User talk:Furricane

Rots61 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocking Users
Hi,

Please be very careful when blocking based on the abuse filters. Many filters are tests and no indication of wrongdoing. You must ensure you are careful when doing non-test admim actions as incorrectly blocking users may be grounds for desysop if it continues. RhinosF1 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 21 May 2020
Hello,

In accordance with Inactivity, I am writing to inform you that your user rights will be removed on or after 28 May 2020 if you do not return to activity.

Please inform me if you would like to retain your rights and/or be made exempt from inactivity rules.

In the event you wish to return to TestWiki after the above date, you may re-request rights via Request permissions.

Thanks,
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for RhinosF1
 * For the Consul Team
 * 21:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Inactivity
Per Inactivity, I have removed the user rights that you held from your account. If at any time you wish to re-gain these permissions, you may request for them at Request permissions or my talk page. Thanks, RhinosF1 (talk). 12:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Creation protection of titles
Hi TFFfan,

I appreciate your wanting to creation protect certain titles like Penis and Testicles from apparent potential vandalism, but neither title has been created to date. Creation protection is really only needed when a title has been recreated more than three times. Otherwise, we'd have a huge list of creation protected titles for vulgar words. A better strategy would be an abuse filter, if required. In this case, I don't think it's necessary. If you want to creation protect them for a short term for testing purposes (say 30 days or less), that would be fine.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , Thanks! I will maybe work on an abuse filter. Also, I have a permission request for bureaucrat. I hope you can consider it. Thanks! --TFFfan (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. When you're finished the abuse filter, maybe run it by a Consul, like RhinosF1, so they can check it and make sure there's no false positives or anything like that. I have added bureaucrat to your user profile. When you get a chance, maybe remove or reduce the creation protection on those two titles please. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Test blocks
Hi again TFFfan,

I have hidden the edit summary for your test block of BrodieVail88 in which you wrote "spamming external links" out of respect for BrodieVail88, who has yet to contribute to this wiki by editing or log actions. I haven't checked the abuse filter logs, but I suspect what you may have seen is that the user triggered an abuse filter. Please be very careful when blocking editors for triggering an abuse filter. Generally, editors who trigger an abuse filter do not need to be blocked; if it's severe enough, there's even a system user, User:Abuse filter, which will progressively warn and block users as required. So, in nearly every case, an editor does not need to be blocked.

Although our policies do say you can test blocks on other users, generally speaking, I just don't. If I need to test a block, I just test on User:Example, as it is a globally locked account that can still be blocked and unblocked at will. You can also create alternate accounts for testing blocking functionality, but it's highly recommended it that you disclose any alternate accounts you create on your user page.

Hope that helps,

Dmehus (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I got it
I got an abuse filter to warn vandals from adding curse words into the wiki, and tagging the attempts. I also want some feedback on it. I also will work on a filter to prevent a user name to not contain any of that string. You earlier suggested that I run for consul. I was wondering if I should do that yet. Thanks! --TFFfan (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Two things:
 * I never suggested that you run for Consul; I suggested that you run your code for any abuse filters you create by a Consul so they can peer review it to ensure it will not generate any false positives. As for whether I think you should run, I think it's terribly early, to be honest. I'd probably give it at least six months to a year of being active here.
 * Abuse filter 34 is currently malfunctioning. It seems to be setup in main namespace only, but is active in project namespace. I may have misread that and it is active everywhere, which is fine. However, it is currently malfunctioning. It was triggered by, and has tagged, my edits and Pine's edits incorrectly. As such, I have disabled it for now. However, when I tried to remove the tags from Pine's edit diff, it said that the tags could not be manually removed. I could not find what setting needs to be changed in order to let me manually remove those tags. Please let me know what is controlling the ability to manually edit or remove the tags set by that abuse filter, as that ability should be provided to any bureaucrat (or administrator) to manually change on a case-by-case basis.
 * --Dmehus (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and sorry. I mis-read the consul part. That is my fault. And I have no Idea about how the tags cannot be removed. I will try to remove them myself, and I will figure out the filter. Thanks again. --TFFfan (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the filter. It is not needed and clearly not working. RhinosF1 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic Ban
Hello,

After reviewing your recent activity, I am imposing a 14 day topic ban from making non-test actions affecting other users without prior discussion. All tests must also be undone at the first opportunity. Thanks, RhinosF1 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was trying to help. I will do that, and I will self-block from certain things. Thanks. --TFFfan (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate, very much, that you were trying to help and you've got more experience with coding abuse filters than me. Unfortunately, it just wasn't coded correctly, and, as a result, produced highly undesirable results. This is why I strongly encouraged you to run your code by a Consul first, because it's helpful to have someone experienced with abuse filters peer review your code. As we can see, the abuse filter system isn't well designed when cleanup has to be performed (i.e., removing tags from false positives). So, the mantra with abuse filters really needs to be test, re-test, and test some more before going live. It is fine to partially block yourself to enforce your topic ban, though your block log annotation could've been clearer as it suggests the block was at 's request. It was a self-requested block, to help you enforce your topic ban (which is totally fine). One thing that might be helpful for abuse filter testing would be to test the abuse filter on a private wiki. Do you have your own wiki? That way, you could work on it there, fine-tune it, and then have RhinosF1 or another Consul join you there to peer review it and fine-tune it with a second set of eyes. Dmehus (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also undone several of your good-faith revision deletions. I see why you wanted to revision delete a couple of the entries, to hide your IP address from when you were testing. That is a good reason to revision delete, but revision deletions are still accessible to anyone below Oversight, so I've requested suppress two of the revisions so only Oversight will have access to them. I have also unhidden your TFFfan username from the other revision(s) that you deleted because, in most cases, it's generally not necessary to hide the username (the exceptions being when the editor edited while logged out or if another user had a grossly offensive username violation and was now globally locked or blocked). Dmehus (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

RecentChanges protection level
Hi TFFfan,

Not sure if you saw in the log or not, but I reverted your good-faith change to sysop-level protection of RecentChanges as I really don't think it's required. I questioned even the need to protect it as semi-protected yesterday, but given both the transclusions and that it's included within the Special:RecentChanges special page, thought minimal proactive protection would be required. If we start to see evidence of non-administrators making a mess of it, which will show up as unpatrolled edits for administrators to patrol, we can re-evaluate the protection level. I'm just a big fan of minimizing page protection, especially indefinite, unless there's a demonstrated need. :)

Hoping you don't mind,

Dmehus (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)