AbuseFilter

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

Facepalm I don't know why the hell I can't reason through things like this. Fuck.

Blue (is useful)04:39, 11 September 2011

Although I can sort of see why this was done, I can't agree with it. Yes, it's annoying that Ace and SR go after the annoying little shit, but their edits can be undone with a click of a button.

By going this route, we are pandering to the whims of somebody who has done nothing but try and enforce his will on the wiki, and we've technically elevated him to a rank above all users. For no other reason than that he's whining about his user page being vandalised. If must be, protect the page to sysop level and demote the guilty, but I object strongly to these arbitrary creation of a new user group.

PsyGremlinZungumza!11:15, 11 September 2011

I don't see this as being specific to me in any way. If anyone else's user page is being vandalised repeatedly, the same mechanism can be applied to them.

And I didn't ask for this, Nx decided to do this of his own volition. (I did raise the general idea of locking down everyone's user page, to only be edited by themselves and mods... either across the board or for those users who opted-in... I never suggested he do this specifically for me though...)

(((Zack Martin)))11:20, 11 September 2011

That's why there's a rollback button. It really isn't rocket science and certainly not a reason for a new class of user to be introduced.

PsyGremlinZungumza!11:26, 11 September 2011
  1. There is no special class of user being introduced.
  2. Rollback doesn't work very well against dedicated edit warrers.
  3. I think the choice came down to banning certain users, or doing this. Someone else (not me) decided this would be preferable to banning them.
(((Zack Martin)))11:29, 11 September 2011

Yes there is, or call it a rights level or something if you will, but it has been implemented without discussion or approval by the community. Banning them was never on the table and you know it. In addition, it was only you being targeted, which means one must ask the question why and why only one user is being protected.

Unilateral locking of pages is not the way to go, and I don't care how much it inconveniences you. Then we might as well become Conservapedia and shut down editing and registration and lock all the pages, so only a chosen few can edit.

Nobody deserves special treatment on this wiki. End of story. If you had any care for the community you'd remove the code from your page, until the community decides if it stays or goes.

PsyGremlinZungumza!11:49, 11 September 2011

Fuck it, do this for everyone then. No one really has any business editing any user page but their own. I don't see any reason to oppose this beyond "we don't do this because this is not what we do."

DickTurpis (talk)00:39, 14 September 2011
 
 
 
 

Protect the page at sysop level and demote the guilty, then. No one else is willing to do that.

ADtalkModerator06:29, 12 September 2011

Exactly. If I had done that, then people would be upset about that.

-- Nx / talk07:56, 12 September 2011
New software where a rollback and mod level lock for an hour would have sufficed. Removing rights and blocking. And are you the only one who can protect a page with this new extension.
Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg12:58, 16 September 2011

Mod level lock doesn't allow maratrean to edit the page. Why should we inconvenience him because of some trolls?

It's not a new extension, I installed it a while ago and used it mainly to stop spammers. Back then crats were the ones who could edit the rules, now it's techs (and by extension mods, since they can make themselves techs).

-- Nx / talk16:31, 16 September 2011

An hour or two of Maratrean not being able to edit a page he edits infrequently at best vs. removing 2 users' rights and blocking them. You inconvenience Maratrean for that short time, which is hardly so precious that a reasonable person wouldn't recognize the utility of it, because it's a reasonable compromise between doing nothing and employing your heavy handed approach. What you did is anything but the "light touch" you're campaigning on. And it's not like Maratrean doesn't have the rest of the wiki, aSK, RWW, and everywhere else he never fucking shuts up to never fucking shut up. A reasonable person wouldn't complain about a page being locked for an hour or two while tensions subside.

And you of all people calling Ace a troll for that outburst made me laugh. Thanks.

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg17:39, 16 September 2011

SuspectedReplicant said his goal was to troll Maratrean off the wiki. An hour long lock won't stop him, he'll just be back later. We saw from the account creation spree after his blocking that he is quite persistent. So a more permanent solution is needed.

The abusefilter solution isn't heavy handed. A user page is supposed to be the property of the user anyway, and mods can still edit it if needed. A reasonable person wouldn't complain about not being able to edit a page they're not supposed to edit anyway.

-- Nx / talk17:49, 16 September 2011

Why are YOU allowed to edit it then? Why not make it Maratrean-only?

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