Note To Guests

Please post at the top of the Cause I Need a Real Header section and use a level 2 header if you want to start a new discussion. I'll delete nothing unless someone does major vandalism. (Or posts for no reason other than to try and piss me off, that means no asshatery.)

Old Stuff

User_Talk:Karek/20110513132417 User_Talk:Karek/20080410042453 User_Talk:Karek/20080318232950

User_Talk:Karek/20080304151449

As the page limit is reached or bordered parts of this page will dissappear into archives, not by choice but by necessity for it to still be useable.

Cause I Need a Real Header

Locator

Was there something specifically broken about it before? I checked it in IE, FF, and WebKit a few hours back, and it seemed to be working in all three just fine. Thanks for cleaning it up a bit since I hadn't had the time to do so yet (it was a quick c/p job from the main MOB page). That said, you did break it a bit in WebKit by creating a gap at the top between the title and the rest of the black. :P —Aich on— 07:47, 29 September 2012 (BST)

Also, yeah, I tried that purple color for the MOBruin color, and I'm guessing you saw the same thing I did: it just doesn't contrast enough with the other colors in the map. ;) —Aich on— 07:50, 29 September 2012 (BST)

Your tables were pushing out a horizontal scroll on smaller monitor sizes, it looked horrendous on the netbook. I noticed the gap at the top but am currently working on redesigning the map in my projdev pages and haven't gone back to try and futz with it yet. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:51, 29 September 2012 (BST)

Basically they were sizing to the size of the map instead of the size of the page so the maps were pushing one of the tables to expand past the other tables and the page end. I could see mismatched squares everywhere. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:53, 29 September 2012 (BST)

That's a shame, but it looks great now. I was just trying to get a quick job done and figured I'd swing through later to clean it up more, but you knocked out a WHOLE lot of work, Karek. Also, does the main MOB page exhibit those issues for you? I really did just grab the code from the main page, remove its text and replace it with the Locator text, and then make a few changes at the top to try and accommodate templates while making sure we weren't covering up page elements, so there's a good chance that problems with the Locator exist on the main page too. —Aich on— 19:23, 29 September 2012 (BST)

It doesn't but it also doesn't have any tables of large width in it. Tables expand to their content unless otherwise listed and they force divs they're in to do the same. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:11, 30 September 2012 (BST)

The new map is up, it's stupid simple to use now and super easy to navigate for updating, none of that 100 variables on the page nonsense. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:28, 29 September 2012 (BST)

It looks pretty sweet. The current and recent legend text seemed to be swapped, so I matched them to the right colors in the legend.-MHSstaff 17:52, 29 September 2012 (BST)

I did a quick fix related to that, since you didn't swap the subtitles for the descriptions. :P —Aich on— 19:23, 29 September 2012 (BST)

Sewiously

I seriously didn't mean to piss you off as bad as you seem to be, and I seriously created the page because people were confused/disenchanted about the existing one. If you can't accept this, I don't know what to say because you're casting off the truth of the matter. Just maybe consider it for like 24 hours. Cool off, etc. It doesn't make any sense for me to create the page as some ego stroke. I didn't even put myself on it or remove people I hate - plus I already have a megaton of my own awesome pages. Basically I feel like you're a hair away from moving the page yourself just to show who's boss, and while I don't anticipate filing any 'cases' about it, I can't imagine NOBODY would see that as misconduct. Then it's another bullshit "AMAZING VS. TEH ESTABLISHMENT" farce. Essentially, let's just go to our corners for a bit, eh? -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:24, 17 September 2012 (BST)

I'm not upset and I don't have any plans to manually move the page. That's why I posted a request. Stop applying bias to others to justify your actions and you'll probably get less people responding in kind to your denigration of their character. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:36, 17 September 2012 (BST)

I'm judging you by your words the same way you judge me, except I also have your actions... moving to the Move Request page, passive-aggressively putting text in Summaries that can't be replied to without copy/pasting them into the discussion, etc. I find it interesting that you accuse me of applying my own PoV to your words (and after this, deeds) while acting as if you're not doing exactly that. Eh - Internet. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 06:51, 17 September 2012 (BST)

In regards to the last sentence- get used to it. Though he's been a bit better at fixing it of late A ZOMBIE ANT 10:57, 17 September 2012 (BST)

I try but am aware I don't come across as cuddly and nice most of the time. Usually there's value to be had in my contributions though. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:48, 18 September 2012 (BST)

If there is it's value as "the evil one" A ZOMBIE ANT 02:01, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Only once you stop assuming everyone is out to get you. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:15, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Sure, it's also advice in a straight forward and somewhat kneejerk response but, it is good advice. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:43, 18 September 2012 (BST)

So true on both counts. It's very easy to take some of the stuff you say personally, just because of how it's being phrased. That said, by the time I manage to type up a nice long retort in anger, I usually also have time to cool down and realize that you weren't intending it that way, then start over with my comment or else drop it entirely. Happens all the time. Also, I already have a comment for your A/RE typed up, but it basically boils down to what you said. —Aich on— 06:34, 18 September 2012 (BST)

I just try not to take anyone or anything they say any more serwiously than I have to. Works pretty well! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:02, 1 October 2012 (BST)

Blanket Permission

On all the persons of note stuff. You where there man, so I bow to superior knowledge.--I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 15:28, 13 September 2012 (BST)

What!?

I come back and you're still here? Haven't you been here for 7 years now? Come on man--CyberRead240 04:44, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Yeah, something like that. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:33, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Sept he uses a phone now. Makes it easier to not have to trawl for the non existent precedents he claims to have backing up his opinion A ZOMBIE ANT 12:48, 8 September 2012 (BST)

Glad to see you're as witty and as willing talk out your ass as ever. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:30, 9 September 2012 (BST)

Finally, something we have in common A ZOMBIE ANT 01:08, 9 September 2012 (BST)

Pre Purge Vandal Data History

I remember you asking Kevan to wait on the purge whilst you saved histories of some pages. Was this ever done? Was A/VD one of them? --Ross^WHO????ness 19:14, 30 August 2012 (BST)

Don't remember, that was ages ago. I don't actually remember the interaction but vaguely, Kevan does exception some of the histories though. Some pages don't see purges. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:54, 31 August 2012 (BST)

ta

For the zeddie edit. --Ross^WHO????ness 11:16, 26 August 2012 (BST)

Iwitness

Are the actual reports still available? If I remember correctly we can still see them if we change the url? --Ross^WHO????ness 13:38, 12 August 2012 (BST)

No, the urbandead.info site is gone. I have a back up of them I just don't have any place to put said back up for the time being. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:31, 13 August 2012 (BST)

How big is said backup? I just might have somewhere. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:45, 20 August 2012 (BST)

(I've been meaning to talk to you about this for ages, actual, but RL

) —Revenant 09:47, 20 August 2012 (BST)

Now's your chance

Do you want to add anything to this? ~ _{06:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)}

