Forum:Vandals.

I've noticed that we're getting a lot of spammers and vandals. Most of them are unregistered people. I have an idea. Why don't why just lock every single article so that unregistered people can't edit, and why don't we just stop blocking vandals for at least 3 days or a week, and instead block them forever? Cos they'll just come back and vandalise again. Any thoughts?Tezzla Cannon 17:05, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Because not everyone is a vandal, and the user that was editing the locker page just didn't think that the description made sense. We can just easily block the vandals, and if they try anything again, they get banned. Nukey (Talk) (User blog:AreYouGoingToEatThatNuke? 17:07, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

No im not talking about him that edited the locker page, i'm just talking about vandals.Tezzla Cannon 17:10, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the very nature of wikis that as many pages as possible should be editable by as many people as possible. Requiring people to register before they can edit would be detrimental to the site in terms of total contributions and the number of new editors. Another reason that indefinite blocks for IPs, i.e. unregistered users, are a bad idea is that most people have dynamic IPs; the IP which has been used by a vandal once is likely to be used by someone completely innocent next time around. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:17, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

also if you lock all pages unregistered users cant use talk pages from both and the mods if they want to ask something and just for 1 question you cant force someone to register first.

Wesleyeye 18:16, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

While most vandals are indeed unregistered, most unregistered edits are still actually good edits, and only a small fraction of them are done in bad faith. Ausir(talk) 18:48, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Most vandals are one-time editors. Many IP editors stick around making good contributions, and many registered users began as unregistered. Vandalism is a price we pay, but it is worth it.--Gothemasticator 20:38, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, on Facebook, i found a group, and it linked you to a website, and it said that it needs to perform a test first to make sure you are not a spambot. Maybe we should get one of those for the wiki. Tezzla Cannon 15:14, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * But even I don't remember the last time we had a vandal bot. There was a hauntbot "scare", but nothing came out of it. I don't like the system, but it is the lesser evil. Nitty Tok. 02:58, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * The type of test Tezzla is talking about wouldn't help us at all. All it proves is that you are human and not a bot. Our vandals are human.--Gothemasticator 08:12, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

They also had a quiz you had to take to make sure you are not a human spammer.Tezzla Cannon 10:14, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Making people go through arbitrary hoops is just as bad for the wiki as blocking all anons. Editing needs to be as easy as possible so people are motivated to contribute; otherwise the wiki will attract less and less users and eventually die. A few bad apples (vandals) do not justify shooting ourselves in the foot. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:54, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

What about what the Call of Duty wiki does? When unregistered people edit they need to type in the blurry text on the screen.Tezzla Cannon 10:56, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * For one, modifications like that are beyond what we can do; only Wikia can. And I don't really see the need for any of this; vandalism is actually rather low currently, it used to be way worse. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:04, April 16, 2010 (UTC)