FANDOM


  • Hey guys! In response to the recent uptick in wide-scale vandalism, we've been experiencing, and the time delay in dealing with some incidents, I've been trying to think through some solutions. I've got three proposals to share with you guys, the first two of which are directly related to impeding vandalism/spam, and the third is related to the wider operation of the site.

    Please note: This is a long post. There is no need to quote it in any responses.

    Content Moderators

    In 2016, Wikia/FANDOM introduced new user rights, Discussions Moderators and Content Moderators. While we have promoted a couple of users to be Discussions Moderators in the past, we've never made real use of either role. However, I think we could adapt the Content Moderator role to suit our needs.

    Currently, the "front line" of our response to wide-scale vandalism is our rollback team. HopelessNightOwl and Vngel W have been especially dedicated in this regard, recently. However, the only major user right they gain over regular users is the quick rollback of edits. They can't block users or delete pages, so they've had to sit back and wait for admins to come on while vandals made 100s of bad-faith edits and uploaded a metric shit-ton of strange creepypasta hentai. While our admins are more than capable of handling these issues, it's not fair to interrupt their lives/studying every time a twelve-year-old discovers how to use Tor. I can't speak for other users, but I know that I personally would trust some of our regular users with deletion/block tools to use in the event that a vandal is active while the admins are away.

    The Content Moderator right would work really well here, in my opinion. From the list of group rights, you should be able to see they can remove pages/images/comments. In combination with the right to block users, which Wikia could add to the user group at our request, this would be the perfect, limited set of tools to immediately halt vandals until an admin can come online to assess the situation and take further action.

    Why not just promote these users to administrators? As I envision the moderator right, it would not constitute the same step-up in "authority" that adminship confers. Admins have the authority to review new stories for QS, to deal with more complicated site issues, etc. The purview of moderators would be strictly limited to spam/vandalism cleanup - no review of new stories under the quality standards, not even deletion of clearly unfinished/blacklisted pages. This right would function solely as a utility for keeping the wiki clean.

    Users might not want the added responsibility & activity expectations that come bundled with adminship but may also want to actually be able to do something about vandalism, rather than just watching vandals' edit counts creep higher and higher. This right would be considerably easier to apply for than adminship since the only real requirement is trust that the user won't abuse the right, and I feel that many users who currently have no rights/just have rollback already possess. It could also be a useful stepping stone in demonstrating one's viability for the admin role.

    Anyway, I'm interested in hearing some feedback on this.

    tl;dr: Start making people content moderators (deletion/blocking rights), with the authority to delete obvious spam/vandalism and block users who upload these things, but nothing more.

    Abuse Filters

    HopelessNightOwl has shared some ideas on the Discord about implementing some rate-limiting abuse filters for new users, and I would like to "formally" propose their implementation. If you don't know, our abuse filter checks every edit that's submitted to the wiki against a set of rules. If the edit matches those rules, the filter prevents it from being made. We currently use it to catch blacklisted subjects & spinoffs every time a new page is posted. However, the filters can do more than this.

    Through rate-limiting, we can prevent users from creating a certain number of pages/uploading lots of images in one day, or making lots of edits very quickly. Some ballpark estimates for limits could be as follows: Users can't create more than 100 pages per day, non-autoconfirmed users can't make more than 250 edits per day. In my opinion, these may even be too loose as they stand, and we'll need to have a discussion about what limits would be appropriate.

    I've got some experience creating/managing the filters and would be happy to take care of building these new filters if need be.

    tl;dr: Abuse filters could allow us to limit the number of pages users can create within a day/the number of edits new users can make within one day.

    Administrators' Noticeboard

    BONUS ROUND!

    This is far less directly related to the goal of tackling vandalism, but it could help to ease the task the admins have to tackle.

    I'm not sure if any of you frequent Wikipedia, but they have a system called the Administrators' Noticeboard. Users post any ongoing incidents which need admin intervention (e.g: an active vandal, user conflicts, etc.) and any admin can then tackle what's been posted. While this is necessary on Wikipedia due to the volume of edits obscuring problems from the admins' view, you may think this is far too much bureaucracy for a wiki of our size. I personally think, however, this could be very useful to us in speeding up the process of dealing with problems.

