• We have a user that is active to say the least.

    By which I mean from 7.15 this morning until now at 10.40, they have made constant and consecutive edits, and have raked up hundreds of edits in a matter of mere days. These are all also very small edits; formatting old articles, adding templates to episode lists, etc.

    They're useful for the most part, but we've had to add three new rules since then about not creating new articles for stubs, not doing consecutive multiple edits for one article, and to format all articles. We've also had to dramatically increase our own edit counts catching mistakes of theirs, and it takes ages to go through all their edits, which takes time off adding content and other wiki work. 

    Is there a way to implement a cool-down period on what users can post? Is it sensible to make a rule against this? How have others dealt with this kind of issue? I wouldn't even mind a dozen edits, especially if they were substantial, but hundreds is incredibly difficult for a small wiki to cope with. 

      Loading editor
    • Have you tried talking to them?

        Loading editor
    • but yes, you can set up ratelimits, but you'll need to contact Fandom Staff to have them set up.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you so much. 

      We've just emailed staff about rate-limits, and we'll talk to the user again, too. 

        Loading editor
    • Generally, a stub is better than a red link. Are these pages that need to be made? If yes, what's the problem? They're small edits, but they're not bad edits, right? Are they making tons of edits to the same page? If they're doing repetitive cleanup work, consider what you can bot.

      They're enthusiastic, and want to help. I wouldn't advise telling them to slow down or stop. Try to keep up.

        Loading editor
    • The issue about creating stubs was solved; we explained to them, implemented a new rule, and added warnings to necessary pages. The issue was our particular wiki does not allow for stubs, and - by stubs - I mean articles of literally just one sentence or a very tiny list of 'stats'. The stubs were for unused characters that appeared only on fan-submission pages, and have never been used or given speaking lines or included elsewhere. Nothing could be added. 

      The issue - as mentioned - is the sheer volume of edits. 

      They are doing hundreds of edits at a time, today is at least a hundred over a four-hour period. It is a ridiculous amount, when our administrators have to go through every one to make sure rules have been followed, there's no vandalism, etc. etc. The edits aren't mostly bad edits, but they are very unsubstantial; sometimes literally just moving lines in source code or adding a single name to "other names" or a link to an infobox. 

      Yes, a few edits are good ones, like infoboxes and images to episode lists, but that is at the expense of all the other types of edits, as well as infoboxes to articles that were purposely left without infoboxes, because they were stubs and it means we'd have an empty page with just an infobox; leaving us to change rules, have a word, and make sure all articles are at least formatted with headers as per our 'article layout' rules.

      It's very easy to say "try to keep up" when we aren't paid staff, have lives and stuff we wish to contribute, and have to manually check said hundreds of edits. 

      He may have four hours straight to spare a day, but we don't. 

        Loading editor
    • You can also encourage them to leave short edit summaries if they don't do that already. And the stub thing seems to be mostly because your wiki has a different definition/use of stubs than most other wikis.

        Loading editor
    • We have a clear rule about leaving edit summaries already, and taking them on face-value requires a lot of trust, so they should still be looked at (until it is known a user can be trusted). 

      Regardless of our definition, stubs are not the issue here. They have never been an issue here, and I merely brought them up as an example of why it's been awkward with this user and so many of their edits (with that as an example of why some of them were 'bad' edits, compounding the issue). The root issue being the sheer number of edits. 

      It seems your advice is simply: "let them do it".

      Advice noted, thank you. 

      On that note, we'll take Sophie's advice that addressed our issue. 

        Loading editor
    • If the amount of work doing corrections becomes a problem, a block is not out of the question. A short block of a few days sends a strong message that an editor needs to be more careful. I've had to do this in the past. Usually editors who do this are a bit OCD, but they are also highly motivated (for a time at least). Otherwise, if the quality trends up and the mistakes trend down, you should just see it as a net benefit.

      Oh, and I've had to deal with this exact issue at least twice. The first time the rest of the admin group voted to permaban after seeing a lack of expected improvement (I was against the permaban), but the second time the contributor became one of the best things to happen to the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • I mean, this is great news for your wiki (BTW Once I racked up 200 edits in a few hours) but i quess the flooding can be a problem. Maybe you can ask him to label his minor edits as minor edits, so that u can hide them at first. Also, there is no need to go through his work, if you happen to stumble across a mistake, make it right, dont actively search for them.

      P.S. can you give a link to the user and wiki?

      EDIT:Sometimes I use AutoWikiBrowser on my bot account to go thorugh this guys edits, he makes around 50 edits when he edits. Maybe you can try that.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for the replies. 

      We've spoken to the user, and we think it seems to have been resolved; we've asked them to mark minor edits and use edit summaries (which has helped). Fandom would not implement a rate-limit, which seemed in part to them not being "bad" edits, and - while we disagree with the choice - rules are rules and it seems like it can be otherwise handled okay alone. 

      We won't be revealing the user and wiki; if staff need to know, it's extremely easy for them to look, but - as they aren't a bad editor or a bad person, and it's a small wiki - it feels a bit disrespectful to them to have people pouring over their edits and work and 3rd parties getting involved.

      Thank you all for the advice, though. 

      All seems good now, touch wood. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.