Talk:2022-04-12 Censor Outage

Deserves its own article

In my opinion this is a pretty major event (and we will see soon enough just how major it is), so I think it deserves its own article.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Agreed this is definitely notable enough to deserve its own article particularly with what's been going on with spam and targeting users with inappropriate language.
Adzboy (talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Merging is premature for a current event. If not enough information exists after things are settled then we can consider it more properly.
kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  20:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Similarly, there's an article for the Studio Update.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't think we should merge it

I really think since this was such a major event it shouldn't be merged with Censor.
-gr (talk | contribs) 22:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Just realized the discussion above this is kinda talking about the same thing..? Sorry!
-gr (talk | contribs) 22:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Controversy?

Would it be acceptable to put something about the Scratch Team hiding a twitter post saying the filterbot was broken, gaining controversy?
-unsigned comment by dertermenter (talk | contribs)

Hmm, I'm not sure. I'll have to keep an eye on this to see how it goes. Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~ so we can see who made the post.
Adzboy • Talk • Contributions • Scratch Profile 18:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's notable. I saw quite a few forum posts criticizing the Scratch Team about this.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 20:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there really a reference here?

After the filterbot outage, Questions about Scratch exploded with filterbot questions. Users wanted to know what happened with the filterbot. I had consulted the wiki for answers, and apparently, users had made accounts with usernames that broke the guidelines when the censor was removed. I had never seen these accounts, but I was honestly not surprised.

I made several posts regarding the filterbot based on what I knew and what the wiki said. One of those posts became Reference 1 in this article. So basically, I used the wiki as a reference for my post, and they used my post as a reference for the wiki. Now, I take their word for it, but I'm just wondering: Is this (likely unintentional) circular reasoning a potential problem for the wiki, or is it okay?
Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 23:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That's kind of amusing. Thank you for pointing this out. I do think it is a problem, since the wiki is indirectly citing itself (or rather, indirectly citing information from itself). It looks like the information was originally added in this edit, citing a now-deleted topic. That reference is still in the article (#4), so I suppose it could also be used for the statement that reference #1 is currently used for. Of course, it would be preferable if the link wasn't dead, but unfortunately the topic is not saved in the Wayback Machine.
bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of, I'm not sure if Reference 2 works. I think a reference is needed for the phone number filter being down, not its existence.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 01:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried to find a post about it with a search engine, and I found something. I think that it references the full sentence, not just the latter portion of the sentence. I also believe it could apply to Reference 4.

I can't find anything specifically about phone number censors, @Jackson49, but the post I mentioned, if combined with the sentence before it, could reference the entire sentence as one big filterbot outage issue, and not just the separate types of spam that it did not censor.

What are your thoughts on this (anyone)?
Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 01:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Twitter links

It is generally accepted practice that it is ok to link to official Scratch Team Twitter messages. We do this in other articles, such as Scratch2017BDX. Additionally, for this article it is the most reliable source we have available and necessary to verify our claims.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok
Adzboy • Talk • Contributions • Scratch Profile 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The Scratch Team linked to it on the main website, so I think it's fine to link to it here.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I added the links back. I think there was enough support to do so, but if I'm wrong, please revert my edit.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 19:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)