UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/hagnat vs. Amazing
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
hagnat vs. Amazing
Is this ready to be archived yet? -Kb
Amazing is using the namespaces pages as templates exploit to call User:Amazing/Amazingiswatching inside the Crossman Defense Force. While the input code is inside the code for the CDF page (which is Amazing domain), the output of this code is shown outside the page, just above the UrbanDead logo in the left-top of the page (which is public domain). If we allow any kind of messages to be written outside the borders of any page, we might start seeing people creating pages that dont use the wiki interace at all. --hagnat mod 19:04, 29 May 2006 (BST)
- Arbiters: i will accept anyone but Scinfaxi, Jjames and Amazing (for obvious reasons). --hagnat mod 19:04, 29 May 2006 (BST)
- I offer to Arbitrate--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 19:06, 29 May 2006 (BST)
- Denied. -- Amazing 19:08, 29 May 2006 (BST)
- I offer to Arbitrate--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 19:06, 29 May 2006 (BST)
Responce: THIS BELONGS IN POLICY DISCUSSION, so we can clearly see this is not really started for the purpose stated. Want to prevent abuse of DIVs? Then make a guideline through a vote. Userspace and Group Pages are the domain of the user or group. Nothing damaging is being done, in fact hagnat has said his only reason for this is that others might misuse it in the future. This is simply another case of someone who doesn't like me finding something to pick at me about. Comes soon after me listing Hagnat as enemy #1 of Malton Neighborhood Watch and Crossman Defense Force zombie list. The same DIVs hagnat is referring to have been up for a solid while before he suddenly decided to remove one. He didn't remove the one from my userpage, only the page that lists him as an enemy. Nuff said. -- Amazing 19:08, 29 May 2006 (BST)
- Arbiters: I will accept Conndraka, Cyberbob240, Karlsbad, LibrarianBrent, Mia Kristos, The General, Tycho44, or Wyndal. -- Amazing 19:10, 29 May 2006 (BST)
My reasons has nothing to do with me being ranked #1 on your page amazing. I am laughing at that rank, btw, since i am noone in the game, and find it highly entertaining. My reasons on this is that it brings bad precedence, where if we try to remove this kind of thing in other cases it could be argued that we let you (or anyone else for that matters) use it. --hagnat mod 19:15, 29 May 2006 (BST)
- Xoid and everybody, only comment that are directly helpful to the case. this is not going to be wikigate 2. if you want to say something, stuff it. seriously. only technical comments allowed. This is going to be handled quick and easy without any flaming or trolling allowed.--Vista 19:13, 29 May 2006 (BST)
- To clarify: What are the motives to remove it? Right, because it's me. Anyway - It is a spoof of the very common "STREETS IS WATCHING" quotation, placed somewhere that folks will see it and go: "Waugh! Amazing is watching!!" - As you can see from the history of the page (if you care to look in the first place?) the link was an afterthought. It's a joke similar to the fact "New Message" notation set up by another user. I get enough hits without having to rely on the two or three people that may click in from this Wiki per year. -- Amazing 19:17, 29 May 2006 (BST)
Only to note, i always do what i think its best for the wiki as a whole. If it were to piss you, Amazing, i could have find very attractive ways to do so a long time ago --hagnat mod 19:29, 29 May 2006 (BST)
Additional Note: It should be noted that I do not support the use of such DIVs anywhere besides Userpages and Group pages, which are not 'public property', and even then only by the page owners. If a hypothetical user wants to block the entire menu and be an idiot on his own userpage, I think that's his problem. -- Amazing 19:31, 29 May 2006 (BST)
The ruling. I can see the problem hagnat has with it and he has an point. on the other hand I don't believe in the sliding scale. So we can allow one thing without having to resort to allow everything. This had the intended effect on me, it got a small chuckle and I wondered how it was done. same as all those userboxes did during the time they were fresh and I have no doubt that at the end of the week it will be just as old and just as annoying. But to avoid the same problems we had with userboxes:
- Only usable on pages owned by the user himself.
