ConwayLife.com

unname4798 wrote: August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am

Haycat2009 wrote: July 28th, 2023, 9:26 pm

muzik wrote: July 22nd, 2016, 10:50 am How about putting a limit on page title lengths, and anything that exceeds that number blocks the user (if not a trusted account)?

[snip][/snip]

No, how about putting a limit on edits per day, and anything that exceeds that number blocks the user (even if is trusted account)?
My recommendation: limit is 12 edits per day.

Strong oppose. Incremental userspace edits, multiple hasslers found in a day requiring RLEspace creations and editing the hassler pages (and sometimes more if there's a formatting mistake), p19/41 found requiring a whole bunch of changes, adding pages to a just-created category, sweeping changes to a set of pages (e.g. frequencies on 11-cell and 12-cell still lifes like I did about two years ago), etc.

C28 and Confocal are currently over the limit assuming a rolling 24-hour window. Galoomba went past it on July 29. Chris857 went past it on July 27.

unname4798 wrote: August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am

Haycat2009 wrote: July 28th, 2023, 9:26 pm

muzik wrote: July 22nd, 2016, 10:50 am How about putting a limit on page title lengths, and anything that exceeds that number blocks the user (if not a trusted account)?

[snip][/snip]

No, how about putting a limit on edits per day, and anything that exceeds that number blocks the user (even if is trusted account)?
My recommendation: limit is 12 edits per day.

It's not clear (at least to me) that these ideas would be particularly easy to implement. It's not just a matter of changing an obvious MediaWiki setting somewhere, at least. If someone knows how to make the suggested change and wants to do all the testing and troubleshooting, then maybe let Nathaniel know that. Otherwise, it's best to assume that LifeWiki will continue to work the way that it currently works, and that we'll continue to notice and revert problematic edits when they happen.

This thread is supposed to be for new users asking for their trusted flag to be set. Please move any further discussion of hypothetical LifeWiki changes to some other thread, such as this one.

unname4798 wrote: August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am

Haycat2009 wrote: July 28th, 2023, 9:26 pm

muzik wrote: July 22nd, 2016, 10:50 am How about putting a limit on page title lengths, and anything that exceeds that number blocks the user (if not a trusted account)?

[snip][/snip]

No, how about putting a limit on edits per day, and anything that exceeds that number blocks the user (even if is trusted account)?
My recommendation: limit is 24 edits per day.

That sounds good, but
1. How about typo fixes? There are many of these, and being blocked for fixing typos is probably going to cause the wiki to eventually be impossible to clean up.
2. Do reverts and moves count as an edit? what about self-reverting?
3. What about edits on the user's own profile page?
4. What about bots, moderators and admins? That does not make sense.
5. This limit assumes bad faith. Are you going to let innocent editors be blocked for apparently no reason???

I saw that you raised the limit to 24. Confocal is still currently above it, and none of the exceptions listed apply. As I said, I strongly oppose this limit.

Haycat2009 wrote: August 3rd, 2023, 7:18 am

unname4798 wrote: August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am No, how about putting a limit on edits per day, and anything that exceeds that number blocks the user (even if is trusted account)?
My recommendation: limit is 24 edits per day.

That sounds good, but
1. How about typo fixes? There are many of these, and being blocked for fixing typos is probably going to cause the wiki to eventually be impossible to clean up.
2. Do reverts and moves count as an edit? what about self-reverting?
3. What about edits on the user's own profile page?
4. What about bots, moderators and admins? That does not make sense.
5. This limit assumes bad faith. Are you going to let innocent editors be blocked for apparently no reason???

IMO these points (especially #1 and #5) are exactly the reason why the proposal sounds bad. Negative feedback of this kind is likely to eliminate all remaining enthusiasm (considering that most productive contributors are not particularly enthusiastic about contributing for a long time, unless there is positive feedback of some kind or another).

Any automated "solution" along these lines will hit the few active contributors, without really solving the problem. (If J. Random Spammer already managed to make it past the thread for requesting trusted flag, then it's safe to assume they will be able to adapt to avoid being auto-blocked).

confocaloid wrote: August 3rd, 2023, 1:49 pm

Haycat2009 wrote: August 3rd, 2023, 7:18 am

unname4798 wrote: August 2nd, 2023, 10:19 am No, how about putting a limit on edits per day, and anything that exceeds that number blocks the user (even if is trusted account)?
My recommendation: limit is 24 edits per day.

That sounds good, but
1. How about typo fixes? There are many of these, and being blocked for fixing typos is probably going to cause the wiki to eventually be impossible to clean up.
2. Do reverts and moves count as an edit? what about self-reverting?
3. What about edits on the user's own profile page?
4. What about bots, moderators and admins? That does not make sense.
5. This limit assumes bad faith. Are you going to let innocent editors be blocked for apparently no reason???

IMO these points (especially #1 and #5) are exactly the reason why the proposal sounds bad. Negative feedback of this kind is likely to eliminate all remaining enthusiasm (considering that most productive contributors are not particularly enthusiastic about contributing for a long time, unless there is positive feedback of some kind or another).

Any automated "solution" along these lines will hit the few active contributors, without really solving the problem. (If J. Random Spammer already managed to make it past the thread for requesting trusted flag, then it's safe to assume they will be able to adapt to avoid being auto-blocked).

