Topic on User talk:Blubabluba9990

No need to comment anymore, plus this is potentially gravedigging.

Note: This is copied and pasted from a blog post that I can't even create due to moderation.
The proposal to add the moderation extension to the wikis passed, but it seems to be causing trouble, and here is why I hate it and think it should be removed from the wikis, regardless of the proposal's outcome:

1. All edits must be checked by admins now. This is creating more work for admins who have to run around and mark edits. Running a wiki is hard enough, let alone having to sort through the hundreds of edits that are made by users, which will clog up moderation.
2. It is a pain for users too. Users now have to wait for their revision to be approved before making an edit, even if it is just correcting a small typo.
3. Due to the time it will take for edits to be approved, it will slow down progress on the wikis, since edits will take longer to process.
4. To add on to pointer one, the admins will not be active 24/7. Behind the account, the admins are human beings who have friends and family, and they need to sleep and eat.
5. Revision conflicts may occur. For example, two users may make the exact same edit on the wiki, since you can't see what edits there are. So there may be two revisions of the same content. Furthermore, there may be more than one edit made at the same time, which can make things even more confusing.
6. The unlocking system is flawed. Every non-admin user is currently in a locked state now, even longtime editors. This means that in addition to having to sort through hundreds of different revisions, admins will also have to answer a bunch of different unlock requests. Besides, you also need 15 edits to be unlocked. That means that new users will have to constantly wait for their edits to be improved.
7. It can discourage new editors. It can get annoying for users to sign in and make an edit only to have to wait for their edit to be approved. It creates an unnecessary hassle on new users.
8. Complete moderation is unnecessary. It would be fine if certain pages were placed under temporary moderation due to excessive vandalism, but now every single page is placed under moderation.
9. It takes control away from the users. Since all edits now have to be approved by admins, it is now ultimately up to them whether or not an edit is legitimate. This means that even if you think your edit is legitimate, an admin can decide it isn't legitimate, and users no longer have control over their own edits. It feels like something out of 1984, since now there is constant surveillance of edits.
10. It blatantly promotes the assumption of bad faith. Not every new user is automatically a vandal, yet this system is targeted towards all new users, not just vandals. A key principle of wikis is to assume good faith, yet this implies the falsehood that all new users are vandals.

So in short, this system places an unnecessary hassle on all users and will ultimately slow progress on the wikis. Katsumi, the creator of the proposal, even called the system "draconian".
Update: Now even user blogs have to be approved by moderators. In addition, it says I am editing my own version of this page! See the problem here!

You have a good point, despite your disruptive behavior in general. Although the draconian moderation extension reduced the amount of vandalism, POV pushing, and other forms of disruptive editing, it puts an unnecessary restriction on new users including myself and disabling it is a lose-lose situation

You don't need to contribute to this discussion anymore, as it is an old discussion and the moderation extension has even been removed from this wiki (not from other wikis, but given that Qualitipedia might be closing soon, it's not really relevant for now).