:wtf: How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread)
-
https://meta.discourse.org/t/cannot-delete-user-make-sure-all-posts-are-deleted/25233
Holy fuck, really? Three year issue?
@julianlam tell me that there's no such thing as "unable to delete user" in NodeBB...
-
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
unable to delete user
Can we test on fbwargharbpuppet7?
-
-
@tsaukpaetra Personally, I'd have jeffed it instead of locking it and requiring a new one, but this is the `installation' category - a feature request goes in the 'feature' section.
-
@pie_flavor How is it a feature request? He ran into an issue in his installation and asked if it was possible to continue with his setup
-
@tsaukpaetra Oop, you poked the bear.
And yeah, it makes a ton of sense actually. Everything has a creator, and if everything expects one, and there's ever a state where there isn't one, brokenness ensues. So before you delete a user, you have to purge all their posts and DMs, move ownership of groups and creatorship of categories, etc.
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@tsaukpaetra Oop, you poked the bear.
And yeah, it makes a ton of sense actually. Everything has a creator, and if everything expects one, and there's ever a state where there isn't one, brokenness ensues. So before you delete a user, you have to purge all their posts and DMs, move ownership of groups and creatorship of categories, etc.
Exactly. And apparently the button that's supposed to do this (complete with a "Holy fuck, you better be sure about this" dialog) doesn't.
-
@tsaukpaetra There's a button to purge all the posts, sure. But do you delete DM threads or just the messages? Who is the new owner of the groups? Who is the new creator of the category? You can't have a button for everything.
-
@pie_flavor so you just leave it completely opaque and give no indication as to what needs to be changed. Sounds like a much better option
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@tsaukpaetra There's a button to purge all the posts, sure. But do you delete DM threads or just the messages? Who is the new owner of the groups? Who is the new creator of the category? You can't have a button for everything.
Well then, they should remove the "delete user" button too, all it does is add the need for more buttons!
I don't understand the reasoning here. Yes, it might be a tricky problem. No, it does not excuse the fact that a feature that's right there in the control panel does not work. Either make deletion work, or just make it a soft-delete, and all the fields that should show the original poster/owner in the UI just say
deleted
or something.
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@tsaukpaetra Oop, you poked the bear.
And yeah, it makes a ton of sense actually. Everything has a creator, and if everything expects one, and there's ever a state where there isn't one, brokenness ensues. So before you delete a user, you have to purge all their posts and DMs, move ownership of groups and creatorship of categories, etc.
: I've got 99 problems but referential integrity ain't one!
-
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
https://meta.discourse.org/t/no-domain
Wait, really? I can understand potential confusion in shared-hosting situations, but flat out "it doesn't work, fuck off"?
No, seriously - Fuck Off:
-
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
https://meta.discourse.org/t/cannot-delete-user-make-sure-all-posts-are-deleted/25233
Holy fuck, really? Three year issue?
I seem to vaguely remember a problem like that. Couldn't delete the user because they had -1 posts for some unknown reason...
-
@pjh said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
https://meta.discourse.org/t/cannot-delete-user-make-sure-all-posts-are-deleted/25233
Holy fuck, really? Three year issue?
I seem to vaguely remember a problem like that. Couldn't delete the user because they had -1 posts for some unknown reason...
I mean, that's always the problem with deleting from a relational database (not the -1, that's just discocounting). How Stalin do you go? If you delete their posts, what about all the posts that reference the person?
-
@user1709812364 said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
If you delete their posts, what about all the posts that reference the person?
That's enough dissent from you...
-
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
Wait, really? I can understand potential confusion in shared-hosting situations, but flat out "it doesn't work, fuck off"?
Tobe Fair, doing something difficult and unthinkable as hosting a website on an IP Address is a hugely complex thing, and would take at least $10,000 in engineering time just to plan out how to do it.
I mean, IP addresses are horrifically complex things. It's not like domain URLs, right? IP addresses can't Identify a Resource Universally or anything. Fuck off with your space-man coding.
Seriously, okay? You think changing the Site's URL to an IP address is as simple as, say, changing two lines in a .config file or something?
define('WP_HOME','http://192.0.2.0/~username');
define('WP_SITEURL','http://192.0.2.0/~username');
Madness, I tell you!
-
@pjh said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
No, seriously - Fuck Off:
lol @pie_flavor how does your savior's stinky butthole taste now?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@julianlam tell me that there's no such thing as "unable to delete user" in NodeBB...
Can't see the linked post, but from what I can gather from the replies here, I don't think NodeBB has the same issue. If you delete a user all the posts go along with it.
However, we also implemented this crazy idea where you can delete a user but also keep the posts. They're just orphaned, and considered posted by "guests"... kind of like GitHub's "ghost" user.
-
@julianlam said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
However, we also implemented this crazy idea where you can delete a user but also keep the posts. They're just orphaned, and considered posted by "guests"... kind of like GitHub's "ghost" user.
BURN THE WITCH!
-
@boomzilla said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@pjh said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
https://meta.discourse.org/t/cannot-delete-user-make-sure-all-posts-are-deleted/25233
Holy fuck, really? Three year issue?
I seem to vaguely remember a problem like that. Couldn't delete the user because they had -1 posts for some unknown reason...
I mean, that's always the problem with deleting from a relational database (not the -1, that's just discocounting). How Stalin do you go? If you delete their posts, what about all the posts that reference the person?
That's what ON DELETE CASCADE is for. Bonus points if deleting a user wipes out 75% of the forum because everything references everything else...
-
@mott555 said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
Bonus points if deleting a user wipes out 75% of the forum because everything references everything else...
Now I'm wonder how that is going to go with Discourses performance track ...
-
@mott555 said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
That's what ON DELETE CASCADE is for.
That requires foreign keys though. You obviously haven't seen Discourse database...
-
@onyx said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
You obviously haven't seen Discourse database...
I once got duped into following a link that had a video of a guy getting entangled in a lathe and dying a horrible death. I avoided looking at Discourse's source code because I never want to see anything that level of horrifying again.
-
I liked
ON DELETE CASCADE
back when I was slingin' PHP... it just made sense... although I probably couldn't say the same for the people who came after me.If you don't know what the key relationships are, then deletion cascades are a lot of fun /s.
-
@julianlam said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
I liked ON DELETE CASCADE back when I was slingin' PHP... it just made sense... although I probably couldn't say the same for the people who came after me.
That makes deletes too quick and impersonal for my taste.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@julianlam said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
I liked ON DELETE CASCADE back when I was slingin' PHP... it just made sense... although I probably couldn't say the same for the people who came after me.
That makes deletes too quick and impersonal for my taste.
You prefer to make them linger in pain for a while? Sounds like a communist to me!
-
@julianlam said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
I liked
ON DELETE CASCADE
back when I was slingin' PHP... it just made sense... although I probably couldn't say the same for the people who came after me.If you don't know what the key relationships are, then deletion cascades are a lot of fun /s.
I like it for simpler database designs, but on anything complicated or hard to fathom it kind of scares me. Sometimes I'd rather walk the database myself and roll my own deletion code just so I know exactly what's covered (or can update things some other way), rather than risk taking the system down because of a set of keys with ON DELETE CASCADE that I totally forgot about ended up deleting a bunch of stuff elsewhere.
-
@mott555 said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
risk taking the system down because of a set of keys with ON DELETE CASCADE that I totally forgot about ended up deleting a bunch of stuff elsewhere.
Or have it fail inexplicably or in otherwise odd ways.
Eventually consistent, in a leaking memory kind of way...
-
S-RANK DISCOFEATURE ALERT
If you choose to edit it, you will be presented with a new text area. Any edits made wonโt be tracked as staff members are presumably removing toxic content or personal information.
Any edits made wonโt be tracked as staff members are presumably removing toxic content or personal information.
-
@izzion How does that not make sense? If tracking was left on, then you'd be able to see the edit history and see the information that was supposed to be removed, whereas if the edits are untracked then the history is unviewable and all you can see is the moderated version.
[Except that mods can already delete edit history in both NodeBB and Discourse -bl]
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
the infowmation that was supposed to be wemuvd,
Therein lies the problem. You trust the mods to not abuse this at all?
-
@tsaukpaetra Abuse what? This prevents abuse, so stuff like PII is permanently purged.
-
@pie_flavor
The edit should be tracked.The original source material should be destroyable.
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
Abuse what? This pwevents abuse, so stuff wike PII is pewmanyentwy puwged.
Alternatively, ghost editing to plant incriminating evidence that, for all intents and purposes, appears as if the user themselves did it.
I say, allow the edit, but mark the part that was replaced as "Mod view only", otherwise accountability and traceability comes under question.
-
@boomzilla said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@pjh said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
https://meta.discourse.org/t/cannot-delete-user-make-sure-all-posts-are-deleted/25233
Holy fuck, really? Three year issue?
I seem to vaguely remember a problem like that. Couldn't delete the user because they had -1 posts for some unknown reason...
I mean, that's always the problem with deleting from a relational database (not the -1, that's just discocounting). How Stalin do you go? If you delete their posts, what about all the posts that reference the person?
If you delete a user and you don't want to delete their posts, you set all the posts as posted by a guest before deleting them. That can be done in a single SQL query before the delete.
