User:Aichon/Archive 2013

Aichon:Talk Archive 2013

• Main
• Characters
• Sandbox

• Talk
• Userscripts
• Other

Aichon

ˈīˌkän :Talk Archive 2013

Announcement: I'm no longer active. My talk page is still your best bet to get in touch. —Aichon— 04:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive. Don't post here.

If you have anything you'd like to add to one of these conversations, then go to my talk page, reference the relevant conversation from here, and post your comments there. This page should not be edited by others. These are all messages I've filed away. They shouldn't be changed or added to, since the contexts of the situations have been lost, forgotten, or could simply be remembered differently by the involved parties. I'd prefer to start any of these conversations fresh, if they must come up again.

Archives: 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | To do

Self bans

Never recorded them before. think we should go back and add them all? --Rosslessness 23:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going off of Matthewfarenheit's and SA's, both of which are recorded on A/VD. What others are there? I'm not even aware of any off the top of my head. If it's not too much work, then yeah, I would go back and record them, that way no one assumes something incorrect later. —Aichon— 23:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Me, several times, grims, technically I think as part of the coup, a handful of sysops. It's not a lot, I have a sneaking suspicion a couple of demotions came with such requests. There's not a lot, it's digging them up. Can we make bob do it? --Rosslessness 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...well, I don't know about temporary self-requested bans, such as the ones I know you've requested in the past. I was more thinking of permabans that have been requested. The temporary variety will handle themselves after awhile, whereas the perma ones needs some sort of action to take place in order for them to be overturned, so having a paper trail helps. And Bob can't exactly do it unless he has access to A/VD, which he doesn't want for another few months. —Aichon— 00:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mine wasn't a self ban, I was banned due to misconduct you sillies.--SA 00:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you delete everything? --Rosslessness 00:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You also requested a permaban. The misconduct thing was only a six-month ban. Your old account was actually unblocked back in March 2011 after you apparently requested to come back to DDR or one of the other sysops. —Aichon— 00:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I requested a perma as my misconduct punishment. Its called context, silly! You guys settled on the six month thing. :| I was able to start editing again because I moved and therefor had a new IP address to fuck about with, I never requested to be unbanned. It just happened like that :D --SA 00:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't around for it, but see this. Block log confirms you were unblocked that day. As for punishment, there's a policy against sysops enforcing their own punishment, so your request had no bearing on the decision for what punishment to enact. We just figured you didn't want to deal with the wiki any more. :P —Aichon— 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, lol, that you created your SA account and then told someone you wanted to come back is the reason why your old one was unbanned. You even commented on it at the time. —Aichon— 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I never requested a self ban, I requested a perma ban as my punishment. You guys settled on a sixer+self ban though. And I, as stated, got mad at Thad and decided to edit again. Not my fault you guys left an opening!--SA 00:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's anyone's fault that you did something we were hoping you'd do. :D —Aichon— 00:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure DDR just unblocked everything since I said I was back. I dunno. Important thing is I still maintain that the "self ban" was actually a misconduct ban!--SA 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Pfft, whatever. That's not a valid request, so it could only be treated as a self-request. Obvious. Wikilaw 101 stuff. —Aichon— 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Before he was talking about having forgotten the password. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A bunch of the cases I found are ambiguous. From the demotions archive all I could find was this which you guys mentioned above, and a discussion of a possible ban with this request by Ross. Is this equivalent to a self-ban? And I'm assuming we're not counting Generaloberst repeatedly reporting himself to A/VB as an attempted self-ban.

Here are the (largely) unambiguous ones I've got from A/VB: Thad, Axe, Poodle, TripleU, Axe, Poodle, more Poodle, Ross, WanYao, Janus Abernathy, DDR, Thekooks.

