I'm going to be really honest here; as efficient and successful the feature is, I highly think that its making editing on the wiki a lot more difficult. Not because the staff take their time (massive respect to them), this goes for the forums as well, it's very easy to get your edit mixed up with others considering there is so much sent to the queue and it can regardless get lost by mistake, meaning all the effort you put in your edit has basically been discarded and it is quite painful really. This may go for uploading images also in this same manner. I get that it's to prevent any sockpuppets and trolls from entering here, but I think implementing a feature that checks, detects, investigates and confirms your identity as you create a new account could work separately as well.
This is not a complaint. It's a kind of suggestion I wanted to bring out of my mind now considering it's been really quiet ever since the moderation extension had been enforced. I want to know what you all think! :) YouKonade (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 20:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
(P.S.: those of you formerly on Qualitipedia obviously know about this, dead on, ok I'll stop talking now)
I agree. It is annoying now that we have to wait to see our changes. IdKid2027 (talk) 4:55 PM, 23 April 2023 (EDT)
Oppose, as the best we can do in identity checking is thru stewards with AVID:Requests for CheckUser, and the only reasoning that you've provided is that it makes the forums harder to edit, with the only support vote literally being "I don’t like waiting". From our (staff's) perspective, the Moderation extension has done exactly what we needed it to do. We've cut back on vandalism significantly, and I've personally seen very little complaining beyond this RFC. In short, I don't think this proposal was thought out enough, leaving me with little choice but to oppose. (Lets chat!) 21:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per EMG. ·Talk·Edits 21:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Why would you want to throw a perfectly good system designed to combat vandalism out the window? The staff team sees nothing wrong with the Moderation extension, and I see no one else complaining about the length of time it takes to approve edits. No edits are being "lost" here, there is no feasible way for this to happen unless some glitch with the extension (less than 1% chance of that happening) occurs. I must oppose with that reasoning. Compooper (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I mean someone could fat-finger the reject button by mistake, especially if moderating via mobile. Even then, it is possible to go back in the logs and un-reject the edit. (Talk·Edits) 13:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
...I wasn't laughing. I didn't get what you first said.. YouKonade (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Please don't say things like this, Ashley. This can be seen as harassement, which is against AVID's rules. Doing so again will result in a temporary block from editing. (Lets chat!) 07:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. If I could still oppose strongly I would. Moderation is one of the best things we ever implemented here in terms of admin tools. Just check the user report archives if you want proof of how effective it’s been. We used to get 40, 50 sometimes even 60 reports a month. In April we had 15. Three of which were retracted. The rest were mostly minor rule breaks and typical newbie mistakes. That’s what happens when we’re able to nip all the major stuff in the bud. It’s made our jobs way easier and it’s making AVID a better place to be. As for stuff being lost, that shouldn’t be an issue. Even if someone does accidentally reject a good edit, we can go back through the log and retroactively approve it if necessary. (Talk·Edits) 13:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I structured this well... 20:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
This extension brings mild inconvenience to end-users (less when they know about it) and to staff for doing a bit of review. In exchange red flags can be taken out at the start, people can be guided to refine their edits until they reach the point no review is necessary, and the abuse that has long stricken this wiki has been curbed massively. If the opposition doesn't make it clear, this tradeoff seems to strongly favor the wiki. A "feature that checks, detects, investigates and confirms your identity" would be absurdly invasive to user privacy if it was even possible and would be vetoed by Miraheze itself at a global level long before making it here. It's been really quiet because it's been working rather well. If edits with substantial effort are being 'lost' in queue though, that should be looked into and maybe approval practices should be improved so this doesn't happen if it has any frequency. --Raidarr (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
What you said near the end was my main grudge of the moderation extension. Not that this may happen often; it's losing what you worked on that's pinning me on the head. YouKonade (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This is something that should be kept in mind when the RfC is closed: thinking of how to minimize data loss in processing edits. I can't think of any major changes off the top of my head aside from advising everyone with the power to be careful. On your end, for AVID and really for anywhere: I strongly suggest backing up edits to local storage before submitting, especially important ones. The chance of loss is always there, be it an issue with edit review, an unexpected failure in the server, or even something on your end. --Raidarr (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.