    Currently, the system for notifying admins is pretty much to either leave a message on the talk page of someone active or to say something in Discord. Both of these have issues - if the admin you message is inactive, the next admin to arrive could completely miss your message, and you may not be a fan of Discord (which definitely lends itself to less detailed reports). Having a centralised location that admins can quickly check when they come online for anything that needs immediate attention could definitely make things easier. As an example, if a user was to blank their talk page multiple times, being reverted by a non-admin each time, an admins' noticeboard could be a simple way to let admins know without much effort - the addition of a single line could be all that's necessary. This is most similar to wikipedia:WP:ANI.

    To be clear, I'm not proposing that admins spend less time looking at the context of a situation and just act on whatever appears at the noticeboard. I just think it could form a useful "jumping off" point to address immediate issues/users that need to be blocked/etc.

    tl;dr: ANI, but less bureaucratic

    Vote!

    So yeah, if you think any of these would be a good idea, feel free to leave a vote below. You can vote on each one individually, or all together. Thanks for reading :)

    Support Support -
    {{Support}}
    Neutral Neutral -
    {{Neutral}}
    Oppose Oppose -
    {{Oppose}}
      Loading editor
    • Support Support - If it's older, more trusted users, I have no problem with it.

      Support Support - I see no harm in it: it might impede the more active rollbacks (since, to my knowledge, only sysops can circumvent filters), but chances of that happening aren't too high.

      Neutral Neutral - I'll be perfectly honest: I don't understand too much of what is said here. While Wiki's messaging system is not too practical, I find Discord to be most useful. It has a flaw that not everyone can/wants to use it, but in my experience, the users that are already on Discord form the 'Inner Circle' of CPW: it is mostly those users that keep an eye on wiki and do more than merely writing.

        Loading editor
    • I'm in agreement with Helel for all three. So... Support Support - Support Support - Neutral Neutral -

        Loading editor
    • Giving content moderators the ability to ban users would basically make them VCROC 2.0. Not that that's a problem, mind you. The admin role seems to have become more stringent since VCROC was retired, and a "mini admin" role might be needed so the staff roster doesn't continue to dwindle.

      (Also, slightly off-topic, but I've felt that rollbacks should have the ability to protect pages/edit protected pages for a while now.)


      RE: Abuse filters: I would lower the page limit to 10-15 a day for regular (non-admin) users and 1-3 for non-autoconfirmed users. Nobody but a spammer would make 100 pages a day, that's ridiculous.


      RE: AN: May be useful, may end up being a barren wasteland like Deletion Appeal and Spinoff Appeal these days. I'd say it's worth a shot, at least.

      Overall I Support Support -

        Loading editor
    • Proposal 1: Oppose Oppose - as stated, may be open to what you're getting at though.Neutral Neutral -Depends on execution.

      To begin with, if you're trying to say anyone besides admins should be able to ban people, I'm opposed to that. The only exception I can see myself supporting is if there was a way to enable certain other user roles to issue emergency bans not lasting longer than 24 hours, and I don't know if there's a way to do that other than simply making a rule saying they can't ban for more than 24 hours, and that wouldn't be good enough for me.

      I'm also not quite comfortable with anyone who hasn't been vetted at the admin level being able to delete pages. Your suggestion that they be limited by the rules to only delete blatant spam pages is a slippery slope and opens the door for talk page reprimands and debates over moderates who overstepped this bound.

      As for Discussions Moderators, we do actually have one on this wiki, Shadowswimmer77, but he's not very active and not really active at all in that role. A couple months back I was considering asking Cleric for special permission to apply to be our second Discussions Moderator just because I often notice spammmy comments and it's not worth the time to ask an admin to delete them every time I see it. ChaosZStrider pointed out this could be a bad idea because it could open me up to controversy and accusations of censorship. But as a regular role with set expectations I think it could work as I do believe the forums, article comments, and blogs need more moderation.

      Can B-crats create unique roles (I mean we had VROC so I'm assuming they are or were able to at one point). I'd suggest maybe creating a hybrid position of Content Moderator and Discussions Moderator that would be kind of like watered-down VROC with the following user rights:

      • All the Discussions Moderator rights (delete blogs, close and move threads, delete and edit comments, etc.)
      • Can edit protected and semi-protected pages (but can't add or remove protection).
      • Can make Rollbacks (following proper vote of course).
      • Can view (but not restore) deleted pages.
      • Can bypass filters and view filter logs (but cannot change filter parameters).
      • Can delete videos and image files.
      • Can ban up to 24 hours if and only if this is possible and won't cause site bugs.