New Status Map

Hi, I've been messing with wiki and HTML for the better part of a week now, and recently, I got the idea to make a (limited) oversight of the entire city, block per block, and the status would be represented by a color (red=under attack, green=safe, etc). Aichon brought up some issues, which can be read here, but I was wondering if there is a way. The idea was extremely heavy, but I was wondering: if I only have a status for the buildings (+/-4500 blocks), make the empty ones a single color and there would be only 2 possible statuses (safe and unsafe), could it be done? -- Johnny Twotoes 22:03, 1 August 2012 (BST)

Template inclusion is going to be a bitch --Ross^WHO????ness 22:05, 1 August 2012 (BST)

Could you elaborate a bitch, sincere are quite a few things in this project that can be described like that ;) -- Johnny Twotoes 22:08, 1 August 2012 (BST)

The template calls onto a single page would break before you were anywhere near close. --Ross^WHO????ness 22:17, 1 August 2012 (BST)

Could you explain just a tad more? What are the limits to a page? -- Johnny Twotoes 22:19, 1 August 2012 (BST)

User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap for an old old attempt at this to see what the issue he's referring to looks like. There's a data inclusion limit on raw data for template inclusions(exact numbers are in the page source for every page). The smallest set of sub-inclusions I was ever able to get to before User:Swiers clever appropriation of user submitted SCENT information made my work on it irrelevant was somewhere around three or four I believe. It's been a long time since I considered it worth the time. There are also various alternative solutions to this issue like the Mall Status Map that meet the goal in various ways(I actually designed version 1.0 of that's functionality as well). I'd recommend thinking of a clever way to organize the data in smaller chunks, like say localized area build maps. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:14, 3 August 2012 (BST)

Also, I apparently missed it when you mentioned it on my page, but even though you would only be displaying two statuses to the users, internally you would still need to deal with the different statuses (e.g. both ruined and in zombie hands would be unsafe, meaning you need conditions for dealing with both). As a result, it'll be breaking sooner. —Aich on— 22:45, 1 August 2012 (BST)

I guess I'll have to settle for suburb or quadrant maps then :( Thanks anyway guys -- Johnny Twotoes 22:57, 1 August 2012 (BST)

Update; Charles has been burning through suburbs recently, and we're close to 70 suburbs done now. Maybe it will work after all? :D -- Johnny Twotoes 21:45, 30 August 2012 (BST)

Lazy witness system question

Hi. Im thinking about going through and adding the external location descriptions to all the location pages. Rather than walk through the whole city, I assume theres some way I can use one of the witness systems to show me specific location shots? --Ross^lessness 10:47, 6 June 2012 (BST)

Nah. You have to do it manually. With one character. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 14:45, 6 June 2012 (BST)

He could if I re-uploaded the back up for iwit actually but it wouldn't be up to date. With the other systems though, no. For Iwit we actually patched in Maxmaps to do this type of thing. Maybe Scoth would be willing to do something similar with public dumbwits, if he even has those. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:39, 6 June 2012 (BST)

Oh well, worth a try. cheers. --Ross^lessness 20:10, 6 June 2012 (BST)

How often do exterior descriptions change? They don't ever, do they? Wouldn't out of date material suffice? ~

_{01:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)}

They are all fixed. --Ross^lessness 07:48, 7 June 2012 (BST)

lol

sarcasm isn't admission. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:25, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Not when taken out of context, no --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:26, 27 May 2012 (BST)

a- are you serious? my mistake that totally proves that matthewfarrenheit deliberately designed the project simply for +1 and spamming to the point of vandalism cause airbourne did it and admittied it himself D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:41, 28 May 2012 (BST)

The case he got upset about was literally and intentionally +1 spamming. +1 spamming users on the wiki would be vandalism. Two separate things.

That being said, I'm pretty sure I was probably remembering wrong because of how his epic fit went down, he was literally complaining over a user being escalated for intentionally misusing the template. Probably from fear that his not thoroughly checking would get legitimately well intentioned users escalated. Things were heated at the time and Matthew and I never really got along from the start over the welcomenewbie spam issue. Which, actually, annoys me slightly more in retrospect because I have a better technical grasp of the wiki and the existence of the New User Edits section which did actually exist at that time.

Matthew threw a fit over intentional misuse of the template probably in large part because it was me that reported it. He'd previously made complaints of not having time to check the user's newness when I was less wiki-knowledgable than him and suggested that he actually take the time to be sure and/or do something less Spammish to welcome them (like Wikipedia users do, which is what Project Mentor actually is or checking contribs). If he was here now I'd probably apologize for the drama and explain a better way to go about it with more accuracy and less work, there are oh so many. I was a lot more hostile to him than I ever needed to be, he's on a very small list there for that. I didn't take the time to try and understand his issue because, frankly, I didn't care and he was in the wrong for his response.

Tl;dr?: You're right, he never admitted it. He just complained when one user was escalated for intentionally misusing it to the point of leaving the wiki in a mass of wiki drama. If a template's primary use is spamming then it's spam and there is a large multitude of proof that this is the only remaining purpose to Welcome Newbie as a project at lest since Project Mentor and MediaWiki:Welcomecreation went live. Holding on to projectnewbie is holding on to the past for nostalgic, ill conceived, reasons. It shouldn't matter what MatthewFarenheit said. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:42, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Also It's not like it wasn't a running benefit he intentionally gained from it or anything. The two have always been related and linked to at least some degree. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:01, 28 May 2012 (BST)

For the record I absolutely agree with how you view the WN issue but as a matter of principle I just have issue with someone with words and status as strong as yours throwing about (what I would call) incorrect renditions of history to strengthen a point. I may have even been more confused because your point at hand is quite a no-brainer and probably didn't need bolstering but I have no interesting in flogging a dead horse so how about we forget it and just get on with fixing the issue at hand with everyone D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:51, 28 May 2012 (BST)

didn't we

speedy delete these when cornhole up loaded them? has nothing to do with UD and the hate speech stuff?
(Upload log); 08:13 . . Generaloberst (Talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Klan3.png"
(Upload log); 08:12 . . Generaloberst (Talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Pic2.png"
(Upload log); 08:11 . . Generaloberst (Talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Klanmasks.png"
(Upload log); 08:11 . . Generaloberst (Talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Klan2.png"
(Upload log); 08:11 . . Generaloberst (Talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Hail4.png"
(Upload log); 08:11 . . Generaloberst (Talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Hail3.png"
(Upload log); 08:10 . . Generaloberst (Talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Hail2.png"
--User:Sexualharrison16:12, 13 April 2012

What the hell, man

What's with all the cock blocking going on Kevan's talk page. Heaven forbid someone take a line of discussion to its conclusion around here. ~ _{15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)}

