The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

Community

Community Portal (talk) · Community Discussions forum
Fanon Portal (talk) · Game Guide Portal (talk) · Development Portal (talk) · Admin Portal (talk) · Main Page talk

Community Portal Talk Page

This is the general discussion page for The Sims Wiki! Feel free to discuss anything you want regarding the wiki here or at the forums. Any questions regarding the gameplay features or modding for The Sims series should be taken to our Questions forum. Policy proposals should be made here.

---

Broken Links

If a link to a particular discussion has brought you to the top of this page, instead of to the actual discussion, then that link may be broken. Please check the link and make sure that the section name is correct, and that the section in question hasn't been archived.

Contents

Noticeboard Most recently archived on August 23, 2012 -- LiR speak ~ read 00:38, August 23, 2012 (UTC) Notices for community discussions are placed here as necessary. Any user may add their notice. Please sign your notices! -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:55, May 29, 2011 (UTC) Archives 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Fanon wiki merge (archive 5) Articles about unannounced titles Achievements discussion Fanon Namespace discussion

Abuse Filter

I wasn't sure whether to put this here, in a forum post or on the Admin Portal talk page but I felt the community deserves a say in this too. In the wake of several recent spam/vandalism attacks, I contacted Wikia asking that provided we gained consensus, we could be allowed to have the Abuse Filter activated here. It is a MediaWiki extension and a tool which can prove valuable if configured correctly. I received a reply stating that as long as we have users here with experience with the tool (I myself have a little bit of experience in addition to a few IRC users I know), we can have it enabled.

The tool can be used to block suspicious edits, which we can limit by a specific usergroup if we wanted to, tag suspicious edits on Special:RecentChanges and in the page history, such as section blanking, without actually stopping them, block/warn a user who triggers a specific filter based on how we set it, throttle certain types of edits, for example, if someone went to say blank a page, they would be stopped the first time around and they would trigger a term listed in Special:AbuseLog (which doesn't exist here yet as we don't have the AbuseFilter) and Administrators can check this to see if the user in question has triggered the filter and so forth. How it works depends on how we choose to configure it.

For us we could say, program it to combat gibberish page names/edit summaries (which one particular spammer has used frequently) and many more things - it is a powerful tool. This and this show what the AbuseFilter has been programmed to do on another wikis and I feel it could be good for us too and is better than locking down a whole wiki just because of one spammer. I realise most of our administrators may be new to this tool and over time, we'll become more acustomed with it. If anyone needs help with the tool, they can always ask around on Wikia.

Given how powerful this tool is, I would like to know if the community would be comfortable having this tool enabled via a community discussion. I think that it would be very beneficial and I don't see any major downsides to this. I'll reply to an email I received from Wikia depending on how the consensus went down. What do you guys think? Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 10:21, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

As long as the Abuse Filter is not abused, I believe it can prove valuable in decreasing vandalism, but when it comes to its use, we should not overreact. By this I mean it should be used only when dealing with major spammers and vandals rather than a single vandal who creates a few spam pages. In that case, good old revert-block-ignore can prove more useful and easy. But anyway, I support. 10:36, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, we can actually configure it against everyday problems, such as blanking a whole page, meaning if someone tries it - it won't be allowed. I'll also suggest that if the feature is enabled, we don't set it to block users for every little thing - there's no point setting it to ban someone who tries to do something when they couldn't actually do it. It's all very customisable - it's best to wait until we actually get it (if we get it) before pre-emptively deciding on what extent we'll use it. Though I do agree it's not worth adding everything to the filter just because some forms of vandalism/spam vary; AbuseFilter performs best with the common things. Also I don't think it can really be abused as only administrators will be able to control it. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 10:47, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

This would definitely be a better alternative than locking down the whole wiki. I support this as well. Ѧüя◎ґ 18:31, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Per Auror. DanPin • talk • contribs18:41, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. I might see if I can set it up on my test wiki if someone needs to test using it or something. ―ฬђ ^talk 22:54, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support. Dharden (talk) 04:35, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Btw WH, you won't be able to use it on your test wiki as Wikia need to enable the extension. There is however a testing function inside the filter which will allow you to test a specific filter without disrupting anything else on the wiki. Seeing as the support has been overwhelmingly positive, I've asked Wikia to enable the extension so we should get it at some point today. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 06:31, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Hm, could have sworn I'd just be able to send a Special:Contact in to get it :/ Anyhoo, I'm glad we're getting it and I'll try doing a little research on it later. ―ฬђ ^talk 06:36, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

The AbuseFilter is now enabled and can be controlled via Special:AbuseFilter. I've added a couple of general countervandalism filters and one experimental anti-Meep sheep filter. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:52, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't quite catch in the middle of this discussion, but what will this filter do if someone manages to abuse, like spamming? Is the edit just reverted somehow or it just disallows suspicious edits? Or maybe I should try it to understand? Nikel _Talk 14:50, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've "tried" it and hoped that other vandals will only blank the pages, because I can't. Seeing from the abuse filter log, does "Disallow" action mean a temporary block or something? Nikel _Talk 14:58, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

From what I know, it disallows the edit as is if the page was protected. I think it can also be configured to warn or block the editor who attempted it as well. 15:00, June 1, 2012 (UTC)