam Heavy 00:36, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I support. I also would like to recommend something that Myself 123 brought up on the last attack. We need a few more administrators that can manipulate a bot. So far, only me and Supermorff can do that. I think two more admins should get their own bots so that we can clean up these messes with little to no effort. With more bots, we can have these attacks cleared up in a matter of seconds. I also would like to recommend that these admins test out their bots on a test wiki or a sandbox so that they can be familiar with the controls and options of a bot in time of a future attack. I am also fine with giving tips and advice on how to operate a bot. ★EYCEST★R★ ★Contact★ 00:39, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Is operating a bot difficult? Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 00:43, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Gen. I'm all for assisting with the use of a bot! Serious Sam Heavy 00:45, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I'll make a bot as well. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 00:45, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- @Sacor Great! @Gen Not at all. When I first started using my bot, I thought it was going to be complex, but it's actually fairly easy. What helped me fully learn how to operate was testing it on a test wiki. You'll figure out everything just from toying around with it. ★EYCEST★R★ ★Contact★ 00:47, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Very well, I'm in for it. So, is creating a bot the same as creating a standard wikia profile? (I don't believe it is, just making sure) Serious Sam Heavy 00:51, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- In a sense, yes and no. You do have to create a second account with the word "Bot" in there somewhere. I chose User:DarkFuture Bot, but I could have named it "DarkBot" or "FutureBot", or something silly. Once you create your bot account, you have to send the Staff a Special:Contact and request for a "bot flag". Bot flags are necessary because when they are assigned a task to edit a large amount of information all at once, they can fill up the wikia activity with their edits. A bot flag conceals their edits from the wikia activity and the "see all activity". The final step is to download the AutoWikiBrowser. Once you download this program, you can login to it using your bot account. Be sure to select the wiki you want to edit at by going to your "Preferences" on the AWB program first. The rest is pretty much options that you can give your bot to perform on your selected wiki. ★EYCEST★R★ ★Contact★ 01:01, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- And SNN has no limitations to who can use one? It's not restricted to certain people? Before today I didn't think I needed a bot but I'm considering getting one, with the amount of deleting I did today. -- 01:04, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I'll be making a bot. I'm sure that we'll have plenty of Bots available for use whether I choose to make one myself or not, so I'm not worried. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 01:05, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
OK. I'll set one up tomorrow. Thanks for the advice! Serious Sam Heavy 01:05, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
@Sacor Anytime! @Admiral I suppose not. Anyone can create a bot, but the Staff will only give bot flags to a bot that belongs to an admin. Unless someone believes that the SNN should have a specific number of bots in use, then I don't think there's much of an issue with that. ★EYCEST★R★ ★Contact★ 01:09, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Just got an email: Sonamyfan666 offers his support to implementing the lockdown feature, requesting that I mention it. Serious Sam Heavy 01:18, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
OK. I support. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 02:49, September 12, 2012 (UTC))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pacmansonic138 – Watch out! You're gonna crash! Ahhh!
TALK – 03:06, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait. So, you don't have Special:Allpages? That usually does the trick. Unless you're referring to a different type of feature... Trak Nar Ramble on 03:30, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- We do have that. We just have no known way to lock it. If memory serves a Wiki needs to be granted the ability to lock all pages by Wikia Staff, and since I don't see any sort of button or other option that could be used to accomplish locking the all pages then I think it's safe to assume we currently can't do it. Someone will need to contact Wikia staff about this is a favorable consensus is reached. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 03:43, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, wait, I meant Special:Protectsite. Nevermind. And by the preview, I see that you do have Special:Protectsite, so why not just use that? Trak Nar Ramble on 03:46, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- "You do not have permission to temporarily block various site modifications, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Wikia Staff, Wikia Helpers, VSTF."
- I get this message whenever I try to access the link you provided. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 03:49, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- That's very odd. Guess Wikia staff will need to adjust the permissions for that so that administrators can access it, too. This is probably the first time I've encountered that error. You'd think that permissions would already be set so that admins can protect their own site. o.O Trak Nar Ramble on 03:52, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- So the ability to lock the Wiki from editing is a standard feature given to Wikis? Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 03:56, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, admins can do it on Wookieepedia and Star Wars Fanon. Let me check another wiki to be sure... Checking the TARDIS File, I get the same error. This is really odd, one would think it should be standard issue. But, nevertheless, bring it up with Wikia staff and ask them to add sysops to the group permissions. That should do the trick. Trak Nar Ramble on 04:01, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Thought so. We'll be sure to ask Wikia Staff about having the feature accessible to our Administrators if consensus turns our favorable for it's implementation, which brings us back to the discussion in question. Lloyd the Cat"I don't die. I just go on adventures." 04:07, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- In that case...
I support. Give the admins the ability to use Special:Protectsite! Trak Nar Ramble on 04:10, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I support as well. I remember the last spam attack they had, it took quite some time to revert and delete the things they did ♥ J-POPST★R Mikee ♥
I support. Will RoseScout /=\"+ THIS. SIGNATURE. IS. FALSE. 05:34, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Why would I not support this? Vandals and spammers are the worst kinds of people on a wiki. To have a feature which restrains them slightly would be a godsend, because I know how disgraceful vandalism is. It's imperative that this tool is implemented. THE REFLEX dancing on the valentine16:56, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I support. The Fresh Prince of Grooseland 20:04, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I support too. SpengSkod 12:31, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
I am okay with this idea in extreme emergencies (the type of which I've never actually encountered on the wiki, although I admit I didn't see the vandalism earlier this week). But I would insist that the site be locked so that only administrators can edit, but that registered users can edit too. (That is, assuming protectsite works like a normal page lock and that 'registered users' means 'autoconfirmed users' doesn't include newly-registered users with small numbers of edits. Can anyone confirm?) -- Supermorff (talk) 05:54, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that option is available I believe. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 19:13, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Kyle/Bullet, if so, I would be glad, as I thought it was a bit frustrating I couldn't edit the site at first when the Wiki locked up. --The Shadow Of Darkness (talk) 00:13, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
- No, all autoconfirmed users had the ability to edit the wiki during the lock up. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 21:17, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
Wikia Staff has enabled Special:Protectsite for our wiki. This discussion will be closed shortly. --Bullet Francisco (talk) Contributions Editcount 21:22, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
|
