User talk:Kiki Lottaboobs/Sandbox

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< User talk:Kiki Lottaboobs
Revision as of 14:38, 5 September 2006 by Kiki Lottaboobs (talk | contribs) (→‎Comments)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

A Comment

Looks awesome, Kiki. One addition, though; in extreme cases (and I mean EXTREME), content on one's own user page can be considered warn/ban-worthy. I think it's only ever happened once - it was what got Amazing his yearlong ban. Cyberbob  Talk  17:16, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Thanks for the encouragement, this may be fighting windmills, but I'm enjoying it. Sure. Like what, exactly? What would be a good wording for it? I guess I'm not familiar with the offense, what was it that Amazing posted on his user page that got him banned? --Kiki Lottaboobs 17:28, 29 August 2006 (BST)
OK, I misspoke a little. You can have whatever you like on your user page, as long as it doesn't conflict with an Arbitration ruling. Arbitration > pretty much everything, AFAIK. There was an Arbitration ruling that neither Amazing or Rueful were allowed to speak either directly to or indirectly about one another, except for their talk pages. Amazing's comment about Rueful was on his actual user page, so he was in violation of the arbi ruling. Cyberbob  Talk  17:31, 29 August 2006 (BST)
PS: Are you sure you want to see what Amazing had there? It's pretty graphic. Cyberbob  Talk  17:32, 29 August 2006 (BST)
*giggles* I'll take your word for it. Ookay... I'll put in the bit about arbitration, that's a good point. Hey, I still need at least two things settled. One: is there a punishment for conspiring to vandalise the wiki? I mean, if you and I talked in detail about how I could best screw up the wiki, but I did the actual vandalism, would you be in the clear? Two: what is a woking definition of spam, and what are the rules as you see them on it? Thanks for the help, I'll work in the Arbitration thing. --Kiki Lottaboobs 17:38, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Nope, there's no current rule to say that you can be punished for conspiracy (unless you're helping a serial vandal like 3page, PQN or Amazing). On the topic of spam: no, there's no concrete, set in stone definition. I'm toying with siccing Bob onto writing up a policy to deal with that, as it's fairly important and I suck at policy-writing. Big time. Cyberbob  Talk  17:59, 29 August 2006 (BST)

HTML 2 XHTML

And fixed a pair of broken links. –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:56, 30 August 2006 (BST)

Deleting Content

I see that while I was fixing the HTML to be XHTML that you altered this section. It was previously correct, while now it is not. I'll dig up the diff in a minute. –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:56, 30 August 2006 (BST)

There. That's true for pretty much anything on "public" pages. You can remove signed comments, but only in their entirety, as editing them would fall under impersonation. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:15, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Xoid, I give my express permision to alter the stuff on the Precedent page if you think you can make it more accurate or more clear. --Kiki Lottaboobs 15:25, 30 August 2006 (BST)
For the most part, it's already there. From what I can see there are only minor things that can be added. You've done an amazing job. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:28, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Please, not an Amazing job. I'll settle for good. :)--Kiki Lottaboobs 01:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Questions I have (If you have an opinion, weigh in)

