Talk: Community portal

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22

This talk page should be used for discussions regarding GuildWiki in general. For anything directly relevant to the Main Page or the edit copy, please use Talk:Main Page/editcopy. If you have any questions that aren't relevant to a specific talk page, head over to GuildWiki:Request assistance and add it.

Locking the wiki

For anyone who is still paying attention here, I would to propose that we lock the wiki. Both Guild Wars and GuildWiki are essentially dead - 90% of all edits anymore are spam or vandalism. I still pay attention to RecentChanges, but only to revert the spam.

By "locking" the wiki, I mean that we disable anonymous edits and account creation. Users with existing accounts would not be affected - this means that pre-registered spammers (those that create accounts but don't actually attack until some time later) could still be a problem, and of course anyone could decide to go vandal, but this would prevent the majority of the spam that we've been receiving (not to mention the vandal attack last night). These changes would be enforced with AbuseFilter.

I'll put this in the sitenotice and leave comments open for 7 days. —Dr Ishmael 15:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to persistent vandals, I've been forced to lock down the wiki immediately. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, although I doubt it will cause much at all. —Dr Ishmael 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 90%? That's fairly forgiving if you ask me.

Nothing is happening aside from Steve updating Nick (who is registered and thus unaffected), nothing else is going to happen. It's very unlikely to have a negative impact. --Vipermagi 17:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I just didn't want to lock it down without warning, and I didn't expect the current vandal to be this persistent. Oh well. —Dr Ishmael 17:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess it will be for the best. Do spammers actually register before going on a spree? Or would disabling anon edits be enough? Steve 18:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The common tactic is to register, dump their payload on their userpage, then move the page into mainspace. We've had a filter in place for a while that prevented the move, but since the payloads varied so much, there was no way to stop the page creation. Now that we've blocked account creation, the spam will stop. —Dr Ishmael 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He's got a grudge, we've shut him down on Minecraft Marriland, so now he's targeting other Curse wiki's. I agree that locking this wiki from anon edits is probably for the best, given the state of the game. -- Wynthyst talk 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I sadly concur. Aloha, Mauirixxx 00:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You have to do, what you have to do. Ariyen 23:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it's nice to see that things don't change around here lol. Shame the wiki had to be put on lock down due to vandals. It sickens me from all the good we did on this wiki for so many years. Nice to see a few people still are around here though. I felt nostalgic and thought I would pop in. -- Isk8 (T/C) 04:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Even on lockdown with a rare edit here and there, I still prefer 'our' content to the GWW - maybe it's the choice in graphics & colors over here (I feel this is the more 'adult' wiki, where as GWW is the annoying younger sibling?), or maybe it's just me (and I'm not meaning it as slam against GWW and all the hard work it's users put in). I still randomly play GW here and there, and guildwiki is always my first stop, and will be until Curse kills it dead haha Aloha, Mauirixxx 06:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Curse is moving full steam ahead now that our Gamepedia platform has been launched and is stable. We have begun the process of migrating our existing wikis to it. In order to successfully migrate GuildWiki, we need to convert it to the Vector skin. This is required. There is no option for retaining monobook on the Gamepedia platform. Since you have retained a mostly default monobook look, this should not be very difficult, I can move the background image and minimize the visible changes relatively easily. Comments? -- Wynthyst talk 17:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen enough of your work to say... go for it. :-) Ariyen 00:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I kept it basic and simple. -- Wynthyst talk 14:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess the differences are negligible. Steve 15:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed a little bit of difference, but I do have to say that I like it. Ariyen 03:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocking useful editors...

Why oh why are we blocking useful editors and not putting in good security in place? It "is" still active, even if barely. Shame admins are to let it die... I'd rather have some good edits from ips of players that don't want to register or allow those that do to past through some strong securities. We should have things like this in place or get them in place... Much appreciated. Ariyen 07:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus was that virtually all anonymous edits and new accounts were not constructive in nature. Guild Wars is no longer an active game, and GuildWiki carried out its mission with great distinction for many years. I I am glad that you feel it still has something to offer, but the fact is that there simply is no new content to add and no necessary improvements to be made. I do not believe re-enabling anonymous edits and account creation would serve a purpose at this point. 04:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Guild wars is still an active game. There are people that still play it and complain about not finding things or given up hope to help update traveler, left to the few active members here to do such. The game is not shut down yet and to me, it sounds like only you have given up hope of this site... What about those of use who still do use the site or would edit? What about those that still play the original game and have alternative ideas on missions, etc. that could help? I would say that the only inactives I see are the actual sysops, admins that have decided to leave... It's not "very" active here, but it still is active. Ariyen 19:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)