User:SnorlaxMonster/Moderation policy

This article is a proposed policy for Bulbapedia. Please discuss the proposed policy and suggest possible changes on the article's talk page.

The Bulbagarden Archives uses the MediaWiki extension Moderation, an anti-vandalism extension that holds the edits of new users for approval before they are displayed publicly. Edits rejected in the moderation process are not publicly visible, meaning that nobody other than the editor themselves and wiki staff are aware that the edit was even attempted to be made.

This policy outlines the specific circumstances in which edits should be rejected by staff at the moderation step, and when they should be approved.

What is Moderation

On the Bulbagarden Archives, non-autoconfirmed users can submit edits, but these edits will not be publicly visible until approved by a staff member. (Image uploads are a type of edit.) Autoconfirmed (and manually confirmed) users are not impacted—their edits skip the moderation process entirely.

If an edit is approved, it is added to the page history. If other users edit the page after an edit that is held pending moderation, the staff member approving that edit may need to resolve an edit conflict.

If an edit is rejected, that edit never appears in the page history. The edit is not even treated as a reverted or deleted edit—the edit is simply treated as never even occurring (and is tracked in the private Moderation log). It is not possible to provide a reason when rejecting an edit, so the user who attempted to perform the edit should be notified of the reason for the rejection on their talk page.

Approvals and rejections are maintained in the Moderation log, but this log is only available to staff members. As such, rejecting an edit is a fairly extreme measure, as this action is completely invisible to all non-staff, except the user who attempted to make that edit.

For more details, please read the MediaWiki page for the Moderation extension.

Edits that should be rejected

Moderation is specifically an anti-vandalism extension, and is inappropriate to use for most other types of unwanted edits.

The following are edits that should be rejected during the moderation process.

• Spam
• Vandalism
• Edits containing inappropriate personal information
• Images stolen from other fansites
• Fan art (unless there is a specific reason it is required for use on Bulbapedia)
• Upscaled images

Images stolen from other fansites

For many images, there are many different exact files that can be uploaded to represent the same thing. Screenshots will vary depending on the exact frame paused on, scans will vary based on scanner settings and how the document is aligned on the scanner, images of 3D models will vary based on how the were captured, etc.

Even though the content is often owner by copyright holders such as The Pokémon Company and used under fair use, it is still important to be respectful of the effort taken by other fansites in order to produce their images. Images may not be taken from other fansites without their permission. (Note that this rule does not apply to images from official sites.)

If images are determined to have been stolen from another fansite, they may be rejected at the moderation step. Bulbapedia admins should make an effort investigate whether an image is stolen before rejecting it for this reason (e.g. by asking the user how they produced the image, or comparing the images to the images on other fansites). Users known to have stolen images in the past are less likely to be given the benefit-of-the-doubt.

When a staff member rejects an edit for this reason, they must leave the editor a message on their talk page, explaining why the upload was rejected.

Fan art

Generally, fan art should not be uploaded to the Bulbagarden Archives. There are certain circumstances in which it is reasonable to do so (e.g. site logos for use on articles about fan sites), although these are the exception.

Fan art pending moderation may be rejected. If there is any doubt as to whether the fan art may have a legitimate use on Bulbapedia, it is better to approve the edit and then delete the image, rather than rejecting it at the Moderation step.

When a staff member rejects an edit for this reason, they must leave the editor a message on their talk page, explaining why the upload was rejected.

Upscaled images

Images upscaled by fans are not permitted on the Bulbagarden Archives. Images from official sources may be uploaded, even if it is believed that upscaling was used by the company that produced it.

If images are determined to have been upscaled, they may be rejected at the moderation step. Bulbapedia admins should make an effort investigate whether an image is upscaled before rejecting it for this reason (e.g. by asking the user how they obtained the image). Users known to have upscaled images in the past are less likely to be given the benefit-of-the-doubt.

When a staff member rejects an edit for this reason, they must leave the editor a message on their talk page, explaining why the upload was rejected.

Edits that should not be rejected

Moderation is specifically an anti-vandalism extension, and is inappropriate to use for most other types of unwanted edits. In general, it is better to approve an unwanted edit (including uploads) and revert or delete it, than to reject the edit at the moderation step.

The following are examples of unwanted edits that should still be approved, but dealt with using normal wiki tools such as reverts and deletions, not Moderation. These are not the only types of edits that should be approved even if unwanted, only a list of common examples.

Edit wars

If users are involved in an edit war, and some of the edits end up being caught by moderation, it is better to approve the edit, but deal with the edit war using regular administrative tools.

However, it is often advantageous to use the fact that the edit was caught by moderation to first issue a warning or block to the users first and potentially protect the relevant page, then approve the edits. If a staff member encounters an edit in moderation that they believe is part of an edit war but does not feel comfortable taking administrative action regarding this dispute (e.g. due to a potential conflict of interest), they should leave these edits in the Moderation queue and alert another staff member privately, so that they can handle the edit war.

Unwanted new images

If a user uploads a new version of an image that is simply unwanted (e.g. an alternate screenshot to represent an anime character), it is better to approve the upload, then revert that upload as usual. These kinds of topics are often subjective, and it is strongly preferred to allow these kinds of disputes to play out publicly. Even if the choice of image is not subjective (e.g. due to a policy explicitly preferring one of the images), it is still better to allow this kind of dispute to play out publicly than suppress it using an anti-vandalism tool.