- only 25 characters of plain text, no pictures, no links, no line breaks. no changing of font size, no nothing. the only thing allowed is standard roman characters. the only deviations are capital letters, italics and bolding. changing font color is also allowed.
- all other normal editing limitations apply.
-Thats it. if somebody has extra questions about this ruling. ask it here. if you want to rant at me, Hagnat or Amazing use our user talk pages.--Vista 20:11, 29 May 2006 (BST)
- Sounds about right. One question - does point 1 include Group pages or should I remove that? -- Amazing 01:23, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- It includes group pages.--Vista 08:13, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- What about using them to fake system messages? Amazing's "This user must not be antagonized." (at the top of his user page, outside of the body content) concerns me more than his "watching". I know it's not a standard format for any real warning, but it looks like it's something other than the user-written content of his page. --Punchkin 02:04, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- I don't believe for a second that you or anyone else would believe someone would think that's an "official" message. -- Amazing 04:03, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- I first noticed it during Wikigate and briefly assumed it was put there by a mod as the result of a ruling. I imagine a wiki-naive user could think the same. Can I ask why you put it there and what purpose you think it's serving? --Punchkin 17:00, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- You can ask, but you already know the answer (IE: Joke) so really your reason for asking is suspect. Drama Drama. -- Amazing 23:18, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Okay, I'll go with good faith on this: it's a joke system message for some reason and you didn't stop to think that a new user might take it seriously, and don't care now that this has been pointed out. This ruling still requires you to cut it down to six characters (I assume the 25 characters is "in total", otherwise people could just string them together) and remove the bullet points and underlining. --Punchkin 02:33, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- It's not a "system message", even as a joke. That space is not for system messages at all... It's more akin to a template saying: "This user or group must not..." etc. etc.
- I don't believe it needs to be cut to 6 characters, and I think the person who actually made the ruling should be the one saying what you're presuming if it's so. Also, I thought bullets were part of 'regular text'. -- Amazing 02:43, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- I know it's not a valid system message format, I'm just saying it looks like one. To a reader who assumes that users can only edit the main body of their user pages, it looks like a moderator has added it. If being a fake system message wasn't part of the joke, then I really have no idea what the joke was, now. --Punchkin 03:04, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- Well, you have to step back and completely remove Moderators and System Messages from your thinking on this, since that wasn't in mine. Now - It's a message placed on my page by me myself, and I expected it to be seen that way - so the "joke" (though admittedly, we've gotten to a point where this isn't really a very GOOD joke, but what other term is there?) is that I'm telling people not to antagonize me as if there's any weight to my "demand". I guess the proper way to look at it is as if it were in the standard location at the top of my page in the are it'd be expected to be in. I put it next to my name at the top because it's a reference to me, and I figured it belonged in close proximity to my name, on the same line. Granted, this isn't some kind of comedic genius, it's just a (sarcastic?) statement made by myself in reference to the ongoing attacks/insults/defamation/antagonization I experience. I only intended it to carry as much "weight" as a standard Template, really. -- Amazing 03:09, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- I'm with amazing on this one. Some messages are standard to MediaWiki, some are not. It becomes obvious really quickly that his "must not be antagonised" warning is nothing more than just that — warning people not to antagonise him. (Or else he'll bog 'em down in arbitration cases… Mwhahaha. </slander>)
