2,513
edits
User talk:Furricane: Difference between revisions
→Topic Ban: re to TFFfan
(→Topic Ban: re to TFFfan) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 66:
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, [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 13:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|RhinosF1}} Okay. I was trying to help. I will do that, and I will self-block from certain things. Thanks. --[[User:TFFfan|TFFfan]] ([[User talk:TFFfan|talk]]) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|TFFfan}} I appreciate, very much, that you were trying to help and you've got more experience with coding abuse filters. 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 [[TestWiki:Consuls|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 {{ping|RhinosF1}}'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. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 14:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
| |||