Forums: Index > Village Dump > Vandalism and User Pages
Note: This topic has been unedited for 255 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I appreciate the work admins do here, and that includes taking care of vandalism. I understand that's why user talk pages have been protected.

However, protecting them leads to a problem: new users without an account, (and maybe all new users; I don't know how the block is set) can't talk to active users. They can't ask them for suggestions and help. I personally know of several productive users who started as IPs. If I may be so egotistical as to call myself productive, I would count myself among them. I had a named account on H2G2, which is where I started, but on Wikicities now Wikia, and I think on Wikipedia, I started as an IP.

Frankly, vandalizing someone's user page is not that big of a problem to me anyway. We used to do it here as a joke. It was easy to revert, and it didn't screw up any articles, which is what visitors come to see.

I personally would strongly recommend we not protect talk pages. It won't stop articles from being vandalized, but it will stop new users from being able to ask for help. AdminBadge King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  16:45, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

I understand the point about anonymous IPs. We have a template to encourage the good ones to make an account. As long as we have enough people around to revert vandals if need be, it would be possible to do this soon. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 22:13, June 10, 2018 (UTC)
On the whole, anonymous contributions work well for the site. Still, vandals seemed to be ready to jump in when pages were fucked up in the Oasis changeover and some pages still are in Oasis view. The implication is that the site is dead and is an open playground. Recently I've received a few signed/unsigned "in your face" messages whose writers were punched out by StarmanW, Cavv, Romartus and others. These were sometimes sent more or less as spam to admins as you've found. If the aforementioned admins were not essentially dedicated to patrolling the site, things would be bad as vandals always call in other vandals to chew up a site that looks vulnerable. If vandals readily sign up, I don't see why anyone else wouldn't do so to ask a question or two. The village dump doesn't require a sign up to post as is evidenced by "got a presentation tomorrow so bie". --Nigel Scribbler sig2 (talk) 08:40, June 11, 2018 (UTC)
Village dump is normally open to IPs to post their comments. Though we have been depleted here as regards numbers, the site hasn't gone to rot. Once we can fix the 'skin'/MediaWiki issues etc, then we can discuss where to go with this website. I still think the "Wikipedia parody" should remain the essential purpose of this site, we can be bold and think where else we can go. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 14:46, June 11, 2018 (UTC)

Now all this may be from Alden not seeing a lot of incoming IPs these days wandering in the hallways.(?) I do not know when he took a hiatus, but that is common today, everywhere. I believe as do others that smartphone culture is about absorbing content and not creating it. Can't write too well on this site via iPhone although I've seen a very few people do things like that. As another example, building plastic and wood models was common in my day with boys (sez the geezer) but is virtually unknown to even 30-somethings. Also there are now a lot of places where your one-liner snark or smile can get you a following – more competition for Uncyc's type of audience. Uncyc does generate enough to keep the world entertained – the site is currently ranked about 200 out of the top 5000 Wikia sites by Wikia's ranking system. And yes, it's been higher ranked before and yes, we can do better than what we do now. So encourage the new talent that has shown promise more than try and capture everyone touching on the site, I suggest.--Nigel Scribbler sig2 (talk) 19:38, June 11, 2018 (UTC)

My sister admin and I dealt with extreme vandalism when we took over a wiki that "insiders," who hadn't been active for two years, insisted was their's, not ours. We had vandals, impersonators with two people claiming to be the same person and others doing the same thing, people abusing multiple accounts, DMCA threats, sexual insults, etc. We blocked lots of people, and even removed an admin who came back after eight (8) edits to tell us we were doing things wrong and had to get off.
But we did not block IPS from editing talk pages. We didn't even block banned users from editing their own talk page unless they abused it. Talk is talk. If it breaks Wikia or site rules, we removed it. Otherwise it stayed because it doesn't hurt anything. Some of the worst posts on talk pages we let stay so others in the group could see how awful some of their own members were acting.
One of the people who was against us decided we were OK, and became a productive editor.
I don't believe in blocking people from editing talk pages unless they abuse it. Nobody looks at talk pages anyway cept the ones who post there. AdminBadge DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 03:19, June 13, 2018 (UTC)
Off topic, but you know this site doesn't have an option to let blocked users edit their talk pages, right? ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr talkcontribs • 08:11 13 June 2018
Admins doing patrol work having been doing great in keeping up with vandals. If y'all feel you can keep up with them, then I would go for unlocking user talk pages. If the above exception is engraved in stone, so be it. Now it would be nice to allow users to have control over their personal page settings; would that/does that still exist? --Nigel Scribbler sig2 (talk) 08:58, June 13, 2018 (UTC)
We should decide this the traditional way, a forum vote. I think as regards banned users editing their user pages, an alternative method of communication should be considered. Perhaps an admin linked off-site email address, though banned users can go via my Wikia user page. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:04, June 13, 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know this site doesn't have an option to let blocked users edit their talk pages. All Wikia sites should have that option, but I'm not an admin here so can't check. It could be that Uncyclopedia did not have that option before it was fully integrated into Wikia's standard system, but does now. You might want to check. AdminBadge King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  17:08, June 13, 2018 (UTC)
I checked it. Uncyclopedia doesn't have that option. I don't know why, every other wikia I admin does. If nobody knows why it's not working here, I'll ask staff about getting it enabled. AdminBadge DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 19:20, June 13, 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Ignore what I said below in that case. That's really weird. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr talkcontribs • 19:40 13 June 2018
(edit conflict) I've seen Special:Block at this point, and it definitely doesn't. You don't actually have to look at that -- the fact that every single entry on Special:BlockList says "cannot edit own talk page" makes it obvious. (Compare Wikipedia's block list. Also, the box to disable talk access is unchecked by default if it exists.) To enable this option, you have to set $wgBlockAllowsUTEdit to true, and the default value was false until 1.26 which Wikia will never update to, so to get this changed we'd have to convince them to change what is probably a Wikia-wide setting. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr talkcontribs • 19:39 13 June 2018
See here. AdminBadge DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 16:18, July 2, 2018 (UTC)