Also, I never realized how totally crazy some of the A/VB archives are. Personal favorite. And how inconsistent the formatting is. Why did we switch from having the navbar at the top to the bottom in January 2010? And that we only started using {{v}} in December of 2009. Looking through ones before that was a hundred times more difficult. I'm only as far back as January 2008, since the lists get longer and longer and more and more disheveled as you go back in time. Will get to the rest later tonight. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The VB archives are some of the funnest times in the wiki's history, along with A/M. You will enjoy reading some of those cases :D --SA 02:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, if you keep this up, your name will become a verb synonymous with "being way too thorough". Then again, I suppose I've been accused of that in the past as well...

And yeah, the archives are kinda insane to go through, but if you think they're bad, try to make sense of A/VD records from the early days. That's why my ongoing project of linkifying A/VD is such a start-and-stop affair that manages to hit a snag every time I go through more than about a dozen users. And I'm even outright staying away from some of them for the time being, since they're so convoluted. —Aichon— 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Remainder: Hagnat and Hagnat again. Brizth. Gold Blade's case is weird. DarkStar2374383 and Wanker are both self-reporters. Also, maybe this? Hard to discern. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wathe is an alt of the 3pwv(3 page wiki vandal) who was a prolific vandal back in the day and liked to point out and claim credit for his actions. He was reporting himself for his ego but had actually committed tons of vandal edits, per normal. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, wasn't hagnat a/m'd for those? A ZOMBIE ANT 03:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

yip

unpromote him immediately --Rosslessness 10:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mis

We should really do something about his bid. --Rosslessness 19:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I literally hit the + on your talk page to post something when I saw my talk page had been edited. Whad'ya have in mind? —Aichon— 19:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe an old, old wooden ship from the civil war era? --Rosslessness 19:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which civil war are we talking about? American? Spanish? Something else? —Aichon— 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was giving the situation the level of seriousness I thought it deserved. American. --Rosslessness 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, contrary to what you may think, Americans don't all keep Civil War era ships in their backyard, so I do not have one I can provide for this situation. —Aichon— 19:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. There's only so far you can go in urban dead without turning up Ron Burgundy --Rosslessness 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't a fan of the movie, and the player predates me, so I miss a lot of references. —Aichon— 20:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So, seriously, what are your thoughts? —Aichon— 20:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fails the important criteria of level of contribution. Cute, but not that cute. --Rosslessness 20:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, despite the overwhelming levels of support he's receiving (most of which is either joking or clearly assuming that his bid is a joke), as well as the check that he assures me is in the mail, I'm leaning towards a "no" on this one. He's actually not too far off on his activity, but I'd want to see it up a bit higher. If his activity picked up a bit more, or he was clearly serious about it and had had increased activity recently, or even if this was just a re-eval after one of his terms, that would be different, but this is none of those. —Aichon— 20:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

An excellent summary. --Rosslessness 20:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, can you explain how you define his activity as "not too far off"? Because I think it's terrible? --Rosslessness 21:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

He has around 250 edits in the last six months, which is about halfway there. I'm willing to give a bit of extra leeway to former sysops who have a good record and left on good terms. —Aichon— 21:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, I frame the question "How long has he taken to make 500 edits?", which gives the slightly more concerning answer of "Summer 2011". --Rosslessness 21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well, but he's had increased activity in the last year, though not enough to get to a point where I'd be okay with a promotion. —Aichon— 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Twice this week I've found unexpected interpretations of udwiki criteria. I'm obviously too set in my ways. --Rosslessness 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, the deletions thing was a brainfart by me. Should've made more sense to me at the time. You're not too old just yet. <3 --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 22:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And the contributions thing is just different ways of viewing it. Whereas you view it as, "How far back do I have to go to see 500 contributions?", I view it as, "How many contributions did they have in the last six months?" Both are valid, but I think my way is less susceptible to weirdness that can occur when someone comes back from inactivity. As for the deletions thing, that tallying you did made things a breeze to double-check. It's easy to understand why you did that as you did, and I certainly don't blame you for it, since I'm pretty sure I have seen people do it that way in the past. Nonetheless, it's one of those things where even if it might be standard operating procedure, it needs to be fixed (and I'm not saying it is SOP, just that that wouldn't be an excuse to keep it as it is). —Aichon— 22:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

hate you guys :( 23:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

<3 u —Aichon— 23:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)