Believe it or not I've actually spent years dealing with these problems. My addition was that the proposals actually aren't effective ways to deal with spam they're actually intended to use in conjunction with other methods and could cause considerable damage if used without that in mind, I also mentioned two particularly effective ones that will get 90% of the bots we run into with a minimum of negative repercussions on real users. It's not meant to be obstructionist, it's meant to steer you towards the right path, one gained from many years of hard lessons, coding(and spambot) knowledge, and research into the research(including actually the links you mentioned long ago). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:14, 29 March 2012 (BST)

I respect your admin experience. I really do. That's why I was floored that your initial suggestion was IP blocking. I know there is a better way. I'll concede that my suggestions to Kevan were all based on research and not real world experience as an admin dealing with spambots. You may be one of the only UDWiki users left that can claim that. And I won't go as far to say that you owe the wiki any of that knowlege, but it would have been nice to know before going to Kevan that you were against any of it. If there is a better server configuration (and I know there is), help us in getting the info to Kevan. He may not care in the end but let's not continue to ignore the problem or let it slide into the abyss or unnecessarily overwork ourselves. ~

_{03:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)}

Oh and re: edit comment on Ross' page, I'm not really leaving, just thinking heavily lately on dropping sysop duties. I'll elaborate more when its time. ~

_{03:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)}

Honestly, sadly, there is not. Or at least not one that isn't essentially an equivalent to that. Most spambots only render viewable text so the old Hidding Inputs trick doesn't work anymore, honeypots are still semi-effective but, again for that reason, they aren't what they used to be. It essentially boils down to the serverline version of UDTool Lists, which is all but equivalent to IP bans but more server intensive. That was what I was getting at, there's not really anything patchable into the wiki itself that will have very much effect beyond quick admins and comprehensive and frequently updated bot lists. Things like stopforumspam are a popular source for those and for serverline inclusion block lists. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:58, 30 March 2012 (BST)

I'm sorry, but I am still not convinced. Part of my research was viewing other mediwiki sites and while we're certainly not the worst we're not by any means the most protected. There is some magic combination that's going to block a good majority of these bots from even registering or from editing if they do. I'm in awe that some of you are more than willing to devote the kind of time needed to manually block those spambot IPs and more than a bit peeved that I'm being called lazy by others *cough*AxeHack*cough* for not doing it. As I expected, it doesn't even appear to be making any difference. ~

_{16:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)}

Actually the rate we're at now probably would have been constant a number of years back if it weren't for a lot of the pre-emptive list based bannings of Conn and myself as we basically imported wikipedia's own list and added a large number from known botlists used by a large number of sites to police this issue. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:22, 30 March 2012 (BST)

Was that a manual process or do we have the ability to import a blacklist? Wouldn't it prove effective to do the same now? And seriously, there has to be more that can be done. If I'm sounding like a broken record, sorry. Its going be worth putting up with me being a dick if we can premptively stop some spam. ~

_{17:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)}

It was manual, banning something like 2000+ Ips by hand. You could theoretically do the same thing with whitelist if we had anon users but it would be anon only edit blocking iirc and most bots register anyway. The more efficient version of that requires server access but will also have a higher server load cost than straight up IP bans as it would have to open a file to include and it'd have to be an offsite one in most cases(to get one that is regularly updated.) THat's before considering the size of that file too. Also not bothered by a little personal urgency btw, I used to deal with actual dicks around here frequently. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:04, 31 March 2012 (BST)

Pinata

You beat me to it. Pretty much precisely where I was going to go with it. The Additional section should probably be renamed to Adtional Information or turned into a See Also section. Red Rum linknspam could probably be removed too. ~ _{01:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)}

I was actually planning to {{Ref}} the place out just had to remember how to work my ol' template. That'll probably be vanished for some discussion on the history of the term and a Reference section note. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can probably pull up some references for Red Rum's activities, though it'd be a hell of a lot easier if Iwitness were working… Hey, Karek, what's up with that? Is it just the domain's expired, or the hosting's fucked up, or what? I'd love to work with you on getting it operational again. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A new domain needs to be set to the account and because they made it such a pain I didn't want to take the time to sort out their mistake. And to top that off can't do it without using their system. I might have a backup somewhere but it wouldn't be recent to the downtime. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

urbandead.info's been squatted on, not just in renewal state? :S I've been doing a fair bit of fucking about with domains recently, so I'd be happy to help if I can in any way. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah like they day it dropped and it only dropped because they screwed up the auto renew. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A/RE

As you weren't active since New Year's Eve, just a heads-up that your A/RE is due on January 8. -- Spiderzed █ 00:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been here just haven't had much time at current beyond bot checking and queue clearing. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Suggestions

You're pretty knowledgeable when it comes to technical aspects of the wiki. Do you care to weigh in on some discussion of a new system I am developing for maing formal requests to Kevan for wiki updates? ~ _{07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)}

We use open discussion for that a lot, I don't really know what would constitute a better system though since most people don't know the technical impact of most extensions on the server or the practical impact on the wiki. If it's something that seems necessary though he's usually pretty quick to accept it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:22, 26 October 2011 (BST)

I know I haven't been around as long as others but can't say that I've seen one constructive thing ever get accomplished through open discussion. You may be right that a new system may not be necessary. There have been at least 5 things since the wiki update that have been suggested, though, all of them discussed in seperate areas of the wiki. An organized method of discussing them and presenting them to Kevan seemed apt to me and there are at least a few of us that have been throwing around this idea for a few months I'm jst finaaly getting around to putting something together. ~

_{04:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)}

If you can figure out a coherent way to do it that limits the content generally to updates that have high impact on security or usability then more power to you. Personally I can't really think of one. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:35, 27 October 2011 (BST)

Arbitration

The time has come for you to Make a statement. Please proceed to arbitration and make a statement under your header. Your silence may be misinterpreted.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:52, 29 September 2011 (BST)

The time has come for you to answer further questions. Please proceed to arbitration and answer the questions under your header. Your silence may be rewarded with sweet and bitter cakes. Proceed now before the inquisition.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:41, 3 October 2011 (BST)

Professional help

Could you swing by my talk page and answer Jens question? You're far more knowledgeable than I. Thanks. --"Workshed" 13:08, 21 August 2011 (BST)

Heh, I was actually about to do it yesterday. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:07, 22 August 2011 (BST)

Is this...

