« first day (517 days earlier)      last day (2800 days later) » 

1:13 AM
@DanielBeck No matter. It's not much harm and it's just a self call out as to the reason behind the suspension
@rams That's a shopping question and/or product comparison/recommendation. Off topic across the Stack Exchange network.
 
@random Removed my comments, placed a relieving comment (although it contains a typo as response on should be response of, can you correct that or will I leave it as is? don't want to pin him again) and won't respond anymore. Thank you for making it neutral...
Sorry for the work this puts on you, emotions / perfectionism / overreaction / standpoints / ... can sometimes lead to situations you need a third man to pull your out.
@DanielBeck Ouch, sad to see someone suspended for that. But I guess it's because there was no consensus on this at all, which kind of makes sense then. It's not really hard to achieve that rate if you set up the tags in advance, which is what one would do to get it through as fast as possible (and which is why he doesn't see the comments as he just moves on to the next already loaded tab). Which makes me think:
We should require users that plan to do edit floods over a certain rate / amount to first require permission from a moderator.
 
@TomWijsman It's minor, but whatever. Your edits on the question pulled you into the blame circle because it was around that time a close soon followed. So, things like that aren't uncommon unfortunately
@TomWijsman There was some kind of consensus forming, but the user took the comment of "mods can't batch retag only select questions silently" as "retag all the things as fast as CAPTCHA can".
 
@random That makes sense, I should make myself a reminder above a post to try to come up with a smooth explanation rather than defending myself.
 
We can't selectively retag, but we can see which is the path of least destruction. In this case it would have meant merging all cd → compact-disc and then manually retagging the smaller side with the other
 
@random I have a feeling that the CAPTCHA is scaled towards the user his reputation, because when I do edit floods I don't see them once. Although there is a request limit though, I've once got myself temporarily banned from further requests by IIS... :(
I remember that back in the days I constantly met the CAPTCHA guy everywhere.
But now, it's been so long ago that I start to miss him.
 
1:28 AM
2k vs 20k is hugely different and they should have seen some of the screens
 
What do you think of:
8 mins ago, by Tom Wijsman
We should require users that plan to do edit floods over a certain rate / amount to first require permission from a moderator.
 
That seems draconian. Which sounds like it would go down well.
 
Dunno where it's best for such notice to be, be it either when an amount of edits is triggered / in the faq / at the meta / on a question and so on.
I'm interpreting your last part ambiguously, but that might be because I'm not a native English speaker. Does that mean that it's a good idea or a bad idea?
 
It's a "take it to the streets of Meta and see if you end up question banned or get a badge"
 
In one way I read it a "it's a go" and in the other "it's down, not a good idea".
So, just put that idea up on meta. Doesn't sound like a bad idea...
 
1:48 AM
Or we could just rate limit edits.
 
@nhinkle: That has the potentional to increase quality, and only drop that rate when an edit flood is required or so. I have something on arranged edit floods in my upcoming meta question, that would go fairly well with a toggle-able rate limit for moderators...
 
@nhinkle meh, no.
 
@studiohack: Well, if you scale it over reputation it makes more sense...
 
@TomWijsman still, no. ltoo many rules & limist are a pain. a huge pain. and scare away users
 
@studiohack Well, not limits that bog you out on regular editing.
You can fairly set a limit to disallow X edits over Y minutes such that it only triggers on an actual developing edit flood.
@studiohack: Why would it scare away users, it's only meant for users that do an edit flood.
 
1:55 AM
I don't want to/can't get into this now - but simply put, too many rules and regulations make it too legalistic and too hard to function. you want it as open and free and unrestrictive as realistically possible...
 
I'm quoting my meta question:
> The Stack Exchange system could be foreseen from an edit rate limit, which shows a warning.
> That warning could explain that one should raise the required editing on meta such that it can be added to the above organized edit floods
It's not that we deny it from them, we just shouldn't allow an user to do an edit flood alone; we don't want him acting alone instead with no consensus of the community.
Most users don't edit flood anyway so they wouldn't reach the warning.
In any case, I don't want to discuss this here either, I'm going to post my meta question and people are free to discuss on that. I kind of feel like pulling things apart by posting here. As you're answering on a sole line of nhinkle I probably shouldn't even be defending myself here... :)
 
 
2 hours later…
3:32 AM
I honestly think the better solution is "don't go on ridiculous editing sprees especially without some sort of consensus", rather than trying to restrict people.
 
 
4 hours later…
7:50 AM
It's a good deal though. Keep off the site for a week, get a silver badge.
 

« first day (517 days earlier)      last day (2800 days later) »