Exactly! My opinion is that we can add a filter: If the edit blanks the page, is a flagged edit, or replacing the page with random characters / nonsense, It will automatically revert the edit and give a warning to the user who did it.

Haycat2009 wrote: August 4th, 2023, 3:04 am My opinion is that we can add a filter: If the edit blanks the page, is a flagged edit, or replacing the page with random characters / nonsense, It will automatically revert the edit and give a warning to the user who did it.

I'm not sure if I understand the "flagged edit" part.
Otherwise, if an edit is obviously detrimental (i.e. blanking an article, unexplained removal of existing content, adding random text / nonsense / SPAM), then the edit can be reverted by any editor who notices it.
You can't automate this very well, and you don't really need to automate this, as long as there are enough active editors able to distinguish destructive edits from constructive edits.

dvgrn wrote: ... it's best to assume that LifeWiki will continue to work the way that it currently works, and that we'll continue to notice and revert problematic edits when they happen.

This thread is supposed to be for new users asking for their trusted flag to be set. Please move any further discussion of hypothetical LifeWiki changes to some other thread, such as this one.

Again, this is the wrong thread for suggesting MediaWiki coding changes that it's not clear that anyone knows how to accomplish in practice. Please move further discussion elsewhere, and/or set up a duplicate sandbox LifeWiki and demonstrate the specific changes that are being suggested.

It seems unlikely that changes along these lines would ever be made without someone volunteering to invest significant amounts of time to figure out how exactly to implement them, and then to test them before rollout.

Can you trust my wiki account? It is Haycat2009.

P.S Sorry for discussing these changes in the wrong thread, I will stop discussing it here.

Haycat2009 wrote: August 5th, 2023, 12:37 am Can you trust my wiki account? It is Haycat2009.

Done -- thanks!

Please can you set my LiveWiki account to "Trusted" ?
Username: TYCF

TYCF wrote: August 7th, 2023, 3:10 pm Please can you set my LiveWiki account to "Trusted" ?
Username: TYCF

Done! What do you plan to edit?

(Just make sure to look through LifeWiki editing rules, especially the notability guidelines.)

dvgrn wrote: August 7th, 2023, 3:48 pm

TYCF wrote: August 7th, 2023, 3:10 pm Please can you set my LiveWiki account to "Trusted" ?
Username: TYCF

Done! What do you plan to edit?

(Just make sure to look through LifeWiki editing rules, especially the notability guidelines.)

I don't know yet.

Can the trusted flag be added to the account with the user name "Silversmith"?

silversmith wrote: August 26th, 2023, 9:26 am Can the trusted flag be added to the account with the user name "Silversmith"?

Yes!

Can I get trusted? My account name is "Para".

Para wrote: August 27th, 2023, 9:19 pm Can I get trusted? My account name is "Para".

Done!

So can I get trusted? I am a very EXTREME life enthusiast and my account name is HerscheltheHerschel (real name private).

HerscheltheHerschel wrote: September 4th, 2023, 5:25 am So can I get trusted? I am a very EXTREME life enthusiast and my account name is HerscheltheHerschel (real name private).

Done!

can i be trusted in wiki too? my wiki account's username is "Not a pun"

haaaaaands wrote: September 7th, 2023, 7:29 am can i be trusted in wiki too? my wiki account's username is "Not a pun"

Done!

Also, I'm thinking maybe in the future I'll start saving posts on this thread by just putting a "like" on request posts when I've made the permissions change.

dvgrn wrote: October 1st, 2118, 1:01 pm Also, I'm thinking maybe in the future I'll start saving posts on this thread by just putting a "like" on request posts when I've made the permissions change.

That makes sense. At first I thought you meant that people could ask for trusted just by liking your post, because of how it shows which posts people have liked, but I bet someone would find a way to bot that :P

I would also like to request that my wiki account (Rutabaga) be trusted please, even though I do not plan to make edits very often. Thank you so much. :)

Please add me (Joao003 on wiki) to trusted. I would greatly appreciate it!

Ian07 wrote: June 4th, 2023, 5:33 pm

lk050807 wrote: June 2nd, 2023, 6:20 pm Can you trust me on the wiki? My username is X99.

Apologies for the unusually long delay, but done.

bluemanofgrapes wrote: June 4th, 2023, 10:34 am May my account, bluemanofgrapes, be trusted?

I have been interested in the wiki for around 4 years and would like to contribute to this wonderful community.

Not seeing an account with this name. You'll need to make a separate account on the wiki, since the account system there is completely separate from that of the forums.

Can you trust me ? My user name on wiki is User:Potato_Imaginator
I'm here because i found a new fuse.

Potato Imaginator wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:39 am Can you trust me ? My user name on wiki is User:Potato_Imaginator
I'm here because i found a new fuse.

Potato Imaginator wrote: September 15th, 2023, 1:43 am I found a new fuse in game of life, can someone add it to wiki plz ? I don't have permissions to create pages yet. I name it "Potato Imaginator's Fuse - 1" :

The way it is written, it sounds like an attempt to test whether someone openly admitting that they are going to violate LifeWiki guidelines would be allowed to do so --

LifeWiki:Notability wrote:To prevent overenthusiastic edits and conflicts of interest, a commonly accepted rule is that the discoverer of a pattern, inventor of new terminology, writer of a program, etc., etc., should not be the one to document that pattern, term, or program on the LifeWiki.