Possible on the wiki? My attempts have failed. The closest thing I've seen to it is what The Colonel sig does. Some arbitrary time ago (BST)

Doubtful, mouseovers are a javascript function and javascript is disabled inpage for security reasons. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:43, 9 August 2011 (BST)

It works with cursors though. Ah well. I was planning something epic if it worked. 20:42, 9 August 2011 (BST)

Arbies List

In that case is it worth just losing the box of possible arbiters altogether? --Rosslessness 16:09, 28 July 2011 (BST)

I got to agree with Ross' assessment. The only ones who could use a list of potential arbitrators are those who aren't active enough on the wiki to actually put A/A to use. Plus, the traffic on A/A has really gone down, especially when we substract all the fizzled/failed/withdrawn cases. The days when the Umbrellas, Izzy, Cornhole and others opened arbies left, right and center-stage are long gone. Best to get rid of that box completely. -- Spiderzed █ 17:17, 28 July 2011 (BST)

I'm reluctant to get rid of for the simple reason that new or inactive members do use it. The Taco2 vs. Iscariot case springs to mind, where Iscariot was completely playing the system and only picking arbitrators he knew would be more likely to support him. New users shouldn't be put in to the situation where they have to pick somebody from the other side's list just because they don't know anyone on the wiki.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:02, 28 July 2011 (BST)

Surely if someone new to the wiki, than the list is already the others side? --Rosslessness 18:14, 28 July 2011 (BST)

Not really. Say a new member joins the wiki and has a massive edit disagreement with me. It goes to arbies. I say that I will only select Red Hawk one, kittithaj, Mistergame or Met Fan as arbitrators. A random new user won't know that three of those have close ties with my in-game group, and that the fourth is a close friend on the wiki. If there's a list, they'll see that none of them are on the list, and will have an opportunity to suggest an alternative. If there isn't, they're more likely to just pick one of the people I suggested.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:20, 28 July 2011 (BST)

Apart from the fact anyone else on the wiki can tell the user this. The box if anything implies these are the users you should pick. --Rosslessness 18:28, 28 July 2011 (BST)

A list wouldn't help them much. A/A is so prone to politicking that you are completely lost if either aren't a wiki lawyer yourself or at least already know someone on the inside who keeps tabs on who is who on UDWiki. Just look at Cornhole vs Saromu, Cornhole vs The General or Taco2 vs Izzy, where Corn and Taco stood no chance. The best thing a new user can do is to declare someone wiki-savvy as lawyer/champion and let him take care. Else, it is bound to become a one-sided face-wash. -- Spiderzed █ 18:33, 28 July 2011 (BST)

I don't actually remember Cornhole vs. Me. Anyone fancy giving me a link?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:08, 31 July 2011 (BST)

My mistake. The user in question was The Colonel -- Spiderzed █ 11:42, 31 July 2011 (BST)

The box is nominally useful but largeely irrelevant. It's there to give an idea of some possible options of users available to approach. 90% of people end up in arbitration with an agenda and thus know who they want and how they want them to rule. I'd say keep the box, maybe soften the wording to clarify that it's only there to list users who will likely make themselves available and then if it still bothers you guys try and reformat arbitration again, there's a good starting point in my projdev. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:51, 29 July 2011 (BST)

Arbies

I was just copying this information to the arbitration page where it belongs.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:38, 28 July 2011 (BST)

Job queue was some random users pet that never made it off the ground and clashes in name with an actual wiki function. A/A has always more or less been as it's become clear they're inactive and no sooner or later. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:54, 29 July 2011 (BST)

No, sorry, it's always been two months. It has ALWAYS been two months. You're just an idiot.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:41, 29 July 2011 (BST)

I remember more of always than you and can assure you that that page didn't exist until ~2008 where some random user(hagnat iirc) decided to just make a list of tasks with random remove by guideline(read guidelines in big letters, like ADVICE). A list, mind you, that we all continued to ignore as it was simply stuff he wanted to see done and not in any way really based off of how things were actually done. The nonimportance of this page is even beared out by checking what links here and realizing really nothing does because no one in their right mind refers to it as a source of procedure or an example of policy. It's a worthless page that everyone rightfully should be ignoring when doing, well, anything. At best it's a gentle nudge reminder of "this is possibly a good time to look at doing this". --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:28, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Or you could just read the history of the arbitration template and see that that's always how it's been done.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:24, 30 July 2011 (BST)

and where would that be again? Or we could look at the first time that timeline appears where it, again, is shown to be an off the cuff suggestion to a user who was asking if 1 to 2 months was good enough. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:34, 31 July 2011 (BST)

I'm pretty sure Yon meant the history for the list of arbitrators page not the guidelines page. There have been other instances where people cite the "2 month rule" when removing arbitrators. ~

_{03:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}

Actually I checked that too, since hagnat's redesign(which is before the misconception began) 2 months has appeared twice, once where izzy sites the job queue and once where yonnua refers to removing someone as he adds himself to the list for the reason that they've been inactive for 2 months. None of which is a very good sign for the point he was trying to make. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:53, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Aichon and TripleU also cite a time frame and Yon mentions it more than once. If you count the discussion on A/A. Then you've got half a dozen people agreeing that 2 months without edits seems like a good measure of inactivity and thus not a good candidate for the list. That consensus has gone uncontested for over 2 years. It seems you're the only one in disagreement, actually. ~

_{19:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}

Aichon cites being able to remove inactive users and tripleU wishes to be able to. Yon mentions it once and in addition to the discussion I linked that really doesn't lend itself to that conclusion in any way shape or form. Yes, you can remove inactive users. Yes, two months is a good measure of it. No, two months is not a minimum and should not be made a part of the page rules. No, there is no consensus that I have to wait two months to remove inactive users. This discussion is about yon trying to add this to the page rules on the basis that it's an existing rule and that CLEARLY is not the case as all of the available evidence makes clear. Your confusion I think is the assumption that I'm against removing people after two months, I'm not, I'm against the foolishness of codifying a rule of thumb because it is a massive mistake as far as keeping the page's maintenance stupid drama free is concerned. I actually think inactivity is clear enough as a standard without a timeframe and has been for years. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:18, 31 July 2011 (BST)

iwitness down?

Looks like the urbandead.info domain is parked. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 02:19, 26 July 2011 (BST)

Here you mentioned that it was still up at the IP. I assume that means that we (the end users) can access the archives still, provided we know the IP? If so, I would like to be able to access the archives. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 10:27, 16 August 2011 (BST)

It does, I'll see what I can do but getting to it via phone isn't particularly easy. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:55, 16 August 2011 (BST)

Saaaaaad faaaaace. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cobra on A/D

Hey would you mind popping over to A/D and making a call on the Cobra pages SZ put up? Consensus seemed to be to keep all but the first four on his list but at least one of those seems to be the pae title Gorbius is sticking with. Thought you'd be best to make the call. ~ _{19:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)}

boo.

u suck sometimes u know that?--User:Sexualharrison11:46, 4 July 2011 (bst)

So I've been told. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:11, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Arbitration

Hey, not to nag you, but it could really help if you sort the arbitration case out. There's still loads of lovely drama and unresolved issues in the aftermath of your ruling, so please step in. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:36, 3 July 2011 (BST)

