Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20150119093006/@comment-4189499-20150121223624

The idea of an abuse filter is not to use a default one copied from elsewhere but to configure our own once the settings are activated. I can figure out the technical details for the configuration. This means we can not include certain words in its preventative searches to help the Richards (or Dicksons, as in your case) of this world who like shortening their names to Dick (side note: I once had a teacher called Richard Head. I'll let you imagine the jokes). It can also be made to show a warning if a user tries to perform a prevented action, allowing them to understand why we don't allow that sort of thing and come to a better understanding of our policies here. It can also give access to a bug report place in case somebody can't manage to get a legitimate post to work.

The reason that this is better than just admin deletion is that
 * 1) It would take a lot of work off admin hands, and will eliminate the need for one to constantly be online.
 * 2) The user would be actually physically prevented from performing the restricted action, meaning that there wouldn't be a time period for offending words to be seen before being taken down.  It also means that admins of a more innocent personality would not have to read the offending words to take them down.
 * 3) The user who is attempting to get a word we don't want on the wiki will be told that it is not something acceptable here, allowing us to assume good faith and let them rephrase their own post to remove the offending word, and avoiding the need for blockage.
 * 4) Testing can be done on the abuse filter before setting it to perform any actions to monitor it for false positives.
 * 5) Admins will still be present to remove abuse in other forms.  However, since swearing is so taboo here, it might just be easier to agree on a list of words to permanently block off.
 * 6) While I doubt it would work on chat, I think it would still work on comments since they are considered edits to their own pages by the software.

If you agree, once I've fixed the Firefox bug in the navbar (I'm still working on it!), I'll enable a filter which only logs matches for us to check its effectiveness without disturbing regular editing. Sound good to you?