      I can emphasize that whether we create a unique role like this, add some of these rights to Rollback, or open up the Content Moderator or Discussions Moderator role on this wiki, the expectations for such users need to be made very clear and their activity requirements need to be enforced more readily than they have been with Rollbacks. We don't need half a dozen users getting this new role and then going inactive a month later.

      Proposal 2: Support Support - I think 250 edits for non-AC users is just right (it was my suggestion, after all.) And while it may be true that only a spammer would upload a hundred pages a day unless they were doing a mass migration of stories from somewhere, the main reason I suggested this is because, frankly, I think it would be easier to use Wham to delete contributions from one account rather than a dozen socks. I'm hoping that a spammer would perhaps run out of steam after being banned or hitting the filter after uploading a hundred spam pages and then having them deleted, whereas if the page creation limit is too low they might immediately turn to proxies. Admins could also change the parameters as needed for repeat attacks, and if necessary change the rate limit to per hour.

      If possible, I'd also suggest a parameter preventing the creation of a page with less than 100 bytes.

      Proposal 3: Neutral Neutral -

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -

      Support Support -

      Neutral Neutral -

      I have long suggested a waiting period between registration and being able to post. I suggested at least one day.

      I think that 250 edits worth of damage is WAY high. Who can make 250 sensible edits? Seriously. At ten minutes an edit, I can do six an hour. Who is going to do more than four hours of editing a day? Well, maybe somebody but I suggest making it so new users are limited to ten edits a day. Let them show that they are mature. Then up them to 25 a day.

      At my peak of enthusiasm, I spent one week between stories. There's no way I could make one a day. So I think limiting new users to five new Wiki articles a day is reasonable. Once they have proved themselves, we could up it. Even for people posting classic public domain stories, ten a day is a LOT to format and get posted with a decent image.

      Likewise, I think that comments on the stories on the Wiki itself should have daily limits. If you spend ten minutes reading a story and two minutes saying how wonderful it was and you do that for four hours a day, that twenty comments on stories in the Wiki.

      Can you separately limit the number of forum posts, blog posts, and Talk posts?

        Loading editor
    • Thought I'd just quickly respond to a couple of points here.

      Helel ben Shahaar wrote: [The abuse filter] might impede the more active rollbacks (since, to my knowledge, only sysops can circumvent filters), but chances of that happening aren't too high.

      The user groups who can bypass the filters are actually configured on a per-filter basis (notice how in filter 1, for example, it only applies if the user is not a rollback/sysop). Both the new page filter & edit filter would have exclusions for rollbacks & sysops, and the edit filter only targets users who haven't been autoconfirmed anyway.

      HopelessNightOwl wrote: Can B-crats create unique roles (I mean we had VROC so I'm assuming they are or were able to at one point). I'd suggest maybe creating a hybrid position of Content Moderator and Discussions Moderator that would be kind of like watered-down VROC with the following user rights [...]

      Unfortunately only Wikia/FANDOM staff can create new roles. I had a quick conversation with a staff-member via Special:Contact, and they said they're a lot more hesitant to alter user group rights these days than they were in the past, but they can still do it if we have good reason, which I think this would constitute. I got the impression they'd me more receptive to a small change (i.e: adding block rights to content moderators) than the creation of a whole new role. Also, as far as I'm aware, the creation of a temp-ban right would require FANDOM to write custom code just for us, which given their current trajectory, is very unlikely.

      I understand your concerns about deletion/permaban rights, but this is something that can be enforced with policy IMO. You ban someone for more than 24 hours, your content mod rights are stripped without question, for example. You delete a page that's not obvious spam, rights are stripped. Admins would go through and ensure content mods hadn't abused rights after their use, the intention is just for this to be immediate response, not just a role without oversight. Ultimately, this would be a very select group of users, who would be incredibly unlikely to diverge from the rules on this stuff, not just anyone who asks for the right.

      I totally agree with you about activity requirements & enforcement of expectations. The point of the role would be solely as a utility, and no more. If someone's not using it, there is no reason for them to have it.

      DrBobSmith wrote: ~snip~

      25 edits per day or so may sound reasonable if we just focus on the kind of extensive overhauls to stories that many users do, however it's not uncommon to see users make lots and lots of smaller changes, for various reasons. Our "caffeinated" badge (>100 article edits in one day) has been gained by ~50 users, so it may not be as uncommon as you think.