I don't really think it's needed so much. Redirects are outside of the arbitration case, while obviously most of them meet crit 3 and such that's what we have the deletions pages for. The page Cobra(group) is obviously not what was intended as it's obviously in no way neutral. I'll review the content of the disambig page he rest is irrelevent as far as I am concerned. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:39, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Good call IMO, pretty much what I've been boringly suggesting on a couple of the discussions now. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 15:28, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Can I have then Official Cobra? Either both stop that trickery with Official, Original, Group etc., or none stops. -- Spiderzed █ 16:09, 3 July 2011 (BST)

I thought goribus said they'd leave it if you did -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 16:19, 3 July 2011 (BST)

A/RE

It saddens me that you think that way, particularly when it's no secret that while we rarely agree on administrative decisions, I was hoping there was some sort of mutual respect for the positions we take when we make those disagreements, hence why I happily vouched for you in your recent promotion bid knowing full well what our relationship would be like, because I think you do a lot more for the wiki than you do against my own views. I'm obviously not saying that you "owe" me a vouch because of that but I at least assumed you were mature enough to take a similar position with the other people you worked with, particularly since you're the one who causes more rifts with unnecessary personal quips and cheap shots than I. I always tried to ignore your tendency to project your opinion as unarguable fact but yes, while the against itself obviously doesn't phase me, I think your reasoning behind your against say more about you than it does about me.

And A/RE's go for a week. Dunno why. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 05:11, 26 June 2011 (BST)

I like you as an admin normally. I don't agree with your behavior recently and a lot of what I've seen since your promotion bid hasn't been too flattering. I'd provide links to show the things that bothered me the most but I haven't had a chance to get to an actual computer. Suffice it to say that a lot of your behavior towards revenant reminds me of your past behavior towards cyberbob and I'm sure we can both agree hat how you behaved then certainly wouldn't be ok as an authority figure or example on the wiki. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:58, 26 June 2011 (BST)

We aren't moderators, we have no civility policy but that's all I can really say in response to that I guess. Personally I don't think I treat Rev the same way as I behaved with Cyberbob at all tbh but that's just based on memory and the fact that especially within my own vicinity they are completely different users as well as sysops. But if it's based on your opinion of things that have happened not just between you and I then I can respect that. In response to my own relations with Cyberbob it's worth noting there were a couple of points that would go for a few weeks when Bob and I were literally the only sysops active on the wiki that dealt with the drama and as such our differing views would sometimes go unconcluded and it made things heat up easier. Not that I'm searching for an excuse but yeah. Wait a sec, Bob was a long time ago, at least before I had my break from being an op anyway right? -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 07:00, 26 June 2011 (BST)

Getting rid of Recruitment timestamps

I actually voted in the "For" section (I agree with you) but it looks like it got mixed up during the format change. It doesn't really matter since there were so many againsts so I am not going to change it. -MHSstaff 21:21, 25 June 2011 (BST)

Cobra Arbitration

Hi Karek,

As a member of Cobra I feel I could provide you with some useful perspective of what has been going on from a member's perspective, in fact I think there are a few of us who could. Would you have any objection to me posting on the A/A talk page? Domino Harvey 23:26, 22 June 2011 (BST)

None what so ever. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:28, 22 June 2011 (BST)

Thank you, I shall type something up shortly. Domino Harvey 23:28, 22 June 2011 (BST)

There's been some discussion on the page's title, and as you're the arbitrator, it really falls to you to weigh in on it and make a decision, but in the interest of impartiality, I sincerely think it would be best to change it. (It's presumably only in its current state because that's how spiderzed made the case).--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 00:24, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Well, I replied and then noticed that someone already did it. Thank you for at least attempting to go about it the right way instead of deciding it without the party who should have had the most control over any changes to an ongoing arbitration(including case title and when to move it). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:22, 24 June 2011 (BST)

A/A

I and Goribus have agreed on you as arbitrator. Up to you now to bring some structure into the dispute and kick it off in a productive manner. -- Spiderzed █ 21:48, 22 June 2011 (BST)

Admin Archives

Other than creating a redirect at UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/June-2011‎, was there anything else needed to prepare A/D for move cycling? I think that just leaves A/SD and A/PT. ~ _{18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)}

I followed these steps exactly with a couple of minor deviations. I won't mention what I did differently because it wasn't important to the overall process (it was mainly cosmetic) and it would just complicate the issues. I do think most of the issues I had were due to the headers and to transclusions. At one point a page was transcluded upon itself when it was moved, which caused an error I had nort seen before. Something about a template loop. If you want to streamline it, those headers and transclusions should probably be checked out first. ~ _{22:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)}

Also, in response to something you mentioned on A/DS, case specific vb comments should get moved to the archives each month, not left on main vb talk page. Now it wouldn't do to move the entire discussion page to the archive so we have to set it up so that comments go to the archive. I've made one of those damned inclusion headers for that purpose though I can foresee some problems when v/b cases overlap months. I suppose that can be dealt with via copypasta when/if it happens, though.~

_{18:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)}

Subbing

To save on inclusions, especially when it was getting to 30 or so bots towards the end of last month. Surely it doesn't matter if there are some extra lines of code, because it isn't like active conversation is going on there anyway.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 00:40, 6 June 2011 (BST)

It's actually increases the inclusion size on A/VB. When a template is noincluded it's not expanded and thus treated as standard text. The way A/VB/B is set up right now abuses that fact massively so that while the templates might break on A/VB/B they won't on A/VB. Substituting would reverse that making the whole A/VB transclusion break but not the templates on A/VB/B. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:33, 6 June 2011 (BST)

Ah ok, I'll stop doing it then.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 16:30, 6 June 2011 (BST)

Derrrrr

wat?--That filthy fucking red link 19:29, 1 June 2011 (BST)

No, really, what? Either I'm dumb 'cause I'm tired, or just dumb.--That filthy fucking red link 19:34, 1 June 2011 (BST)

God damn it karke, why you do dis? Also, you;re right. Visiting does make this place less suck. :) --That filthy fucking red link 19:47, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Ohhh, I see now. It's because I don't really suck when it comes to welcoming people and shit. Right?--

||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:16, 1 June 2011 (BST)

I am so confused but, that's ok. Nice to see you around though.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:08, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Join the club. :| Also, good to see you too!--

||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:10, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Also, delete the first revision of [1] pls. :( --

||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:18, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Danke!--

||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:25, 1 June 2011 (BST)

a/vb/b

doesn't data in noinclude brackets still increase server load on the pages they are included on? -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 10:52, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Yes but when it's a template in a noinclude it doesn't expand and the only addition to further inclusion is the texrt of the template call itself roughly. Also it's the only large inclusion on A/VB now so it's less impactful on page function since it will stop execution when or if it becomes an issue. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:41, 22 May 2011 (BST)

Off wiki

How could we write off wiki deletion requests (if that's what you were implying in your last sentance on spiderzeds page) into our policies and keep the process transparent. From my POV it opens the door for sysop abuse (pretending to get a request from long inactives who are unlikely to check the wiki) and drama creation by impersonators or others who may find it fun to create mock misconduct cases for deletions they've requested off site -- boxy 03:55, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I more meant we should write a policy specifically excluding them. Only other way I can see it working is with multiple verifying sysops required and even that's iffy at best. Although only Deletions and Protections are really an issue imo. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:09, 15 May 2011 (BST)

