Posted under General
Provence said:
About the suggestion: Although there is a huge amount of bad posts and it would be faster to clean them up with such a permission, I think that this would only result in more vandalism...
Then give the permission to those who have shown to be trustworthy with it and remove it if they are being vandals with it.
Flagging is always fickle and not always effective... I flagged thrice recently and of them two were reapproved (I have 14 flags to my name BTW). I was even very verbose with my flags, pointing out everything that was wrong, so IDK...
The fact is, posts get approved or reapproved as long as they meet the lowest standards of all contributors/approvers combined.
Provence said:
Flagging would've been more effective...
Not when more than one person with approval priveledges routinely approves the artist in question's work. In such a situation flagging simply becomes a pointless waste of time.
Besides, I generally only flag stuff with impossibly bad anatomy.
albert said:
A new mod tool is available for use now. It lets you revert all the post changes a user has made (although it's capped to 1000 changes since right now it's a synchronous operation and could take awhile to complete). It's accessible from the user's profile page.
Excellent. I hope it never needs to be used, even though I'm very certain it will be activated rather often.
Hillside_Moose said:
This works fine for throwaway vandal accounts, but what about mass update mistakes and overzealous "helping" by an otherwise well-meaning user? A chunk of good edits would be thrown away as well.
Those would either need more time and attention... or the edits, if good, can be redone later in a proper fashion. The tool is a bulk undo which will save time and effort, and is limited to the last 1000 changes anyways. It's best seen as a last resort, or at least with regular non throwaway accounts, IMO.
Part 1 of issue #2689 was to give Mod+ users the proverbial hammer and is meant to deal with vandals. Part 2 will give Mod+ users the proverbial scalpel, and is meant to deal with mistakes like you mentioned.
From GitHub...
albert said:
I would also propose breaking this into two distinct problems:
- Dealing with vandals. This is a much simpler case. It's usually a user just mass changing the rating or removing tags or sources. There's no need to constrain by date or version id. It should be a one button operation to revert all of their changes because there's no valuable information that's being lost. Executing this wouldn't even require BigQuery since the user_id is indexed on post_versions, although some BigQuery-based reports might be useful in detecting and identifying vandals.
- Dealing with moderation mistakes. This is trickier and requires the afore mentioned constraints and reporting tools to limit the revert precisely.
Need somebody to check "these" users
user #498425
user #498429
user #498441
Recently created accounts changing rating:s to rating:q
I looked through some posts and some changes are fine but way too many are also incorrect.
Randeel said:
Need somebody to check "these" users
user #498425
user #498429
user #498441Recently created accounts changing rating:s to rating:q
I looked through some posts and some changes are fine but way too many are also incorrect.
I bet they're sockpuppets. Their account ID is close to each other.
The altered posts: favgroup:komabooty. I agree, some you could make an argument for but most look safe.
EDIT: reverted most back to favgroup:komabooty rating:s, left some I was unsure about as favgroup:komabooty rating:q. Feel free to rerate if you disagree.
Updated
Another one.
user #498460
Tapper said:
Another one.
user #498460
Not...really.
Most of them are ok, judging from the thumbnail. Most posts should be rating:q.
@Flopsy
I'd be nice if you actually look at the images before changing the rating back.
post #2251223 or post #2284770 do still look somewhat "questionable".
Many of those look Safe to me, even with a relatively strict interpretation of howto:rate. They should fall under the provisions for "tasteful" swimsuits, lingerie and pantyshots. A picture isn't automatically Questionable because there's cleavage or buttcheeks visible. This sockpuppet swarm seems to operate under the assumption that Safe means some variant of "safe for work", which has been rejected several times in this forum. Here are some examples of posts that show lots of skin but aren't, in my opinion, Questionable:
post #2251223 (Yes Provence/Streichkonzert, I looked at it. You might want to take a look at ass rating:s)
post #2268121
post #2314572
post #2343065
post #2383339
Edit: I don't buy post #2284770 as Questionable, either. She's undressing, yes, but nothing inside the "bikini area" is visible, and there's nothing indicating an erotic context.
Streichkonzert said:
Not...really.
Most of them are ok, judging from the thumbnail. Most posts should be rating:q.
Don't even bother - I tried that already. Danbooru's rating system was made by people who come here to touch themselves, for people who come here to touch themselves.