  • What is spam? the suggestions page seems to define spam as comments.--Kiki Lottaboobs 01:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • Well, the spam vote is essentially the voter calling the suggestion in question so bad that it could be considered equally as useless as your usual "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS" viagra junkmail. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:57, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • The running definition that we used for a long time was any suggestion that is so fundamentally flawed that reasonable editing or changes couldn't fix it. A lot of people complained that their precious snowflakes got killed by spam, so it has been debated hotly. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:17, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • Can a user who is not involved in an arbitration case make comment in an arbitration case? If a user is a material witness to an event that happened outside of the wiki, can another user chime in? If they are not allowed to chime in, is it a bannable offense?--Kiki Lottaboobs 01:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • If you mean users who aren't witnesses, then no, they're not. But there's no real punishment; they're just flamed out of the case ^_^ Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • Usually, unless they have something particularly insightful to add. Hell, if a non arbitrator can intervene and completely defuse a situation with an insightful comment, I think I'd have to pin a chestful of medals on them. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:57, 31 August 2006 (BST)
        • Given the wiki philosophy we operate under, occasionally to my chagrin, any user may comment anywhere for any reason as long as it isn't explicitly against the rules. That said we all appreciate people who know when not to speak. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:24, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • Can an arbitrator revoke a vote? Can an arbitrator prohibit a user from voting? Can an abritrator remove or strike a vote after it has been made?--Kiki Lottaboobs 01:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • No. Arbitrators' only powers come into play when they have been selected to arbitrate a case. Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • But if the arbitration case deals with voting/votes on some page, then yes, they can prohibit party/parties from voting and/or strike votes. Arbitration can generally override everything. --Brizth M T 08:05, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • While arb can overrule anything, were a decision that was completely ridiculous to result from it "you can never vote on this wiki again", I'd have to say that it wouldn't be allowed; a decision of that magnitude would have to be considered in bad faith. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:57, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • I can't say I've seen the episode that prompted this request, but this seems like a bizarre mismanagement of arbitrator power. Arbitrators are only here to settle disputes between users. You can't take somebody to arbitration because you didn't like their vote. I suppose hypothetically, and under mod scrutiny, yes they could. But a situation where it would be appropriate would be extremely rare. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:24, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • Is it considered bad form for non-moderator, non involved users to comment in vandal banning (M/VB)? Is it allowable for the accused to designate a defender, or is this obnoxious?--Kiki Lottaboobs 01:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • Depends on the quality of the comments. If it's obvious that they're just trolling, then no yes. If they have reasonable arguments to make regarding the case, then yes no. I guess you could designate a defender... but yes, that would probably be counted as being obnoxious. Not to mention lazy. Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • I belive you mixed your yes and noes on that one. Or depends on which question you answered. If they can provide either clarification, further evidence (for or against) or similar, then by all means, do comment. --Brizth M T 08:05, 31 August 2006 (BST)
        • My whole comment up to the point where it says "I guess you could..." was in answer to the first question. Cyberbob  Talk  08:21, 31 August 2006 (BST)
          • Um, aren't you then saying that if the comments are trolling it is not bad form? I can understand what you are saying, but it just sounds weird considering how the question is phrased. --Brizth M T 08:27, 31 August 2006 (BST)
          • If you have something relevant to say it isn't. As for designating a defender, that just seems overly complicated and unhelpful. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:24, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • What are the lines when it comes to harassment on the wiki? Profanity is accepted, there is no rule against hate speech, insults or ad homenim comments, so are there any lines beyond which a user is guilty of harassment?--Kiki Lottaboobs 01:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • There is no limit to the amount of harassment a user may dish out, as long as it's within the bounds of non-vandalism. The only way harassment can currently be dealt with is through Arbitration. Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • There is no policy about harassment. People can screw with you to their heart's content as long as it isn't vandalism. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:24, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • Of course there was the Wikigate which mostly dealt with harassment. Technically the correct place would have been M/VB, as arbitration should be for resolving edit wars. But a mod making a ruling in such a case would find himself in M/M, probably. --Brizth M T 20:40, 31 August 2006 (BST)
        • To be fair, Wikigate was questionably legal, bad for everybody involved, and widely accepted as the nadir of our collective history here. Hopefully we never have to do it again. --ZaruthustraMod 21:01, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • Is there, or should there be an appeals process? Beyond being argumentative, should there be a means to contest an arbitration or M/VB ruling? Should there be appeals for one but not the other?--Kiki Lottaboobs 01:07, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • If you so wish, you can try and have any decision other than arbitration reversed. Of course, it's hard to do that without being seen as being argumentative, but not impossible. Jjames managed to keep within the bounds of politeness on my talk page, for example. Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • You can take it to misconduct if it is serious enough, or ask a few other moderators if they agree with the decision. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:57, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • You can appeal arbitration to mods. You can appeal mod decisions to misconduct. Anything past this would just be an absurd excuse to be litigious and sink our moderation process into an endless quagmire. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:17, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • Probably the best place to appeal is mod's talk page, or directly on the M/VB page. --Brizth M T 20:40, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • Is copyright infringement vandalism?--Kiki Lottaboobs 03:18, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • I don't think so. AFAIK, the offending article or image is just Speedily Deleted. Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • Depends on how bad it is. Reprinting the latest Tom Clancy novel in it's entirety on this wiki could easily be construed as vandalism, while pretty much everything less wouldn't be. Repeatedly committing minor acts of copyright infringement despite being told not to would also count as vandalism in my mind. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:57, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • As long as it wasn't intended as infringement, no. Since we can't see in people's brains we generally give them the benefit of the doubt the first time. Reposting the same material after a speedy deletion however is. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:11, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • Suggestions 3 suggestions are the most allowable suggestions in a day. What is a day as defined by this rule? 24 hour period? GMT day? Server reset? What is a day?--Kiki Lottaboobs 03:18, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • A 24 hour period. Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • 24 hours. This rule is a classic example of rules creep. What its basically saying is, "Mr. Aushvitz is pissing us off and won't listen to anybody, so we have to pass more rules". --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:11, 31 August 2006 (BST)


  • Do you know the muffin man? --Kiki Lottaboobs 03:18, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • The one on Drury Lane? Cyberbob  Talk  07:52, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • Muffin man? Silly girl, there are only Gingerbread Men. :P –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:57, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • That jerk owes me ten dollars.. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:11, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • What are the limits to vandal banning? If user A is mad at user B, and starts looking for any excuse to haul them to M/VB, is there a point at which it becomes frivolous or vandalism? What criteria determines if A's case is frivolous? --Kiki Lottaboobs 14:56, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • This should be covered by the rules of "harassment" or, what is equal, is not covered by any rule. Currently you can see users and group of users being harassed by M/VB reports (Like MrAushvitz or the people that updates suburb danger reports) and nothing can be do against the perpetrators. The offended parties could start Arbitration, but I personally won't do that anyways. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:29, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • Its a serious problem. Frivilous litigation usually goes on until some mod reaches his last nerve and threatens to start banging heads together. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:11, 31 August 2006 (BST)
  • What should the rules be regarding things like the suburb danger levels? There have been lots of alleged vandalism reports for people having disagreements about the danger levels in suburbs, and so far I have yet to see anyone found guilty of bad faith. Is there a guideline for this? --Kiki Lottaboobs 18:12, 31 August 2006 (BST)
    • I redirect you to this discussion. To disagree with another person POV isn't vandalism, no matter how much an user wants to make it look so, so the normal course won't even be Arbitration, but to contest the change in the Suburbs page/the correspondant suburb talk page/the correspondant suburb danger report talk page/etc. Arbitration is a last resource in case of edit wars. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:29, 31 August 2006 (BST)
      • Irritating and pointless. If it isn't bad faith then it Is. Not. Vandalism. Take it to arbitration. --Zaruthustra-<font size=-3>Mod</font> 20:11, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Some mistakes I found

