Wikia

Narutopedia

Anon creation page spamming

5,545pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Revision as of 05:53, July 4, 2012 by UltimateSupreme (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index Narutopedia Discussion Anon creation page spamming
Note: This topic has been unedited for 843 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


It's getting bad again. 3 pages in total created, one of which asks a question as though this is a forum. I strongly recommend that anonymous users be disallowed from making pages. You do all realise that typing Wikia into a search engine has this wiki right up at the top under the official wikia site ? This site has the highest traffic in all the wikia (presumed) so there has to be spam prevention measures in place. --Speysider (Talk Page) 14:27, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we follow the "Assume Good Faith" rule?--White Flash (Talk) 16:09, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
I think good faith is lost because I've rarely seen non-registered users (The Wikia Contributors) make a page that isn't fanon or spam or non-vandal edits to existing pages. --Speysider (Talk Page) 16:11, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
And what if those IPs does actually help this Wiki, remember someone could have vandalize the Narutopedia under someone else's IP as what Simant told me "Vandals with 2 or 3 edits in the period of 10 minutes don't warrant a block, as the block could stop legitimate editors on public computers from editing. Only persistent vandalism deserves a block.--White Flash (Talk) 16:24, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying stop them from editing the wiki. I'm saying that they should not be allowed to create new articles, but are free to edit the existing ones. --Speysider (Talk Page) 17:12, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

This sort of wide blocking doesn't fly with Wikia policies. Users would simply complain enough to the central wiki, saying we're abusing our rights and all. I don't think a harder hand in how the wiki works at the moment will do us and the wiki anything good. If genuine vandalism happens, simply block the IP for long enough so they lose interest in doing it, but not so long it would keep someone else from editing if the IP rotates to someone else. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:00, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia should really make an exception to high traffic wiki's like this. It's completely unfair to allow wiki's like this be overrun by spammers and trolls. If someone absolutely needs to make a page, they can just create an account like I did. If they don't want to waste time creating an account to spam/troll, they should find something better to do with their time. You should really get in contact with the central wiki to give this wiki special permission as I feel it's only going to make the site look bad if it's overrun by spam. Even worse is that there is ZERO Spam Prevention measures such as CAPTCHA's or anything to stop anon users from making spam pages. --Speysider (Talk Page) 20:09, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think CAPTCHA looks like a viable option, though I'm not sure if it's possible to add that. I know that the Wiki engine supports that, because the Portuguese Wikipedia has CAPTCHA on for unregistered users. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:26, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

It should be simple. This site probably gets all the Wikia spam because it's the very first wikia that gets listed if you search for Wikia on Google, so there should be many more spam prevention measures set up. --Speysider (Talk Page) 20:29, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it, probably because Google does that geographical filtering to give more relevant results. I still understand the issue. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:49, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

The Google Rank of the wiki is really high, very high --Salil Uchiha Symbol (talk)(Contributions) 04:46, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

What I mean by "I don't get it" is that searching for "wikia" where I live, this wiki doesn't appear in the first ten results, and I haven't looked to see when it shows up. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 04:51, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

It's okay. It wasn't vandalism. —IndxcvNovelist (Talk to Me|My Wiki) 10:26, May 1, 2012 (UTC)


I know this is an old discussion, but still..

Having asked the staff about it this is what they said:

Yes, such a settings change to make registered users only can add a new page is possible, but this is something that will A) need to first be agreed upon publicly by the community and B) the request with the link to the formal discussion will have to come from an admin.
¤ULTIMATE SUPREME¤(T@lk)☺ 03:49, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think it's wrong. ~IndxcvNovelist (talk | contribs | PR | RLS) 16:47, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I can see the usefulness of preventing IP to make articles, but I should point out that "nonsense articles" are just a minor inconvenience that is easy to spot and remove. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 06:08, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Prevention is better than cure... — ¤ULTIMATE SUPREME ¤ (T@lk) 06:16, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
It is but I have to point out that when we prevent IP's to create articles, they would create their account and spam the wiki.
What would you guys choose?
Vandalism's by IPs who doesn't know a thing on wiki?
Or users who have created unnecessary accounts just to spam wiki?
~IndxcvNovelist (talk | contribs | PR | RLS) 08:33, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same: nonsense articles are easy to spot and get rid of. It might not be instantaneous deletion all the time but it gets done. If the admin staff were less active then I'd be more for it, but it's nothing they can't handle. Suppose there are IP users who want to create a useful page but don't want to create an account? (I can think of at least one such user) Why should we hinder that person like that? Visiting the other "big 3" wikis, IP users are able to create pages there so I don't see why we should disable that function. Spamming/vandalism is just a regular part of wikia life in my opinion.--Cerez365Hyūga Symbol(talk) 10:23, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Splendid explanation! You have your point. ~IndxcvNovelist (talk | contribs | PR | RLS) 10:40, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Whats Big 3 wikis ? — ¤ULTIMATE SUPREME ¤ (T@lk) 03:38, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Naruto, Bleach and One Piece are considered the "big 3" --200.9.115.6 (talk) 20:18, July 3, 2012 (UTC)
Which is the third? UltimateSupreme2212-3.png(T@lk) 05:16, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
Uh..The Wookieepedia, Narutopedia and Harry Potter are considered the big 3 wikis on Wikia. -White Flash-(Talk)- 05:21, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Wookepedia has a lock, I think UltimateSupreme2212-3.png(T@lk) 05:27, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

The user above said 3 other big wikis. Which is the third? UltimateSupreme2212-3.png(T@lk) 05:29, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

No, IPs can still create pages there. -White Flash-(Talk)- 05:29, July 4, 2012 (UTC)
The Third big wiki is Harry Potter.... -White Flash-(Talk)- 05:36, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

O... Its some other starwars wiki. UltimateSupreme2212-3.png(T@lk) 05:37, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and they have been ranked 1 since last year. -White Flash-(Talk)- 05:42, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and Narutopedia is second I think. UltimateSupreme2212-3.png(T@lk) 05:43, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

....No really? Let me guess, Harry Potter Wiki is third right? It would never occurred to you that I list those 3 wikis in order by rank. -White Flash-(Talk)- 05:50, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

I dont remember where, but I certainly saw it. I think it was in terms of traffic. UltimateSupreme2212-3.png(T@lk) 05:53, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki