All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XVIII

[robkelk]

I've added a note about the moderation to all four of our "welcome to the wiki" pages. The one on So You're a TV Tropes Refugee is a bit more chatty than the others, to match the overall tone of that page.

EDIT: As long as I'm mucking about with So You're a TV Tropes Refugee ... I just added a new section "Some Tropes have different names". Now, when somebody points a page at Red Baron and it isn't about the man himself, you can say "We specifically cited that one as an example on the welcome page."

[robkelk]

Another nominee for auto-moderation:
Beta Log 86

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh, yeah! (S)he's one of the ones I was trying to remember.

[Bob Schroeck]

Another nominee -- Blakegripling ph

[Labster]

I just promoted TBeholder. Unless we have known problems with a user, we should just give them automoderated.

[GethN7]

I just promoted TBeholder.  Unless we have known problems with a user, we should just give them automoderated.

Concur, we can grandfather in all our longtimers, there aren't that many.

As for how it works, we've had it up every so briefly and it stopped our spam problems cold. I foresee this having another effect on problem children users. If they truly want to improve and stick around, they'll accept the moderation penalty maturely and will quickly earn automoderated. For those who insist on making our playroom their personal toilet, I foresee these easily weeding them out.

[Bob Schroeck]

Agreed. Going through Special:ActiveUsers, I'm going to suggest giving automoderated to the following. Some might also need autopatrolled while we're at it:

Arlo James Barnes
FlashRebel
HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl
JDog2000
Mrkelangelo
NekoHybrid
NormAtredies
STFilmmaker
SirMoogle
Superjerk29
ThunderKat
WENth100

Of the rest of our (non-banned, non-spammer) active users, the rest are either one- or two-edit-per-monthers, prolific but incomprehensible like Kuma, or maybe need a couple more months to be considered "Long term" like KCTV.

Oh, and I'd like to propose that as a matter of policy, any automoderated user who gets a ban other than an attention-getter automatically loses automoderated, and that we put words to that effect in How We Do Bans Around Here.

[robkelk]

Sounds good - I'll do that now (and post the "you've got automoderated" message on their User Talk pages).

EDIT: No, wait - I can simply add automoderated to the autopatrolled group and update the sitenotice - save a lot of time.

[robkelk]

Oh, and I'd like to propose that as a matter of policy, any automoderated user who gets a ban other than an attention-getter automatically loses automoderated, and that we put words to that effect in How We Do Bans Around Here.

Here you go. I modified that to a single attention-getter - somebody who needs their attention gotten repeatedly just might be somebody who refuses to learn from honest mistakes, so I'd prefer to leave the option open to removed autopatrolled and automoderated rights from such users.

[robkelk]

Now... do we want to trust anybody with rollbacker rights? Rollbacker currently includes moderation rights.

Everybody who currently has rollbacker also has administrator. Over on the freebie wiki, I use rollbacker as a training ground for administrator... and have had one user say she prefers to keep rollbacker but not have administrator.

[robkelk]

Agreed.  Going through Special:ActiveUsers, I'm going to suggest giving automoderated to the following.  Some might also need autopatrolled while we're at it:

Arlo James Barnes
FlashRebel
HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl
JDog2000
Mrkelangelo
NekoHybrid
NormAtredies
STFilmmaker
SirMoogle
Superjerk29
ThunderKat
WENth100

These Tropers are now autopatrolled:
Arlo James Barnes
FlashRebel
JDog2000
SirMoogle
Superjerk29
WENth100

The others already were.

[Bob Schroeck]

Damn, you've been busy today, Rob. Thanks.

[robkelk]

Still busy... As requested, I just did my best to move the wiki's discussion of this off of your Talk page.

(EDIT: Local time: 2pm. Maybe I should have breakfast.)

[robkelk]

Now... do we want to trust anybody with rollbacker rights? Rollbacker currently includes moderation rights.

Everybody who currently has rollbacker also has administrator. Over on the freebie wiki, I use rollbacker as a training ground for administrator... and have had one user say she prefers to keep rollbacker but not have administrator.

Replying to my own question: I wonder whether Lequinni would agree to accept the added responsibility?

[robkelk]

Well, the National Film Registry list for the year is up... and I've added the list to ATT's page.

As usual, one of our existing pages needed to be moved to make way for a disambiguation page listing both the existing wiki page and a redlink for the title that was added to the National Film Registry.

Also as usual, I had to edit the page that was moved because somebody made the title drop boldface by linking it to the same page - which was no longer boldface (or linking to the same page) after the page move.

In the future, could people use boldface markup for boldface markup, instead of using link markup for boldface markup, please?

[Bob Schroeck]

<sheepishly raises hand> That would probably be me.

[Bob Schroeck]

Ah! Beta Log 86 is another of the tropers I couldn't remember earlier. They just hadn't edited recently so didn't show up on the active editors list.

[Bob Schroeck]

Now they're not even pretending to be regular users.

   

[GethN7]

Some lol for you guys. The spammers seem butthurt they are getting stopped cold on Miraheze, so they tried to hit our Wikia branch. Only ONE got through (and it was pathetically easy to get rid of), the rest got nailed before they could post because the tech guys at Wikia smash spammers with hammers 24/7.

[robkelk]

Needless to say, I've also implemented Moderation on the freebie wiki. We haven't had to use it yet.

[robkelk]

So... Now that we can delete unused files, I've been doing so. I deleted Hell.jpg and this different photo from Commons popped up/ to take its place.

What's the trope there? As long as we have the image, we may as well use it.

[Labster]

We may have a slight spammer problem:

https://imgur.com/a/t43OY02

This is after I approved the two valid edits.

[robkelk]

There's a reason I called it "the Great Spam Flood of December 2020" in the site notice...

[Bob Schroeck]

At least we activated Moderation in time.

EDIT: Which raises a question that I've been wondering about for the last couple days. It's obvious that Moderation doesn't use the Block functionality to ban anyone marked as a spammer; is it possible for it to do so? I've poured through the documentation (such as it is) and there's no mention of what exactly tagging a spammer does except apparently auto-reject.

[robkelk]

Tagging an account as a spammer doesn't even auto-reject.

Maybe there are some settings that need to be activated...? Must remember to ask the Global Sysops.