Well, I just found this thing you're doing and I think its a pretty good work. Now let me point some mistakes (or at least some sentences that I believe mistaken) on the text:

  • About impersonation: It's not really needed to be a moderator to strike out invalid votes: any user that finds one can strike it, as long as it's made to enforce existing rules.
  • About alt abuse: When an user is circumventing a ban with an alt account created for the ocassion, the normal course of action is to permaban the alternate account, and the main is punished with an escalation of the prexisting ban.
  • About user pages: Not all edits to an user page by another user is vandalism. Examples are when an unexperienced user creates pages that go by criterion 9 of speedy deletion and another user moves them on the proper place, or correction of dead links and typos. Everything starts being subjective, though, when these kind of "good faith" edits are made by people that have a bad relationship with the User in question.

I hope it helps. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 08:50, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Yup, that's all spot on. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:59, 31 August 2006 (BST)
Great! I'm really enthusiastic about all of the participation on this page, I feel like I'm getting a clearer picture of how things work every step of this process. Matthew F, I made the suggestions you suggested, take a look to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thanks for the input! --Kiki Lottaboobs 14:30, 31 August 2006 (BST)
I'm checking what can be corrected too. I'm not great at English, so I'll ask this instead of correcting it myself: You say "a user" plenty of times, isn't that a typo? I think it should be replaced to "an user", correct me if I'm wrong. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:30, 31 August 2006 (BST)
Well, "an" is usually used in front of words that start with vowel sounds, and user does indeed starts with yoo-ser. However, the y sound seems to exclude a word from a universal rule, "a yellow coat", "a yodeler" and "a usable sample". I actually looked up the answer, and it seems that the English language has gone through a lot of changes (called false-splitting or Junctural metanalysis). Words like "Umpire" used to be "Numpire", "Uncle" used to be "Nuncle", and when people learned the words, they heard "an umpire" and "an uncle" and so they split (false split) the words, creating "an" out of miscommunication. Webster doesn't use "user" in a sentence, but microsoft word highlights "an" as incorrect when used in front of "user". --Kiki Lottaboobs 19:35, 31 August 2006 (BST)
Oh, cool, very enlightening indeed. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:59, 31 August 2006 (BST)

Comments

Interesting. A few comments:

  • "Impersonation includes correcting another user's spelling" — not necessarily; it would be hard to prove that correcting spelling is impersonation.
  • "Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting." — how so? Who would you be impersonating? Yourself? Misleading, definitely, but not necessarily impersonating.
  • "a user may edit their own statements if that statement has not yet been replied to, although this is considered bad form." — it's only considered bad form if other people have already read it but not replied. Otherwise it's fine (I frequently find a small mistake or something else that I fix after I've written a comment).
  • It is my belief that users can delete their own content off of public wiki pages, unless it violates a rule. Also, moderators may delete content off of public pages if it is in bad faith or violates some other rule, or with good cause.
  • Moderators are not authorized to arbitrarily undelete pages without going through M/U first.
  • Users may strike votes of permabanned vandals if the voting is still taking place.
  • "accounts used for this purpose are called "sockpuppets"" — actually, sockpuppets are more complicated than this. Interesting to read about.

You might find it useful to read through past Arbitration rulings (if you can stand it) to see past examples of wiki "law" too. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:46, 5 September 2006 (BST)

Glad you could weigh in, Bob. Let me take a second to address some of your comments.
Correcting or altering another person's statements in any way was, I thought impersonation (with the exceptions of correcting links and indentation). If correcting another's spelling in their signed comments is alright, where is the line drawn (punctuation, verb tense, article, grammar)? I was iffy about the hyperlinks and indentation, but I included it because it isn't altering the content.
It has been my understanding that it is considered vandalism to return to old conversations and re-word your arguments. If it is not bad faith to edit your old comments, I can remove it, but I fear that allowing people to change or delete their comments would alter the record and could make things more tangled.
I was in the process of reading some of the older Arbitration cases, it's tangled and hard to get all of the facts this far afterwards, but I agree. It seems like a good place to start. I'll see how everything you said jives with what's there now and try to make it all harmonious. Thanks for your input, Bob. --Kiki Lottaboobs 15:38, 5 September 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=User_talk:Kiki_Lottaboobs/Sandbox&oldid=384501"