Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-25428589-20181007231724/@comment-10502460-20181008013858

Proposal 1: {{Oppose} as stated, may be open to what you're getting at though.

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 woulnd'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: 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: