User talk:Office of Disinformation

Office of Disinformation 00:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How I look at it.
Ok, if I am in the wrong, I am sorry, but you don't realize how many vandals run through Wikipedia. First off on a side note, never piggy back on someones views and if you do, make sure you state what policies you think this thing violates or whatever yourself. This is how I see it. You made one vote using one reason, then changed it using the exact same reason without any extra explanation. I don't find that likely. Also, another side note. While in debates, don't delete anything. Add on to it and cross out the stuff that no longer applies. like this → like this. Sorry if there are any mistakes in this reply; I'm running on a half tank of gas.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 11:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the edis when I reverted you and due to your explanation I just looked at them again. You only changed one word, your vote. So, what does that have to do with grammar?  I Help, When I Can. [12] 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor grammar edit ≠ changing entire vote using same rationale.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 12:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read some sections of WP:ATA.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 12:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. That was the missing puzzle piece. I am so sorry. It's been a long day/evening for me. Didn't mean to jump on you.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 12:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What interests do you have?  I Help, When I Can. [12] 12:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds wonderful. Have a good day! :D.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 12:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your email
In brief, none of the access controls for Wikipedia-related software is 100% robust. The source code for most of the automated tools are publicly available, and a sufficiently technically sophisticated user can bypass the checks. The whole thing is more of a social construct than a complete technical restriction: the permissions process allows us to identify users who can be trusted to operate those tools; the others, if they really want to, can bypass it at their own peril. If they abuse them, then they likely will be blocked, and the fact of bypassing will likely be considered a factor in aggravation. If they don't abuse them, well, good for them. Moreover, nothing stops a malicious user from writing their own automated tool, which is probably much easier than trying to hack some existing code written for a different purpose. T. Canens (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)