- Are you really sure you want to eliminate over-writing things, or fake system messages completely? Like with my cheeseburger example (for the former), or Grim s' rather eeeeevil fake "you've got new messages" template? (For the latter. Which I really should caught on to quicker. It's not like Uncyclopedia's "You've got nude massages." didn't have prepared me …) –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:38, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- Okay, I'll go with good faith on this: it's a joke system message for some reason and you didn't stop to think that a new user might take it seriously, and don't care now that this has been pointed out. This ruling still requires you to cut it down to six characters (I assume the 25 characters is "in total", otherwise people could just string them together) and remove the bullet points and underlining. --Punchkin 02:33, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- You can ask, but you already know the answer (IE: Joke) so really your reason for asking is suspect. Drama Drama. -- Amazing 23:18, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- I first noticed it during Wikigate and briefly assumed it was put there by a mod as the result of a ruling. I imagine a wiki-naive user could think the same. Can I ask why you put it there and what purpose you think it's serving? --Punchkin 17:00, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- I don't believe for a second that you or anyone else would believe someone would think that's an "official" message. -- Amazing 04:03, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Any message official or otherwise lends it authority from the position it is made not from it's formatting or its text. Just like some idiots reguarly claim jokingly to ban people, as they are not moderators, it's meaningless. If people mistake it for actual official talk the mistake is theirs -within reason ofcourse- --Vista 16:19, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- But a naive new user can't judge the position that a message is made from. Jokingly banning people (or threatening to ban them) should be quite serious if some new users are taking it at face value and being pushed around, shouldn't it? Claiming to have banned someone would of course be meaningless if the user tried to edit a page to check, but a threat of "I am a mod, stop posting suggestions or you're banned" would carry a lot of meaning. I assumed this would count as vandalism or something, but maybe I'm wrong. --Punchkin 17:00, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- It would, as I said all within reason. 'Bad faith' editing is the yard stick by which we measure. bullying a newby with banning him certianly would be bad faith. But even for a confused newbie amazings notice carries no penalty.--Vista 17:13, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- I think it's readable as an official-looking warning of "if this user has offended you, you may be punished for retaliating". Which is weak, I just think fake system messages should be more of a concern than "Amazing is watching" if we're discussing what should and shouldn't be allowed. --Punchkin 17:33, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Sorry, you're just trying to encourage more drama. That is all. -- Amazing 23:18, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Can't someone ask a question around here without you taking offense? MaulMachine U! 00:56, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- Yes. Also, what question? -- Amazing 01:07, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- No, I did actually say that this case was weak, I'm just answering Vista's point, and discussing an aspect of div abuse that he didn't mention in his ruling. I'm sorry if this sounds like drama to you. --Punchkin 02:33, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- Can't someone ask a question around here without you taking offense? MaulMachine U! 00:56, 1 June 2006 (BST)
- Sorry, you're just trying to encourage more drama. That is all. -- Amazing 23:18, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- I think it's readable as an official-looking warning of "if this user has offended you, you may be punished for retaliating". Which is weak, I just think fake system messages should be more of a concern than "Amazing is watching" if we're discussing what should and shouldn't be allowed. --Punchkin 17:33, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- It would, as I said all within reason. 'Bad faith' editing is the yard stick by which we measure. bullying a newby with banning him certianly would be bad faith. But even for a confused newbie amazings notice carries no penalty.--Vista 17:13, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- But a naive new user can't judge the position that a message is made from. Jokingly banning people (or threatening to ban them) should be quite serious if some new users are taking it at face value and being pushed around, shouldn't it? Claiming to have banned someone would of course be meaningless if the user tried to edit a page to check, but a threat of "I am a mod, stop posting suggestions or you're banned" would carry a lot of meaning. I assumed this would count as vandalism or something, but maybe I'm wrong. --Punchkin 17:00, 31 May 2006 (BST)
- Any message official or otherwise lends it authority from the position it is made not from it's formatting or its text. Just like some idiots reguarly claim jokingly to ban people, as they are not moderators, it's meaningless. If people mistake it for actual official talk the mistake is theirs -within reason ofcourse- --Vista 16:19, 31 May 2006 (BST)
What about other uses, such as this one: {{Custom Title|left|Cheeseburger}}, which you can't see unless you check the heading of the page, or until someone comments it out. While cheeseburger was a stupidity-fuelled example, there are legitimate uses for the template. –Xoid S•T•FU! 02:37, 31 May 2006 (BST)