-
@mott555 said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@boomzilla said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@pjh said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@tsaukpaetra said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
https://meta.discourse.org/t/cannot-delete-user-make-sure-all-posts-are-deleted/25233
Holy fuck, really? Three year issue?
I seem to vaguely remember a problem like that. Couldn't delete the user because they had -1 posts for some unknown reason...
I mean, that's always the problem with deleting from a relational database (not the -1, that's just discocounting). How Stalin do you go? If you delete their posts, what about all the posts that reference the person?
That's what ON DELETE CASCADE is for. Bonus points if deleting a user wipes out 75% of the forum because everything references everything else...
Coder challenge: design a database that seems reasonable but performing a specific operation that you could do without being an admin (or
feasibly trick an admin into doing) destroys a significant amount of data.
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@izzion How does that not make sense? If tracking was left on, then you'd be able to see the edit history and see the information that was supposed to be removed, whereas if the edits are untracked then the history is unviewable and all you can see is the moderated version.
[Except that mods can already delete edit history in both NodeBB and Discourse -bl]
@pie_flavor, check your post's edit history. This was already a feature Discourse had before we moved off it.
-
@ben_lubar So? This only comes into effect if you decide to edit the post in the first place, and only as part of that specific moderation action. Basically, it's just one less button to click, since there's literally no reason you'd want the edit history left intact.
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
there's literally no reason you'd want...
Sounding more like Jeff every day.
-
@jaloopa Ok, then, what's the reason? Why would you want to edit a post, as a moderation action, to remove extremely harmful information from it, after determining that it's bad enough to suspend or mute someone for, and yet leave the information that you've removed behind?
And you can always choose 'do nothing' and then edit the post normally anyway.
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
what's the reason?
so moderators are infallible? or was it immutable like a hurricane? I'm getting these two mixed up sometimes.
funny thing is that before Jeff passed here I would have agreed with you. Post-Jeff I disagree strongly. That assclown messed with the content of posts without reason.
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@ben_lubar So? This only comes into effect if you decide to edit the post in the first place, and only as part of that specific moderation action. Basically, it's just one less button to click, since there's literally no reason you'd want the edit history left intact.
No, I literally still would want to see that a moderator did something even if the previous information wasn't there.
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@jaloopa Ok, then, what's the reason? Why would you want to edit a post, as a moderation action, to remove extremely harmful information from it, after determining that it's bad enough to suspend or mute someone for, and yet leave the information that you've removed behind?
No one said they wanted to do that. Literally no one. We want to be able to edit it, have the post reflect that it was edited by a moderator and then purge the original version. So you know that it was edited but you can't see what was there previously.
-
@boomzilla I strongly agree here. Ghost edits are way too abusable. Mark it as "edited by moderators" but get rid of the contents.
-
@luhmann said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
That assclown messed with the content of posts without reason.
Sometimes there was a reason.
I posted an example of a bug regarding formatting, for example.
Rather than address the bug he " - you need to do this instead," and edited my post to remove the symptoms.
-
@pjh said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
Sometimes there was a reason.
there are very few valid reasons to actually change what someone else said
-
@pie_flavor said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
@jaloopa Ok, then, what's the reason? Why would you want to edit a post, as a moderation action, to remove extremely harmful information from it, after determining that it's bad enough to suspend or mute someone for, and yet leave the information that you've removed behind?
And you can always choose 'do nothing' and then edit the post normally anyway.
Why not outright delete such a post and at least track that it was a moderator who deleted it?
-
@luhmann said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
there are very few valid reasons to actually change what someone else said
I dare you to point to where I mentioned any sort of coherent reasoning behind the change, in my post.
@luhmann said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
there are very few valid reasons to actually change what someone else said
Well in my case it was formatting, not the words he changed.
-
@pie_flavor
The primary reason you would want the edit audited is to be able to respond to user complaints of inappropriate modding.Mod status doesn't come with (or require) sainthood. The watchers need to be watched as well, and if they have a method by which they can perform moderation actions without any auditing at all, then there's real temptation there to do real harm. (An over the top hypothetical from here - if Polygeekery had the ability to edit masonwheeler's posts without any audit trail, he could cause some major mischief while chasing after mason with flamethrower).
You could easily balance both requirements by allowing a moderation edit to flag "do not save original version of this post", and then have the edit history show:
Before: "This post was removed by moderation action"
After: "Here's the new content of the post, "
Edited by: @warthog
Edit time: The Day after Hell Freezes, 1:07am
-
@pjh said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
any sort of coherent reasoning behind the change
Never claimed there was in this case
@pjh said in How can this be so wrong??? (AKA the Discopocalypse thread):
formatting
yes but quite instrumental to the subject