That's a mugs game. The A/SD guidelines are already written to require requests be made, and stay on the A/SD page until reviewed by a sysop, and that crit 7 requests be done by the page owner. If that needs changing to allow off site rt wayequests, then it should be those who want such changes, who should prove community support for such by gaining a 2 thirds majority.
I do think a change to crit 8 should be made so as to remove the requirement that it be "requested for speedy deletion by the original author", so that people can delete sub pages that they "own", even if created by other users (not that it comes up often, and could usually be treated as vandalism, I guess, if other users create user sub-pages that the userspace "owner" doesn't approve of). Perhaps it should exclude admin created pages, just to cover potential changes in policy (A/VD or A/M data could potentially be stored as user sub-pages... I've toyed with the idea, but hasn't been worth the hassle, so far) -- boxy 13:18, 17 May 2011 (BST)

The point is there's an issue with it or none of the current drama would have happened. The fact that that the A/M case went in Mis favor a year ago just helps drive the point home that the current understanding of the rule is that it's possible but some people don't like it. You can't really deny that considering it's what happened and the fact that the required next step was ignored after the case doesn't change that simple fact unfortunately.

The bigger issue from this whole case isn't so much the off-site deletion's validity but the fact that now we can apparently override other sysops, file a losing A/M case, and still have our action upheld on claims of it being an immediately required revert. Oh and any case that tries to address that once it comes to light is petty. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:40, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I would just like to point out that you are free to delete the page as per the original A/M ruling: The action itself isn't being upheld so much as Cheeses's intent. The case is being called petty because it was brought a year after the fact and with the sole aim of getting Cheese punished rather than to actual redress an abuse of power.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:22, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Not really. As you can see from the speedy deletion attempt there is an actual group of sysops trying to prevent the results of that case with DDR and Thad being chief among them. That's why the case is being called petty now. It has nothing to do with the merits of arguing a case a year after it happened. I agree on the time frame issue but, that's not what's going on here. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:00, 17 May 2011 (BST)

OK, let me amend that statement: I am calling the case petty because it was brought a year after the fact and with the sole aim of getting Cheese punished rather than to actual redress an abuse of power. In my opinion, the fact that people disagree with the result of the previous case does not make the current case petty. On a side note: I am personally against the idea of off-wiki deletion notes, but I believe that it's an issue which should be discussed separately from the misconduct case.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:45, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Agreed on both things. However the standard reason people are giving for Not Misconduct votes there is specifically that they disagree with the previous case's outcome. In addition to that they're claiming the fact that action wasn't taken due to Yonnua not knowing it was his place to do it as part of closing the case justifies preventing it now which is just plain ridiculous and completely bad faith. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:53, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Good catch on Mean Battle Rating

Couldn't remember the exact title when I was looking, but a search on that one pulled up John Ember's page so I reposted it in mainspace, redirects that way being forbidden and all. Guess I musta skimmed over the title, since hey, if a search pulls it up, it must be right, right? Anyways, another redirect shouldn't hurt. Ta for fixing my fuckup. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:21, 12 May 2011 (BST)

NEXTMONTHNAME and PREVIOUSMONTHNAME

I plan on trying to do something with Special:Unusedtemplates here before too long. I undeleted {{NEXTMONTHNAME}} and {{PREVIOUSMONTHNAME}} last week so you could use them. Think you'll find a use for them soon? Sandbox will work. I'm hoping to have a completely empty Special:Unusedtemplates when I'm done. ~ _{15:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)}

very least they can go on a help page. Feel free to include them under this header until I have time for that.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:05, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Maybe you'll get to it next November or January. ~

_{21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)}

WN

Since you're evidently in the middle of a mass edit, I'll link you to my response. And I agree, WN is stupid, which is why I stopped doing it a good year ago.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 23:10, 9 May 2011 (BST)

I used it twice recently, due to the fact that there were some pretty new users who were trying to make a group page, but used the talk page of the page they wanted as their group page to do it. I also left them a message in the hopes that if they needed help, they would contact me. I feel that the WN template is useful for people who truly have no idea what they are doing, but not as a general greeting to new users (much less ones that have been around since 2005). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:32, 9 May 2011 (BST)

All of the ones I'm pointing out right now were previously deleted because Airborne88 spammed it on pages of old users without pages. There's a case somewhere, he got banned for it and Farenheit quit the wiki because of it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:36, 9 May 2011 (BST)

I recall those cases, and the self banning of MF. Airborn88 put it up on a ton of talk pages that didn't have any content on them, mainly because they didn't have any content on them, didn't he? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:48, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Sorta, he was doing it to win at Signature Race which he even admitted on his talk page iirc. MF admitted the whole purpose of it was to actually spam userpages and got pissed when we enforced the spamming rule. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:52, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Users who hadn't even edited for months, he spammed them, ya -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 00:16, 10 May 2011 (BST)

Btw, Karek, I'm not sure that the newbies contribs page was present before the last update (it certainly wasn't linked on RC), so alot of the old cases wouldn't have actually been able to use it.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 23:35, 9 May 2011 (BST)

It was, we added it a long long time ago. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:36, 9 May 2011 (BST)

See.] --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:38, 9 May 2011 (BST)

The new user edits link has been around since before the update. Have never used it, though, since RC is already easy to overview, and special cases like apparently new users can be as well checked by contribs (which I tend to do anyway, to see if they have already trouble somewhere - pointed help when applicable is much better than a template that has been slapped on the page with zero consideration for the individual user). -- Spiderzed █ 23:40, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Ah, sorry, my mistake. Out of interest, what list are you using to get all of these?--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 23:44, 9 May 2011 (BST)

That was my ungodly large user Logs. I forgot how much shit I used to do around here. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:45, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Hey Newbie

Right, newbie sysop, I don't think you have any idea what you're doing, so you'd better go read these articles by Aichon, Ross and DDR. Newb. Oh, btw, congrats. :P --Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 12:43, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Congrats

now fix everything! :P -- bitch 12:43, 8 May 2011 (utc)

Congrats! And now go voting on that mongtarded misconduct case so that it can be wrapped up. -- Spiderzed █ 14:54, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Indeed. Congrats Karke. Glad to hqve you on board. ~ _{16:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)}

that goon sig

i'm just curious. doesn't that template also fall under the blinking text policy? just wondering what happened to it? i thought it passed?-- bitch 13:09, 7 May 2011 (utc)

it did pass and it's in effect, ATM they have been notified for another violation of the sig policy, so you can either lump a complaint about the blinking text onto the noticies i made or wait to see if they remove the image before notifying them. Personally, I don't really think it counts as blinking so I won't do it but if someone does, I believe the correct method is to ask them to change, and then if they dont after a week the sysops rule on the validity of the complaint on A/VB -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 13:14, 7 May 2011 (BST)

it's only annoying when a ton of them sign, other than that it is quite pretty. i'm going to wait and see before I say anything. also it's getting really hard to code with the walls of text that sig produces. isn't there a way to cut down on the clutter? --

bitch 13:22, 7 May 2011 (utc)