      Similarly, wrt uploading stories, while five articles per day is reasonable if you're talking about uploading completely original content, users may be uploading someone else's (appropriately licensed) stories in bulk. Or perhaps they've written a lot of stories elsewhere, and have decided to migrate them here.

      It would be possible to separately limit forum posts, blog posts, etc, if need be, and it would be interesting to hear people's opinions on appropriate limits for each namespace.

        Loading editor
    • Well the question then becomes where the new role would fit in the wiki structure. What do you think the prerequisites should be in terms of previous time as a rollback and edit count? Would Rollback even be required first, and would the new position be required for admin? And how many users would end up filling this role?

        Loading editor
    • +Proposal 1 Support Support -

      I think Hopeless does bring up some valid points about Rollbackers but I believe the rules for the role can be enforced just the same as an Admin -- if the role is abused then their privileges are lost on the spot (dependent on the severity of the infraction) or if the community believes a Rollbacker is abusing said power then use the demotion thread.

      I think the level of promotion from Rollbacker --regardless of what could be added to the role-- should remain the same to achieve Admin. Instead of adding a new role between Rollbacker and Admin, why not just add to the position and increase the requirements to achieve it?

      If anything it's a better way to gauge a potential Admin versus going from just changing titles to mastery over all things good and evil of the wiki. That's a lot of power to be thrown into the lap of anyone new to the role and with this new implementation they can ease into it.

      I do like the idea of being able to edit protected pages as well.


      +Proposal 2: Support Support -

      Enough said about this. I think we can all agree on this. I'll be happy on whatever reasonably number is chosen.


      +Proposal 3: Support Support -

      I would at least like to try it and see if it's a fit or not. At the very least, it should be clearly stated not to be mistaken for the Site Question forum otherwise you'll see every question under the sun appear here.

        Loading editor
    • Hopeless, these are all good questions. I'm happy to lay out how I feel about them, but they're obviously all up for further discussion.

      I see the appeal of this being a better way for rollbacks to demonstrate the capacity for adminship as Vngel noted above, but I'm hesitant to go so far as to make this a new prerequisite for being a sysop. Like I've said before, the role would be highly limited in scope to just handling spam/vandalism. While this is a component of adminship, it's possible to be an amazing admin but handle very little vandalism, just due to the time you're online. I wouldn't want a user who is never about when vandalism happens, but who would do a great job at quality control, to be forced to apply for rights they won't use, just so they can reach admin. The rollback right as it currently stands (with the authority to review M4R stories for quality) seems more broadly suited to progression to the responsibilities of an admin, in my opinion. Vandalism/spam handling alone is too specific. I realise this is quite unclear, sorry, just trying to explain how I envision this fitting into the structure of the wiki.

      On prerequisites, I don't think I'd necessarily require rollback, but there's so much crossover between rollbacks & people who respond to vandalism quickly, I think it would be rare to find a user who would be a viable candidate for this and wasn't a rollback. I initially envisioned you & Vngel as being prime candidates for this kind of thing, but if someone with a similar track record to Zarinaaa, for example, was to apply, I wouldn't be opposed to it (assuming they were more active).

      Somewhere between the 2 months required for rollback and the 6 months required for admin would be the sweet spot for minimum activity IMO - experienced users who aren't ready to go for admin just yet. To me, edit count would be less important than a track record of responding quickly to vandalism, but a minimum edit requirement similar to that of rollback would be about right.

      I would think 2 to 5 users, spread across different time zones, would be appropriate.

        Loading editor
    • In that case, I'll outline how I think it should work based on your proposal:

