# Why can't I edit the CWCki?



## 93Aiwass (Feb 28, 2013)

Out of curiousity, why can't I edit the CWCki? I can add things to the talk pages but I'd love to help edit the CWCki.


----------



## LM 697 (Feb 28, 2013)

It was locked a few weeks ago to prevent the mass numbers of spam bots from doing anything (although just locking registration would probably have been better). You can still edit the main page and templates, though.


----------



## 93Aiwass (Feb 28, 2013)

CompyRex said:
			
		

> It was locked a few weeks ago to prevent the mass numbers of spam bots from doing anything (although just locking registration would probably have been better). You can still edit the main page and templates, though.


Interesting, you'd think those would be more vulnerable to attack...

Yeah, I can't edit the main page, but I think I can edit the templates. Oh and I can add things to talk pages.


----------



## José Mourinho (Feb 28, 2013)

It's time to lock the registration of users to the CWCki. Seriously.


----------



## DH3000 (Mar 1, 2013)

Yeah I fail to see the logic in blocking of all edits when you can just lock registration.


----------



## champthom (Mar 1, 2013)

DH3000 said:
			
		

> Yeah I fail to see the logic in blocking of all edits when you can just lock registration.



Short answer - Cogs doesn't really give a shit about the CWCki anymore so she probably doesn't want to go to the effort of disabling registration. 

Long answer - this is something I've talked about with Cogs, it's part of a bigger issue than just spam bots. There was an incident where someone vandalized the CWCki and it took two days before anyone noticed. We've reached a point where it doesn't make sense to spend time admining and modding the CWCki when you only have maybe three, four active users actually editing the CWCki. 

That and I don't think it really makes sense to have the CWCki opening for editing. Not that I'm against people contributing to the CWCki, but given that Chris really hasn't been doing things for over a year, it doesn't really make sense to have it open for editing when all we can really do at this point is speculate what Chris is going to do next and that's not the purpose of the CWCki. 

If you seriously want to edit the CWCki, make a fuss to Cogs about it, maybe she'll change it but like I said, she really doesn't give a shit.


----------



## DH3000 (Mar 3, 2013)

There are older articles that can be improved on. There is still no mention of Chris's new dating profiles or the Savannah messages, along with the revelation about Bob's relationship with his other kids. This whole thing is ludicrous.


----------



## Null (Mar 3, 2013)

It's true. We're no longer cataloging new information. All of these facebook statuses with stuff like bomb-threat-wishing are going to be forgotten.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Mar 3, 2013)

One suggestion I may make to Cogs is to have a limited board of editors that admins can rubber-stamp and continue to make contributions and article expansions. All you would need to do is contact an admin and have them add you to a userspace upon approval. Criteria is up to them. I'd suggest PVCC/CWCki forum membership, being somewhat well known, past CWCki contributions, that kind of thing. This has the dual effect of solving the spam problem and also improving article quality, although knowing from when PVCC ended open registration, there will eventually be the flood of thirteen year olds crying about how they can't get in. Probably can be a pain in the ass to review approvals too, I dunno how many people would want to contribute exactly.


----------



## DH3000 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yeah that makes a lot more sense than still allowing spambots to register but allowing nobody to edit.


----------



## José Mourinho (Mar 4, 2013)

Wow. Over 246 accounts created for 3 days.


----------



## DH3000 (Mar 5, 2013)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> One suggestion I may make to Cogs is to have a limited board of editors that admins can rubber-stamp and continue to make contributions and article expansions. All you would need to do is contact an admin and have them add you to a userspace upon approval. Criteria is up to them. I'd suggest PVCC/CWCki forum membership, being somewhat well known, past CWCki contributions, that kind of thing. This has the dual effect of solving the spam problem and also improving article quality, although knowing from when PVCC ended open registration, there will eventually be the flood of thirteen year olds crying about how they can't get in. Probably can be a pain in the ass to review approvals too, I dunno how many people would want to contribute exactly.



Have you asked about this yet?


----------



## shutupman (Mar 6, 2013)

You could always post a note on the talk page of any given article with whatever relevant info there is.


----------



## José Mourinho (Mar 22, 2013)

Great to see the CWCKi disabling the registration of users, but now we have to wait until we can edit the CWCki.


----------



## Holdek (Mar 22, 2013)

DH3000 said:
			
		

> along with the revelation about Bob's relationship with his other kids.



Wait, what?


----------



## LM 697 (Mar 25, 2013)

Editing is back.


----------



## José Mourinho (Mar 26, 2013)

Since editing is back, I wonder what we should do with both with the CWCki and the forums during April Fool's.

I suggest replacing the main page with this:

" 
This afternoon, we at the CWCki have independently decided to remove any mentions about Christian W. Chandler. We have also removed all references that slander, vilify, demean, or are found to be overly offensive. In plain terms, this ordeal has gone on far too long and gotten far out of hand. We have unfairly focused on him to the point of intruding in his private life and causing him great personal grief, which no person should ever have to endure. This behavior is not in line with our site goals, and we never wanted something like this. Still, we must take complete responsibility for all our actions, both public and private. And that is why we are speaking to you today. But we say to you now that at no time did we ask anyone to lie, hide, or destroy evidence, or to take any other unlawful action.
We know that his public comments and his silence about this matter gave a false impression. We misled people, including even his family. We deeply regret that. We can only tell you we were motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect himself from the embarrassment of his own conduct.

He was also very concerned about protecting his family. The investigation moved on to his family and friends, then into his private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.

This has gone on too long, cost too much, and hurt too many innocent people.

Regardless of any public pressure to reinstate the site,  it must be stressed that our intrusion on Chris' private life will cease, and we intend to reclaim his family life for his family. Even internet celebrities have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life. Our website has been distracted by this matter for too long, and we take responsibility for our part in all of this. That is all we can do.

Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on. We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real matters to face.

And so tonight, we ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past six years , as we return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next century.

Thank you. And good night."


----------



## Trombonista (Mar 26, 2013)

Alan Pardew said:
			
		

> Since editing is back, I wonder what we should do with both with the CWCki and the forums duting April Fool's.
> 
> I suggest replacing the main page with this:
> 
> ...




Add a bit with the phrase "emotional rape" and it will be gold.


----------