Not really. They could by templating it but they don't have to at all. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 14:14, 7 May 2011 (BST)

i'm not stepping on that land mine. oh well. i guess I could ask nicely.--

bitch 20:58, 7 May 2011 (utc)

Well that or we could just rework and propose a new sig policy that isn't needlessly restrictive. I for one see nothing wrong with that sig beyond the horrible ban blinking text policy. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:04, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Help:Template messages

I was just wondering if you had any specific plans for that page? Otherwise, I'm planning to cut huge swathes of it in an attempt to make it readable for the average user.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:29, 5 May 2011 (BST)

That was the goal. I was updating the Help pages and then some stuff came up and then I left. It sorta got stranded in that half worked state so by all means go for it. I'm surprised no one else has taken that up in the two or three years it's been like that. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 08:48, 5 May 2011 (BST)

OK, I'll get to work on it. I suspect that the reason that no one else has done anything on it is because it's not really linked to from anywhere: I only found it by pure chance because I was going through Special:Wantedtemplates. The page is also rather unappealing because it's a pretty opaque piece technical documentation which most users probably won't be able to follow anyway.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:39, 5 May 2011 (BST)

District SE-4/Minimap

De-orphaning, also wondering what is the point of this page. Can we delete it? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:16, 23 April 2011 (BST)

Needed. --VVV^RPMBG 21:30, 23 April 2011 (BST)

VB Header Links

I undid this because the auto headers for such cases keep changing if there are identicle cases that come up later. LM2 becomes LM3 if another case is added later, and so on... I guess it's late in the month, but still ;) -- boxy 09:16, 30 April 2011 (BST)

So fix broken links at time of archival. It's really not necessary I wouldn't think, especially when there's no way to code {{vndl}} to work with the numbering system iirc. That template in particular actually works better when it's the standard links simply due to it always keeping the relevant cases with the most recent talk header. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:38, 30 April 2011 (BST)

PM Bid

Any chance of you answering my question on your bid?--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 08:52, 28 April 2011 (BST)

In fairness, I think he technically has. --Rosslessness 09:46, 28 April 2011 (BST)

yeah, pretty much. The only appropriate response is no response. The main reason the SA group has to have against me is the A/VB stuff documented on boxy's page. It also happens to be a drama that got to the point of kevan killing a policy that attempted to bar what had been done. I understand why they're doing it and am amused with how but it's an issue long past settled. If you'd like to learn more about the various ssysops histories with the dead i'd suggest you browse about A/vb for when they were first around and decide for yourself how reasonable and biased/unbiased each of them were. i'd recommend the I am .Zeug drama first and foremost for why I'm ignoring their responses as an SA thing and not as a referrendum on myself. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:58, 1 May 2011 (BST)

I know that, I was pretty much just opting for you to denounce them on your bid to show that you really don't care, and I saw you not saying that as trying not to upset them. Now that you've answered, I'll happily give the vouch I was going to originally. ;P --Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 14:48, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Please tell me your opinion on the shotokan martial arts

I cannot rest well untill you answer.

How Dis Gonna Go Down?

Hey. Just wanted to open discussion on this whole "posting stuff about my ban record on your talk page because it's so awesome" thing. :) I want to sort of clarify what you're looking for so I don't just muck up your talk page.

Here's a sort of preliminary thing... this unfortunately has to be prefaced with "as best as I can recall"...

Warned - No Date - Re-adding suggestions that were removed.
Warned - No Date - Re-adding suggestions that were removed.
Banned for 24 hours - 04:20, 22 November 2005 - "Stealth Posting"* Suggestion.
As seen here.

*"Stealth Posting" is what it was called when I re-added a suggestion but forgot to copy the header, making it not appear on the table of contents. I immediately tried to remedy the mistake, but it had already been deleted and I was banned. <3

As per all above: In early history, there was a rule that if a suggestion had 3 "Kill" votes and 0 "Keep" votes, anyone could delete it. Forevaarr. I always voted for my own suggestions, ensuring there was 1 "Keep" vote. Only after getting into trouble for re-adding suggestions was it explained that "Author vote doesn't count" - which makes sense, but I still thought was hinkey given that wasn't explained prior.

Also note that sometimes I was re-adding suggestions that weren't even removed under the rules, but instead were just blasted by someone who simply didn't like the concept. Guilt fell to my side for insisting on re-adding, which I suppose more fit the concept of "bad faith" than someone removing a silly idea.
Warned - 02:02, 13 March 2006 (GMT) - Warned, I kid you not, for arguing with someone and reporting their vandalism.
As seen here.

While it was decided that my reports weren't vandalism, the user in question was indeed editing my pages. No false reports, just reports that people saw as "overzealous". Honestly, I know I didn't do myself any favors back then, but I still don't understand overzealous reporting = warning.
Warned - 01:47, 30 May 2006 (BST) - Do not recall. Will see if I can figure it out.
Banned for 24 hours - 18:32, 2 June 2006 (BST) — ~~Do not recall, as above.~~
Edit: Thanks for the link below, boxy. Checked the log and found this was for moving commentary to a talk page without leaving a note that I did it.
Banned for 1 Year 07:49, 9 June 2006 (BST) — Infamous "Bike Riding" post on own Userpage.
The post was, of course, satire (I didn't really have a video) mocking everything others were saying about me. Quibbles as to its legality aside - I don't believe a verdict was actually reached on this. The ban was carried out by LibrarianBrent, who had left the wiki and left again after the action. If no verdict was reached, is it still legit? *shrug*

I also recall that there was one warning/ban that was supposed to be removed from my record due to being overturned, but no one would do it. Can't recall which, as of yet.

