Should we include "automodmute"?

Yes Resolved (since 15:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC))
Not any significant educational value to including it, but risks users abusing it

Per this topic and this GitHub issue, commenting "automodmute" will get you muted (this is used for testing). Should we include this in the article? The benefit is that this helps document it a bit more and may have educational value, but has the downside that people may start going around commenting it as "tests". This could be harmful since the Scratch Team has a log of inappropriate comments they see, and this could clog up that log if a lot of people comment it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should add it because curiosity is way underestimated in people. You should probably remove the word from your post because it made me try it.
Pavcato (talk | contribs) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think enough people are going to look at the talk page to make a significant impact, so I don't see a need to remove it from this post. That being said, you are kind of confirming the concern I brought up in my original post.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I have done a conversation with jvvg before about this, but for the sake of putting comments to here as well, here is my evaluation:
  • If the information is already exposed into internet, I don't see any reasons to put it through the page. In addition to that, I think that the otherwise would cause a Streisand effect instead. (and that's why the people tend to press the buttons even though it's marked as "DON'T PRESS THIS BUTTON!")
  • Of course, the risk of flooding is present, as the Scratch Team inspects the every single comment manually, and I also see how can this be abused very quickly and would put a significant burden to the Scratch Team's resources. However, as I've pointed out in the first item, that tends to be a small concern while weighing the information itself and its possible impacts (I also think that this page doesn't and probably will not even get the enough attention that would cause a huge flooding from the users as the topic itself is very obscure; I am thinking that even our featured articles doesn't get above 1000 views, even though I am unable to verify directly as I have no access to that data)
  • Of course, I am sure that the admins are doing its own evaluation but we've already put some controversial or contentious issues to the articles before (like the article of Kaj, or a detailed description of SQL injection attack, even though it will not work on Scratch) and it didn't seem to cause serious problems (at least from what I've known)
  • And yes, one of the important problems is abusing that feature is unfortunately very easy and requires near to none technical knowledge, but the same applies to false reporting etc. Of course, while it is unanimously precise that you will be banned on the false report and therefore making that is nonsensical; it may (or may not) apply to comments and there's nothing to deter you from doing this other than a possible warning on this page - as opposed to reports; as well as the possibility of a distributed, collective abuse is definitively irritating even if it's very unlikely.
In conclusion, whilst I am wittingly abstaining from giving a concise and a final reply in favor of "yes" or "no" to be neutral, it's almost certain that a malicious actor would get that information very easily, putting here or another place will probably not change that outcome. However, it's also important to not to underestimate human behaviors and conduct; even though I am in favor of putting nearly every information about Scratch to the wiki that doesn't violate the existing in-wiki rules, and laws, as well as the Community Guidelines; as pointed on predating replies.
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
15:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Ahmetli, AutoModMute is checked by a bot. The ST doesn't review Automodmute, the bot does. Also, this talk page is indexed when you search 'AUTOMODMUTE'.
SpiderLogo.png Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 12:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
While the filter is applied by a bot, there is a log that the Scratch Team checks to proactively find misbehaving users, and people unnecessarily posting automodmute would result in a lot more entries in that log, making it harder to find people who were muted for saying actual bad things. Additionally, a user has confirmed receiving an alert for unnecessarily posting it. I'm not too worried about this coming up when you search the phrase, since that requires knowing the phrase in the first place.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
My opinion: Currently so few people know about it, adding it to the wiki would make it be tested more. Later, it might be the opposite. If someone sees a comment, and checks the wiki and it is not there, they are more likely to test it than if they just saw it on the wiki. If someone sees it on both, they are even less likely to test it. We should add it once word has spread on the main site enough that the number of more times it is tested because of the wiki article is less than the testing it stop. The issue is it is VERY hard to know when that point is reached. We don't know anything. How many people see it on the main site? On the wiki? What is the likelihood of someone testing it if they see if on the main site? on the wiki? on both?. Ideally, it would be hard to miss, and rare to stumble upon. We could put it on a q and a page, or on the article hidden some ware to help decrease the likelihood of if being found by mistake. This talk mage might be helping somewhat. 
29590234_18x18.png Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 22:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I really don't follow your argument. I think my original point still stands: 1. There is no real educational or documentation value to including it and 2. we don't want to potentially influence users to post it. The whole point of not including it in this article is so phrase does not spread on the main site, so the situation you're suggesting of a lot of people knowing it ideally shouldn't happen in the first place. We also should never make something on the Wiki "hidden" - either something deserves to be here and accessible to all or it shouldn't be here at all. Intentionally making something obscure while still including it goes against the notion of what a Wiki should be.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(@jvvg) While I do agree with your opinion (it doesn't really make sense to show this in the article since it has no value), I think that what Ideapad-320 is saying is that if someone sees a comments like this
You can't comment the words "auto" then "mod" then "mute"

– Anybody

they're likely to check the wiki, and when it's not there, test it. Now, if it's on the wiki, this person then knows that it's true and that they don't need to test it.

I definitely think that we should not include this, though, because it has no real purpose. It's not like anyone here needs to test a mute, and we don't include things like "discord". For now, No No support, because I don't really see a reason to have it.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribsprofile 22:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.