UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Yonnua Koponen vs. Misanthropy

User:Yonnua Koponen vs. User:Misanthropy

Summary:Misanthropy has posted an obnoxiously large image on Demotions, and, after I made it smaller so that it didn't spam up the page, Misanthropy continued to revert the edit, starting an edit war.

There's case precedent here, showing that images can be reduced in size when there's massively over the top - in that case it was a talk page, but in this case it's an administrative page, where obviously there are harsher restrictions on massive images.

I ask that the image is (at a compromise) reduced to a maximum of 300 pixels, and preferably I ask that it is completely removed from the page and placed on the relevant talk page instead.

There is no reason to pointlessly spam up administrative pages just to have fun, which is what misanthropy seems to be doing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept this case and demand that Yon stop editing my (non-page breaking) comments without pressing reason to do so. I will accept anyone impartial, preferably Aichon given the page in question. 16:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Aichon would make sense, if he's willing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're both massive tards. I'll offer my services. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ross nailed it. Would also offer. --Thadeous Oakley 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Due a recent history of heated arguments between both parties I also suggest some form of restraint, possibly restricting use of talk pages. --Thadeous Oakley 17:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Will accept Ross. 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If Ross is willing, I'd rather that he handle it. I've always preferred to stay out of arbies as much as possible. —Aichon— 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in a good mood, so I'll give an alternative settlement before arbies. This: It stays for now, but is made smaller when it's archived. Deal or none?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely the other way round would make more sense (which I'd agree to)? Since there's no point having the bigger one reduced when the page traffic halts entirely, like. 22:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, because I'm not sure if you've gathered this, it's not about page traffic, it's about the image being fucking annoying and unfunny. Ross is right. Both of you go back to the IO unit. -- LEMON #1 22:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so having the smaller one now and reverting back to big when archived and not being looked at (hence "no page traffic", duh) makes more sense than big now and smaller when archived. Get back to the opticians? 22:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought you meant traffic as in network traffic! You're all still retarded though! -- LEMON #1 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page traffic, like people actually looking at the page. 300 wide now when it's in use, original 800 when it's archived and no one's actually looking at it. 22:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that small now, large later, makes more sense. It preserves usability now and intent later. —Aichon— 22:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, images like that should abide by the image rules explained in the signature policy, especially on admin pages. That would be 16 px, anything larger then the sentences is just dumb.--Thadeous Oakley 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The intent is the faggiest thing about it though. And assuming the wiki stays up for another 5 years, it'll be read more in the archives than it is now- and just will give future generations of the community a view that the admin pages are a big circlejerk lolclique and that it's a decent example to adopt themselves. No thanks -- LEMON #1 05:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that is what I meant, I wrote it down the wrong way round. Right, shall we have this as an unofficial arbies ruling then?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. 23:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But you'll both have to shake hands and say sowwie afterwards >:0 --Thadeous Oakley 23:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, feel free to resize it when it gets moved to the archive (I will if I archive it, but I probably won't, it's likely be DDR or Ross).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. You're still both tards. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

demote the cunts Archive this?--Thadeous Oakley 23:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Shitting up admin pages with oversized images has been viewed as bad faith/vandalism before. Please don't do it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:51 11 November 2010 (BST)

Yup, this should have been brought to A/VB -- LEMON #1 05:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that they were both acting in good faith, and it's just their mutual paranoia of each other that led to the dispute. Vandalism is for those trying to hurt the wiki, not each other. True, the picture would have been better if it was smaller, but the concept was that only a giant image could channel his feelings on the topic. Flawed attempts to slightly augment discussions but end up hurting them ≠ vandalism. --VVV ^RPMBG 05:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they're right, it should have been vandalism, it's just that by the time it got to an edit conflict it would have been inappropriate for me to slap up a VB case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How about next time you discuss it with mis on his talk page before altering his image? Its not as if he's not here a lot. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually...--Thadeous Oakley 10:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

REALLY? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh you specifically meant before, sorry thought you didn't see their talk page conversion. Though I can imagine not contacting someone beforehand for something simple as resizing an image. Then again, since this isn't the first conflict, he could have done it.--Thadeous Oakley 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I see all. Besides, you didn't think I'd offer to arby before reviewing the case? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Letting this image get larger after the request is archived is not the way this should happen. -- LEMON #1 00:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. But since I was the only one who actually stood up to Misanthropy on it, I guess we'll have to live with it until somebody else does.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it 300px now again anyway? But yeah it's stupid but at the same time not horribly breaking. Honestly, 50 px would be enough now as well in the archive. But we can still resolve in an A/VB case I think. Or just let it die. --Thadeous Oakley 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well stupid arbies rulings can be over-ruled, and this isn't even an official ruling. If anybody who isn't an involved party wants to make a case, so be it. As it stands, I'm holding by my arbies agreement not to go any further.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to take this to the point of banning; The size of an image isn't that important, yet we've already written 16325 emotionally charged characters about just the 3. --VVV ^RPMBG 20:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to accuse others of being "emotionally charged" and biased, when you're essentially arguing that somebody shouldn't recieve a banning case. If it's vandalism, he should go to VB.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing anyone of being emotionally charged, I was accusing everyone of being emotionally charged. And while I'm at it, we're all biased too. Except maybe Boxy/Ross. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it going to smaller once archived now, staying big now or the other way around? I'm confused.--Thadeous Oakley 21:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Both parties already agreed that the smaller 300px size stays now, then reverts to the original comment with 800px upon archival. 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Except it isn't just the pair of us that gets to decide on this. If the others think a VB case is due, they're more than welcome to set one up.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Even though this was simply a stubborn edit-war over something really fucking trivial and not bad-faith/page-breaking/etc? This is about as pointless as the Wright Inquiry. 22:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As always, users reserve the right to create vandal banning cases.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot. Not page breaking has never been the rule of thumb for what is "okay". Also cough at Yon's "put it on a/vb but I won't". -- LEMON #1 00:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't, because I'm bound by an arbitration agreement to let it lie in its current state. If I had made the case or ruled on it, I'd be obliged to ban myself for 24 hours.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to pop in this link for everyone's convenience (especially for those looking in the archives down the road). Don't mind me. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)