Internet iceberg 4chan how to#

I think we should have 'disallow discussions' that run for 5 days and not have actionable opposition before it is enabled. At the very least the most active filter editors need to be consulted on whether they think the filter is ready.

Someone set a filter I created to disallow before it ran long enough to check for possible false positives.

Cenarium ( talk) 18:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Conti| ✉ 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Of course, filters need to be tested beforehand. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Why not both? Apart from emergencies, there's really no need to set a filter to disallow immediately, or to test it for just a day (and then set it to disallow because it had 0 false positives (and 0 hits in general)).

Although I don't know the details of what happened, in general terms one mistake is bad but correctable, two similar mistakes = remove access. Cenarium ( talk) 17:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Yes, if somebody consistently overreaches their abilities, and fails to recognise this, then remove their ability to edit the filter. Or removing the abuse filter editor rights from abusers, which I'm going to do now. It seems we sysops have less common sense than is commonly thought. Conti| ✉ 16:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply Yep, I tried proposing that solution above.

Internet iceberg 4chan how to#

– xeno ( talk) 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Reply What about needing a clear consensus before setting a filter to disallow? You know, some kinds of rules on how to use this thing? Right now everyone's just doing whatever he feels is best, and that's not really the way to go with a tool this powerful. What about some kind of systems whereby two different people are required to set a filter to disallow? Or perhaps some kind of follow up dialog when trying to set a filter to disallow asking the admin if they've tested the filter first? Or heck, restricting AFE to people who know what they are doing? I'll be the first to remove myself from the group, even though I have the common sense not to screw too much with things that I don't understand. 106 Adding abuse-filter-view-private into sysop package.104 Changing North America to New World is possible vandalism!.103 Edit filter 23 attached tag to wrong user - really bad.100.1 A better idea than an IP exemption.100 Some way to exempt good-faith IPs from getting caught by the filter.98 Should the Abuse filter log be permanent ?.95 Detecting if a page is in a category.94 Filter 80 'possible link spam': change edit summary?.92 Tags look like edit summaries sometimes.90 Abuse Filter editors group membership request.79 Filter stopped working - strange testing results.77 Please watch your regular expressions.71 Warning people who ignore abuse filter warnings.70 External URL abuse filter preventing proper tagging of db-copyvio.59 Proposal - Removing underscore as a repeating character tag?.56 Remove the filter for short new articles.54 False positives and no filter admins 'monitoring it'.48 Help requested for populating AbuseFilter tag wording/descriptions.42 Abuse filter rights and administrators.32 Where was the community vote on creating an additional privilege above 'admin'?.29 Stop creating filters to catch one specific instance of vandalism.26 Moving 'disallow' action to be 'restricted'.21 Problem with single-quote in regex rlike.14 My experience of auto-censor false positives.13 Filter 97 (Personal attacks by new user).11 Filter 31 isn't JUST for ASCII art, is it?.