      • We introduce the Content Moderator and Discussions Moderator roles as co-equal positions, since that is clearly how Fandom regards them.
      • Since the emphasis is on helping users assist admins and potentially develop admin skills based on their specific forte, both according to what you've said and Fandom, you can apply for one, the other or both. However, if you apply for and get one, you have to wait two months before you can apply for the other. This is simply to keep our activity from getting clogged up with users who change their minds immediately after their applications are closed.
      • Joint applications are granted wholly or not at all, so no voting Neutral and saying "I think you're a really good and active user, but I'm not sure you're ready to have the power to delete pages yet. You could make a good Discussions Moderator though." This is to prevent multiple issues including people who aren't ready for either role getting passed for one because some people who didn't have the heart to tell them they didn't like them for either role tried to say yes for just one as a sort of mental concession; if you apply for both roles, you're either getting them or not, and if not then you have to reapply for one or both again.
      • If your application does not get enough support votes for you to be granted whatever rights you are applying for, you have to wait a month to apply again.
      • Since these roles probably won't have that many people filling them to begin with, they'll in general be treated as different flavors of the same position, and have the same staff signature color, user template, etc. (the user template will just say, for example, "HopelessNightOwl is a Moderator on this wiki. Other moderators:"
      • One admin is appointed to be in charge of oversight of the moderators and feedback on their roles, and is sort of the crew leader for them.
      • The Moderator position is not a prerequisite for admin, but once you get moderator you have to wait four more months to apply for admin.
      • Since Content Moderator does have the Rollback right included and the rollback right is very useful for moderators to have in their toolkit, I would say Rollback should be required first before moderator. I'd recommend two months as Rollback as a prerequisite.
      • The namespace edit requirement breakdowns could be a sticky point. It could be tempting to say content mod applicants should have more article edits while discussion mod applicants should have more forum and blog posts, but I personally feel getting bogged down in such details would be more trouble than it's worth. It may be better to just say you have to have been active as a Rollback for two months and just leave it at that.
        Loading editor
    • Hmm, I don't personally see a pressing need for Discussions Moderators, but I'd be open to trying them out. I'm also not certain the influx of applications will be so high that a two-month cooldown period is necessary between requests, we've only had one or two users I can think of who have repeatedly made infeasible rights requests in a very short time frame. I also don't really see the need to group together Discussions/Content mods within site notices. It seems like this could just be confusing to users trying to contact a mod to deal with something, and finding the person they've messaged is only equipped to deal with the other.

      However, I pretty much agree with everything else; having an admin appointed to be in charge of this stuff is sensible, the idea of joint applications being granted in whole or not at all makes sense to prevent unnecessary appointments.

        Loading editor
    • In terms of fighting spam, content moderators would be more useful, however our spam issues these days typically come in the form of a mass spammer every once in a while and aren't really a constant issue. In terms of day-to-day wiki maintenance I think we actually have more need of people attending to the forums and policing blog and article comments.

      Honestly I think the most useful thing would be to just have a single moderator position comprised of both roles. Just apply for moderator, and Cleric will check the Discussions Moderator and Content Moderator user rights boxes for you. I'd actually prefer it that way, but based on the Fandom blog you linked to Fandom staff clearly envision the two roles as separate specialty tracks so I based my suggestions on that concept, but this wiki is probably small enough to just combine the two, and I think most who would apply for and receive one role would be good for the other as well.

      All that said, I think it may be best to table this proposal for now and focus on implementing your other two. Plus, I think sorting through all the Reddit pastas and deleting all the ones that are posted by users other than the original authors is more pressing business. Once we get that done, put the filters up, and set up the admin noticeboard, then I'd suggest we get together with Mr. Dupin and Empy to hash out the final details of how we want the moderator position to work, then make it as a separate proposal.

        Loading editor
    • HopelessNightOwl wrote: In terms of fighting spam, content moderators would be more useful, however our spam issues these days typically come in the form of a mass spammer every once in a while and aren't really a constant issue.

      Hopeless Night Owl,

      I agree. The problem is kids who come in all at once and slam us, probably over TOR.

      I'll repeat two suggestions. Make people wait before making their first post to the wiki and especially before making their first edit to someone else's work. I think a couple of days for the former and a couple of weeks for the latter should do. Spammy Sammy wants instant gratification. Maybe he'll come back in a couple of days but he probably won't. Also, limit the number of new posts and edits per day, and make those limits quite restrictive for a couple of weeks.

      While I'm at it, I'll make additional suggestions. The number of IP addresses referenced by TOR isn't infinite. Most of the time, people actually hit a few dozen servers. Why not have us register through Tor and then ban the IP of every one of these accounts? We would name them Tor001, Tor002, Tor003, etc. I grant it's more than one login per person but it's in a good cause and the purpose is to get rid of people using multiple accounts. If desired, we could even identify ourselves in the account name. Tor001DrBob, Tor002BloodySpaghetti, Tor003L0cked334, etc.

      Would it be possible to distribute reasonably widely the authority to implement a 24 hour ban on an account and ONLY that authority? Add all the rollback people to this list and if that isn't enough then some other long term people could be considered. Someone starts doodling ugly porn on everyone's story - BAM - they are gone.

