Changes

User talk:DavidB4 (view source)

Revision as of 16:57, February 26, 2022

3,466 bytes added , 16:57, February 26, 2022

→‎CptSandra: Replied at, admittedly, some length. Oh, and I got rid of the cat, too - what the heck was that about anyway?

Line 1,419: Line 1,419:

== CptSandra ==

−

~~[[File:Cat8.gif|right|]]~~

Thanks for unblocking me, but what was "eutside the scope of Minuteman's purpose," pray? I'm intrigued. -SannyG [[User:CptSandra|CptSandra]] ([[User talk:CptSandra|talk]]) 14:15, February 25, 2022 (EST)

:The program looks for Rusbots. You evidently appear to be spreading<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ACptSandra</ref> Russian disinformation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 14:28, February 25, 2022 (EST)

::Minuteman's purpose is to block vandals. A quick check told me that you were debating with an administrator, and while I didn't investigate to determine your root concern or motives, that was beyond the job of Minutman. I therefore unblocked you, to allow Rob to handle the situation appropriately. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:50, February 26, 2022 (EST)

+

::: Yes, I do seem to have been crossing swords with RobS a bit recently; Call me over-sensitive, but I thought he was completely out of order to write (of [[User_talk:ConwayIII|ConwayIII]]) "''take this as a warning over your recent holocaust denial and mocking victims of nazism [..], you seem semi-intelligent; why do you defend Democrat idiots?''" '''and then to refuse to substantiate''' what are to my ear really vicious, nasty, beyond-the-pale allegations and slurs. But since it's bad Karma<ref>Please don't take 'Karma' literally: it's my just my shorthand for the principle that it's psychologically inadvisable constantly to wallow in the negative or the adversarial rather than making constructive contributions etc.</ref> not to be (at least partly) constructive - eg before quoting Alinsky (see below), I expanded the opening paragraph of [[Rules for Radicals]] - let me try to analyse the difficulty and speculate about what might have happened. Obviously the edit log doesn't satisfy my plea for a citation: the log merely says ''that'' something happened, not ''why'' it happened. And, knowing nothing about the bot itself, I can't safely infer anything from the times of my edits and the times in the log. But, fortunately, I don't need to, because I can make my case by citing something I wrote early on, viz: "Logically, it seems to me that (at least) one of the following seven claims must be right: ''China doesn't matter (to the US).'' China does matter, but Russia doesn't. ''Russia matters, but it's European NATO's problem.'' Russia matters, but Putin doesn't. ''Putin matters, but he's European NATO's problem.'' Putin matters, but Ukraine doesn't. ''Ukraine matters.''" Now, any policebot would be doing very well indeed not to treat those seven statements as being asserted by their author, when of course they are not (or, one is - but we<ref>Profound apologies for the academic 'we' - I got stuck.</ref> don't know which. Generalising, I can infer without looking at any other block logs than mine that the prose/debate style of some authors is likely to generate a significant number of false positives. This is particularly a pain for me, because I'm in the UK so my hours and CP's hours are a lousy match - although it does (up to a point) serve to limit my screen time so it's not all bad, I suppose. :-) And of course I can draft improvements to eg [[Laurence J. Kotlikoff]] offline of course, which is in fact exactly what I'd just finished doing when I turned to this matter (Karma again). Returning to my bot problem, RobS already know's I'm fond of quoting Saul Alinsky's 12th rule (see [[User_talk:Aschlafly#We_need_to_recruit_editors|We need to recruit editors]]) so, having criticized your bot some, here's a constructive suggestion: associate selected users, presumably those with a track record of false-positives and, let's say, generally moderate tone, constructive edits and the like, with an 'AssumeGoodFaith' flag or some such that makes policebots generate reviews rather than actually blocking the user. Obviously, if the review finds abuse then either the flag can be reset or, as a minimum the user given a fairly stern warning. Anyway, thanks again David<ref>And I haven't figured out how to do footnotes yet; I'll get around to it next week sometime.</ref>, -Sandra [[User:CptSandra|CptSandra]] ([[User talk:CptSandra|talk]]) 11:57, February 26, 2022 (EST)

:Sanny, a Rusbot is defined as inserting false information with malign intent. Sorry, but the algorithm responded to your postings. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 03:38, February 26, 2022 (EST)

===refs===

CptSandra

SkipCaptcha

60

edits