Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-25428589-20181007231724/@comment-25428589-20181008081606

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. 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.

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.