      Dr. Bob

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -

      This goes for all three. I'd be one of the first to volunteer to remove the bullshit spam that the site's been dealing with recently. I was in favor of the new abuse filter flags when they were brought up in Discord, and I still stand by that. I think having a centralized place for the community to contact admins is a good idea, provided the community is aware that it exists.

        Loading editor
    • DrBobSmith wrote: I'll repeat two suggestions. Make people wait before making their first post to the wiki and especially before making their first edit to someone else's work.

      Your first suggestion is not a good idea in my opinion. I suspect a large percentage of our contributors post their first stories in a moment of spontaneity, and making them wait a couple days could turn good users away from this wiki forever. Imagine, a high schooler on a caffeine high from cramming for examines decides they want to post a story here. They're really excited about it, but they find out that because we had a couple mass spammers in the space of 12 months, they now have to wait or have the story manually confirmed by an admin. Couple days go by, they get focused on other things, enthusiasm wears off, and we could potentially lose a would-be contributor forever. Not worth it. In cases of severe repeat spamming or a massive raid, we could put your first suggestion in place on a temporary basis, but having it be standard procedure would be counterproductive.

      As for your second suggestion, I don't believe there is a way to restrict users from editing other people's pages but not their own.

      I think a couple of days for the former and a couple of weeks for the latter should do. Spammy Sammy wants instant gratification. Maybe he'll come back in a couple of days but he probably won't.

      And again, we may find the same to be the case for legitimate contributors.

      Also, limit the number of new posts and edits per day, and make those limits quite restrictive for a couple of weeks.

      Fandom has a class of users called "non-AC users", which refers to accounts that are less than four days old. The filters Underscorre and I are suggesting would limit daily page creation to 100 pages for all users, and daily edits to 250 for non-AC users.

      I don't really think it's necessary to limit daily edits for confirmed users. Active contributors do sometimes go on editing binges that can go over 250 edits in a single day, and as long as their edits are legitimate and they are careful not to mess anything up I don't think it's worth it to limit them. Plus, such limits would limit the ability of ordinary users to help fight mass spammers.

      As for the page creation limit, 100 pages a day is admittedly very high and it's highly unlikely that anyone who's not a spammer would try it. I suggested this high limit so that spammers would not figure it out as quickly and turn to socks, and also because it's easier to use the Wham tool to mass-delete contributions from one account than a dozen sock accounts. Furthermore, say someone has 25 pastas on Creepypasta ZYZ and wants to upload them all at once on this wiki? What if they have one more than 25? What if they have 30? I figured 100 is a nice high number that is sure to catch only spammers if it is hit. The purpose of these proposed filters is basic target-hardening of this wiki, not to prevent every spam attack that will occur.

      While I'm at it, I'll make additional suggestions. The number of IP addresses referenced by TOR isn't infinite. Most of the time, people actually hit a few dozen servers. Why not have us register through Tor and then ban the IP of every one of these accounts? We would name them Tor001, Tor002, Tor003, etc. I grant it's more than one login per person but it's in a good cause and the purpose is to get rid of people using multiple accounts. If desired, we could even identify ourselves in the account name. Tor001DrBob, Tor002BloodySpaghetti, Tor003L0cked334, etc.

      This is almost certainly something Fandom staff would have to be involved with, and I'm not sure to what degree they would be able or willing to help us with that.

      Would it be possible to distribute reasonably widely the authority to implement a 24 hour ban on an account and ONLY that authority? Add all the rollback people to this list and if that isn't enough then some other long term people could be considered. Someone starts doodling ugly porn on everyone's story - BAM - they are gone.

      I'd say maybe introduce the moderator position and, since moderators would be in charge of deleting spam pages and our ban length for spam is three days, give them the authority to give three-day bans for spamming and leave all other bans to admins. At any rate, I think Fandom staff would have to approve giving ban rights to non-admins.

        Loading editor
    • Combining the content/discussions mod rights could definitely work, and I would support that, once again with the understanding the rights are only to be used for the most obvious cases of breaking the rules (completely off-topic responses in the workshop, creating threads on the administration board, etc). You have a point about timing, and I certainly don't want to create excess work for the admins at this time, especially when so many of them are busy IRL. I'm happy to do the legwork on this when the time does come (creating a requests page, templates, CSS, etc).

