The following is preserved only as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. If you want to continue a discussion, start a new post
Hello, I recently visited your chat and noticed a unpleasant lack of Moderators. The Call of Duty Wiki and this Wiki where both invaded last night by the Adventure Time Wiki. The CoD wiki was able to ban and get rid of the entire invasion in less than a minute. Meanwhile this chat has no active Moderators to deal with the disruptive trolls and spammers. I spoke to a few of the more active Chatters and they agreed that the Chat goes far to long without Moderators during certain periods of time. So I am suggesting, so that the Chatters of this wiki can enjoy the Special:Chat feature in peace, that more Moderators be appoint. I talked to an Administrator, 3RDRANGER and he said to bring it up in the forums. So here it is. Another thing me and 3RDRANGER discussed though, was what qualifies a Moderator for the job. How I see it, and how most Wikis handle it, is that a Moderator must be a common member of chat, a trusted user who makes good decisions and is trusted by the community and knows the rules. Not that the user must have X amount of edits and X amount of time since joining the wiki.
In short, the Chat needs more, well trusted Moderators so that it can continue to run without disturbance from trolls and spammers. Please consider my proposal. Cheers! Redskin-26. 02:05, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
I would agree to us having more chat mods as there has been multiple trolls before that came in when no mods were present. Its normally just one troll who is ignored and leaves but still I imagine more properly chosen mods wouldnt hurt along with a more obvious mod requirment quota. Hello Losers (talk) 01:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Isnt this where the Trusted User usergroup comes into play, they are automatically given chat mod rights IIRC.Qw3rty! (talk) 01:52, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Err, scratch that last. Apparently its Rollback rights given to TU's Qw3rty! (talk) 02:01, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Even if the Trusted User usergroup was given the Chat Mod rights by default, it seems not enough of them use Chat very often. Redskin-26 02:04, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
I can't agree enough. I see people come by almost every other day with words along the lines of, "Oh look, no mods." ...even today. Something should surely be done. PSKwhirled~Come Say Some Words :3 01:59, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Umm could somebody elaborate this on why this is a thread on my talk page, because I really don't understand what happened and what are we doing about this.--SlopijoeAurelia's finest 03:19, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
A thread on your talk page? I looked on your talk and there is nothing about this there. I also don't know what more elaboration you could need about the situation... Redskin-2603:22, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
No what I ment was what happened as I really don't understand what the OP of the thread is talking about only thing I can understand is that we had a chat shitstorm and I want to know what happened on COD and BF Wikia chat.-SlopijoeAurelia's finest 03:34, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much in short, Chat needs more Moderators. Redskin-2603:42, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Ok well then let's see. I'm going to place my bet on PSKwhirled (not bias in anyway) as he ATM shows the most maturity ATM and I can not be in chat most of the time (School ect). But I also want a second man who is willing to show maturity. But Qw3rty is my second best answer.--SlopijoeAurelia's finest 03:51, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
I going to agree with everything. Right now, we're not well prepared against another invasion due to lack of Mods and Admins in the chat. This Wiki is slowly growing, and the more it grows, the more trolls. Thats how it is in the CoD wiki iirc. Also being a true Mod is about Activeness and Good Behavior in the chat, not MS Edits. Angel of Anarchyговорить
I actually just sent a request through Sactage last night, who runs this wiki's bot, relating to an issue we've had with chat. Yuri and I came up with the idea a while ago of having URL (the bot) archive the chat in a log for each day or so. And I figured since you can see the history of edits to a page, we could just have URL overwrite the archive each time it grows to a certain size or after each day or something. That would allow us to monitor the chat every so often without having a moderator always on. Hell, we might even be able to have URL ban people from chat if they get too aggressive if it has to stick around in chat to be able to take a log.
But that's not to say that having more chat moderators would be a bad thing. IIRC, every trusted user or higher is supposed to have chat moderator rights unless they have had those rights removed for some reason. And I think that as long as at least one of the mods is on along with the log being taken every day or so, the admins and I can figure out what to do with those who wish to make chat unpleasant for all of us here. PresidentEden78 19:54, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer having the logs created at a new page each day - something like how the Runescape wiki does it (w:c:rs:Project:Chat/Logs). It's a lot simpler for me and less work for the bot. As for auto-banning users, that'd be very difficult to do unless I made it a 'blanket' trigger for certain words and phrases. Sactagetalk 18:06, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
Alright, that actually seems to be a great system. And seeing that you run that one as well, having an identical setup on this wiki wouldn't be difficult at all to set up, I'd imagine. Would it be possible for the new pages created be able to be hidden from the activity feeds and restricted to editing by admins automatically? Not like they're meant to be edited and stuff can usually be reverted, but I'm just paranoid about it. Glitches in the server not allowing reverts or mysteriously deleting pages and all...
And yeah, I guess I didn't put much thought in to the auto-ban thing as that would kinda require the ability to track harassment, which I don't think a bot could do, so we can skip that part. But speaking of URL, would it be better to have a separate bot to just record this stuff in case we need URL to do something else, or would it not be too overworked by this? PresidentEden78 18:52, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
The only way URL could be overworked by this is if the server I host her on decides to explode into pieces. She's not one single script, but rather a collection of scripts running from the same account.
Locking the pages to be admin-only could be achieved via abusefilter, or I could have URL hard-protect them via the API herself seeing as she possesses sysop rights here. The edits wouldn't show up in WikiActivity at all, and would only show in RecentChanges if you click the "Show bots" link. Sactagetalk 19:14, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
One thing should be taken straight: we don't properly require MS edits to Trusted Users. What is needed is proper trust from the admins that the user is responsible upon himself to not vandalize the wiki with his new weapon, but to be rather productive. I became a Trusted User myself when I've had 28 mainspace edits out of 1,074 total, most of them in blog comments and such. TU's are for those who can prove themselves to be trusty and active for it, not the ones with the most edits or something. So someone that is getting worthy getting CM is probably worthy of geting TU. It's a matter of asking our b'crat (or admin, for that matter) about how they feel in having these rights... - Pedro9basket (talk) [ ] 11:00, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
And much to what everyone seems to think of me as the scary wiki overlord of doom (sure seems that way when new editors request something from me, lol), if anyone has shown that they're useful around here and stay out of trouble, I certainly don't have a problem of giving them TU rights. I may not edit like I used to (right now, I blame ME3 multiplayer for that), but I still lurk around keeping a watchful eye on the activity, noting excellence as it happens. PresidentEden78 18:52, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
I magically obtained chatmod flags one day, so I can pop into the chat from now on, if that would help. --Callofduty4 (talk) 23:01, August 21, 2012 (UTC)