AbuseFilter

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Nx
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Because I'm a tech.

-- Nx / talk18:42, 16 September 2011

Is there a compelling reason for a tech to have the right to edit a given page that he does not have the right to edit?

Apart from the royal pain in the arse that such fine tuning of user rights would cause?

ADK...I'll loll your padlock!19:06, 16 September 2011

If it could be fine-tuned enough to be "Maratrean, mods and techs," as it is, it could be fine-tuned any number of ways with as much/little trouble, no?

 
Edited by author.
Last edit: 19:49, 16 September 2011

No. But since the tech could remove the abusefilter rule if they wanted to edit the page, there isn't really a point in changing the rule to exclude techs. But I can change it if it'll make you feel better.

-- Nx / talk19:15, 16 September 2011

If pedantry can be sated...

ADK...I'll recollect your aviator!19:18, 16 September 2011

Whatever

-- Nx / talk19:21, 16 September 2011

ADK is not referring to your pedantry, I reckon.

ADtalkModerator04:48, 17 September 2011

I know.

-- Nx / talk06:51, 17 September 2011
 
 

It's not the de facto situation that bugs me; I don't really give a shit about Maratrean's page... it's the concept that one user is able to go above and beyond the normal, day-to-day rules/functions of other editors in ways that are not clearly defined or limited in any way, with no real accountability.

The solution is quite simple. Just find another aspie tech who: 1) is interested in the project 2) has tons of free time 3) is willing to work in exchange for insults 4) won't the teh powah/glory go to his head

Occasionaluse (talk)19:50, 16 September 2011
 

Since when is vandalizing another user's page a day-to-day function of editors?

-- Nx / talk19:52, 16 September 2011
 

B♭maj7, you do realize that Nx is accountable to both Trent and the Board?

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX03:53, 17 September 2011

If Nx was directly accountable to the board I'm sure someone would have brought a motion to shitcan him back in May. But he's Trent's assistant and Trent's the Chief Operating Officer of the corporation and under the bylaws empowered to have whoever he wishes fill that role.

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg06:23, 17 September 2011

I thought Human did that. Btw, tech != server access. Please try to remember that.

-- Nx / talk06:51, 17 September 2011

So as a mod I have de facto server access if I want?

No. As a mod you have de facto tech access.

-- Nx / talk07:46, 17 September 2011

Oh sorry, I was reading that as tech! = server access rather than tech =/= server access.

 
 

If your last point is directed at me, I don't know why. Nothing I said in my post indicates I've conflated the two roles and I've even tried correcting others' confusion in a discussion I believe you participated in.

As to your first claim, I don't know if he did or did not bring such a motion. If he did, I wouldn't be surprised. If he didn't, I would wonder why not.

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg07:45, 17 September 2011

Because as a tech I'm not accountable to the Board or Trent. I'm accountable to the community. You're a mod. You can remove my tech rights. I don't have server access now, so I wouldn't be able to get it back.

-- Nx / talk07:49, 17 September 2011
 

RationalWiki:RationalWiki Foundation/2011 08 14 minutes: "Human introduced a motion to create within the Foundation the office of server administrator. The server administrator would be subordinate to the operations manager and be given server access to perform various duties in accordance with various rules and guidelines. The motion further provided that this office, when created, should be offered to Nx with the understanding that if he accepted, any past misuses of server access on his part would be forgiven and forgotten by the Board. Motion was carried unanimously.

Tmtoulouse undertook the task of writing a document outlining the duties and rules of the new office of server administrator."

The resulting document is RationalWiki:System administrators

-- Nx / talk08:01, 17 September 2011

What a strange response. I was referring to you as Trent's assistant and answerable to Trent, not anything else. As his assistant you're still not directly accountable to the board. I was at that board meeting, proposed the clean slate part of that motion, and voted on it. The creation of the server administrator position, which you haven't accepted, is not relevant to my point that you're not presently directly answerable to the board.

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg08:12, 17 September 2011

That is true. But I didn't use my server access to create the filter. That's my point.

-- Nx / talk08:16, 17 September 2011