      DrBob, I definitely understand your point about spammers wanting that instant gratification, but I just don't think it's in the spirit of the wiki to prevent new users from contributing. The most I could possibly get behind would be preventing users aged less than a day from uploading images, but I still wince at the thought of restricting regular users to work around a select few troublemakers.

      Your point about Tor is unfortunately difficult to implement. While it's true the list of exit nodes is not infinite, the list is also constantly changing. Many exit nodes are actually the computers of regular people which have been hijacked to route Tor traffic, and will disappear very quickly. The right way to block Tor is with an extension (mw:Extension:TorBlock), but unfortunately (as I've complained about before) Wikia have decided to remove this extension rather than configuring it correctly, and there's not really anything we can do about that. Thanks very much for your suggestions, though, the more people trying to tackle this, the better.

        Loading editor
    • Well, it's been almost a week since discussion last happened and there's definitely consensus here to implement edit filters. If we could come to a decision on some definite numerical limits to use, and another admin weighs in, I can create the filters using the bot's admin rights.

      For clarity, users automatically gain the autoconfirmed right four days after their account is created. They don't need to have made any edits.

      I'm inclined to go with something like the rate limits skelly suggested for page creation in the main namespace - three pages per day for users who haven't been autoconfirmed, then 15 pages per day once users have the autoconfirmed right. 15 per day is quite high IMO, but I'm just thinking of the scenario in which someone uploads a lot of their own older stories/PD works. Any more page creations than that, you should be coordinating it with wiki staff anyway.

      For edits, I would suggest a limit of 100 edits to the main namespace and 50 edits to the user/user talk namespaces (since these are often vandalised during attacks) per day for non-autoconfirmed users, then no edit limits once users are autoconfirmed.

      Obviously rollbacks & admins (and content mods, if the right is implemented) would be able to bypass these limits.

        Loading editor
    • At this point I'm thinking an hourly page creation limit may be better than daily. I'm thinking three per hour for non-AC, ten for everyone else, but still set a daily limit of 100 just as an extra fail safe.

        Loading editor
    • Three per hour should be plenty. That's read, think, revise and post time averaging 20 minutes, no breaks.

        Loading editor
    • Support Support -

        Loading editor
    • Unless anyone has any final objections, I'll implement the page creation filter later today. I'll go for the hourly limits Hopeless suggested above, restricted to the main namespace.

      When this was brought up in Discord, Cleric seemed to be opposed to any rate limiting of page edits, so I'll hold off on that for now.

        Loading editor
    • No objections. Curious to see implemented

        Loading editor
    • I drafted up a model notice board for your consideration: https://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/Creepypasta_Wiki:Sandbox

        Loading editor
    • Sorry to have taken so long to get around to doing this guys, it's entirely my fault, I've just been very busy this week. The page creation filters are now enabled, with IDs 23 (limits non-AC), 24 (limits AC), and 25 (catch-all limit).

      Hopeless, thanks so much for putting together the draft. I've made a couple of minor changes. I'm beginning to have some doubts myself about its utility to be totally honest, though I think it could be useful as a reference resource to have incidents recorded there when dealing with repeat vandals.

      In other news, after almost a month, Wikia staff have gotten back to me, and unfortunately they're not prepared to modify existing user rights in any way for the purposes outlined above. I personally don't see major utility in content moderators for spam cleanup without the ability to block active vandals, so I think we can sadly call that idea pretty much dead in the water at this point. It's definitely something I'd like to look into if their stance ever becomes more lax though.

        Loading editor
    • No need to apologize. I've been busy a lot too. I just wanted state my final stance on the matter. That is unfortunate. However, at least the thought has been brought up. Hopefully, with time, they'll warm up to it -- maybe if enough people ask overtime they'll consider it

        Loading editor
    • I have checked out the model notice board. It looks fine to me.

      How will the Administrators know the board is updated? If we post that there is a crisis, how long will it take for someone to respond?

        Loading editor
    • After a discussion with the admins in Discord, I've implemented a filter to rate limit edits too. It only affects non-autoconfirmed users, and confines them to 100 edits to the main namespace per hour.

      DrBob, that's a key issue really which is making me doubt the page's effectiveness, except as a tool for users who don't frequent the Discord. I've had a couple of ideas though involving some light scripting. Theoretically I could set up an alert automatically displayed to admins when the page is updated, like you see when your talk page is updated.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message