Drama. -- Amazing?! 18:55, 23 April 2011 (BST)

I entirely forgot to mention the fact the ban record was reworked in the days following my year-long ban in order to make the year-long ban "legal". That was probably the most important part, if any of it can be called "important." -- Amazing?! 19:06, 23 April 2011 (BST)

So I'll start with point 7 before I go running around reviewing everything else. The fact that the ban was unreverted implies that the team consented to it's existence and thus validates the escalation. There's a very clear notice when a user gets banned so they would have been aware that it happened. Silence Implies Consent unfortunately. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:44, 24 April 2011 (BST)

On the silent agreement - is it an actual policy of this site? Also, what constitutes "silent"? IIRC a SysOp or two disagreed with the ban, but if "silent" just means "not actually bucking the top mod by undoing the ban" then I can see that's an impass. -- Amazing?! 04:04, 24 April 2011 (BST)

As far as I can tell, that last one was the final escalation, it's just that it got applied and overturned a number of times... there is a record in the archives. All very confusing. But it was no doubt discussed at length -- boxy 04:19, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Just a minor point on the consent thing: There was at least one sysop (me) who didn't agree on the permaban, and I'm pretty sure that there were others not entirely in favour of it. However, this was at a time when dissenting from the majority tended to get you A/Med and then warned for misconduct (Hell, following the stated letter of the rules once got me a warning).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:46, 30 April 2011 (BST)

The whole reworking your vandal data was done because before that point, A/VD simply didn't exist. If all of those warnings happened, and it seems that you admit they did, then it's totally justified for the sysops to go back and tally them all up. And without having detailed diff comparisons handy, I don't see how we can go back and change any of it now, on your sayso. Quite frankly, I think that you earned at least enough of them to keep your fair share of escalations. Perhaps we should strike the lot, though, and start out afresh with your vandal data showing a full compliment of (the current) escalations up to the month ban level -- boxy 03:51, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Just to clarify, the reason it's not justified in my own personal opinion is the same reason a raise in traffic fines doesn't mean you retroactively pay more on all you past tickets in life. If the escalation system were to change tomorrow and one warning meant a permaban, would SysOps honestly permaban everyone who had a prior warning? It's a wild example, but retroactivtly applying new rules to old rulings is just as nonsensical to me. I'm not going to argue about it, though, that's my opinion in a nutshell. No one need agree. :B Suffice to say I'd be onboard with any/all striking of any of that - just becuase it prevents the entire prospective debate even I don't have the hot air to endure anymore. -- Amazing?! 04:04, 24 April 2011 (BST)

I see it more as an introduction of a "three strikes and you're out" type law. Sure, such an introduction doesn't mean that you immediately go out and round up everyone who had 3 or more strikes in the past, but if someone offends again, and there are still 2 or more strikes from before the introduction, then the full weight of the new law is applied. This isn't retroative punishment for past crimes, but rather application of the new rule to any new crimes. It's just that the new rule takes past behaviour into account in a different way (you still have to commit the crime after the rule is introduced) -- boxy 04:19, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Agree to disagree, I suppose. Since I was banned, then it was decided to change my record afterward, I just don't feel the whole "legitimacy" thing. As I say, though, no biggie. I don't even play and have no need to do anything but edit my userpage and discuss things like this, so I'm very unlikely to ever do anything accidental that would get me re-perma'd. -- Amazing?! 04:45, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Just hang around for 6 months and make 1500 edits or so, and then we can strike them, and it won't matter any more. :) --Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 21:24, 25 April 2011 (BST)

SeriouslY

Resysop yourself. You've got a much better technical understanding than 90% of the clowns we currently have.--Rosslessness 15:39, 21 April 2011 (BST)

I'm just a tad short on the 500 edits right now actually. But I'm considering it, you're not the first person to bring it up to me.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:00, 21 April 2011 (BST)

Why not reply to this comment? One step closer!--Rosslessness 22:06, 21 April 2011 (BST)

I dunno, +1 was never really my thing. I've got some stuff I'm planning to work on though that will probably help more anyway.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:17, 21 April 2011 (BST)

Pretty sure I'm over now. :p --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:11, 23 April 2011 (BST)

Good -- boxy 03:59, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Exceptional qualifications in one area can provide leeway in other criteria. I'd vouch for you, and if just for not having to file so much of your stuff on A/SD, A/MR, A/PT etc. anymore :p -- Spiderzed █ 10:16, 23 April 2011 (BST)

While you're at it undelete the ghost pages help page. It didn't qualify for either why they said it or, realistically, the crit they deleted it under(I made the move request for article creation). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:21, 23 April 2011 (BST)

I checked the page history, and technically, it isn't C7 due to an edit by a different user. And even if it were, C7 isn't a scheduled deletion, so he should have waited for a different op to deal with it. Same if he had gone the A/MR route, which requires also a different op to handle it. (So if you wanted to be anal, you could file a misconduct case, although I'd personally consider it as a too petty matter for anything more than a soft warning.) File it officially on A/U, and I'll undelete it on the grounds of it having been illicitly deleted. -- Spiderzed █ 11:03, 23 April 2011 (BST)

From the scheduled deletions page: "Crit 7 by Proxy : If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page. (Approved 26 March 2009) As of January 2010, this scheduling now includes pages that the author has blanked or replaced with text indicating a desire to be deleted. However, pages used as inclusions (such as many templates) are excluded from this criterion. (Approved 3 January 2010). Crit 7 is a scheduled deletion.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 11:17, 23 April 2011 (BST)

I know that criterion. It is essentially an implicite A/SD request by "conduct implying an intent", so it should follow the same guidelines. Meaning that the proxy issueing the implicite request and the op carrying out the deletion should still be different people. -- Spiderzed █ 11:23, 23 April 2011 (BST)

No, it doesn't. There's no requirement that it be a different user, and it's been used repeatedly by sysops in the past for userspace tests and other mess-ups.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 11:55, 23 April 2011 (BST)

Are we talking about the ghost pages I made here? Cause if we are I should probs butt in and say that those ghost pages were 100% my own work, research (or documentations of others research collaborated with by me) and were moved back to my userspace not deleted. So p sure everything I deleted was my own stuff, an unused redirect resultant from a page move (after I reversed my move request to ark the now redundant ghost pages) and also as a redirect to a userpage. Even without explaining it in a red-tape sense, all the content on that page was mine, created by me and is under my control as far as deletion procedures are concerned (only after it became a redundant article pending worthy deletion because it chronicles a non-existant issue now). If you're interested in arguing its undeletion based on its historical relevance I'd be happy to discuss (note: not argue, cause as long as it isn't deleted I'm happy wherever it is) because you'd have a point there, though as a page it existed pretty happily in the userspace for years so i don't see what massive change the move will do for the historical relevance now, up for discussion i guess. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 12:39, 23 April 2011 (BST)

Just to be clear on that, I have personally very little interest in the ghost page (especially since the matter is historical now), and don't really care if it exists in userspace, in mainspace, in both or in neither. However, I was directly asked by Karek to look into this, so I investigated and looked if there are any grounds for undeletion (i.e., mistakes in the deletion process). By my appraisal, there _are_ (superficial) formal errors in the deletion process (one non-authour edit in the page history and C7 deletion by the same op who issued the request), so technically, it could be undeleted on request. - However, if you were going to resubmit a deletion after an undeletion, C7 would probably be handwaved (the one non-authour edit was extremely minor), meaning any other op would carry out the deletion request without further questions and this time formally correct, negating the grounds for undeletion. So it's probably most effective if you settle this informally, rather than by playing fruitless (un)deletion ping-pong on the admin pages. -- Spiderzed █ 14:07, 23 April 2011 (BST)

Put simply the fact that I requested the content page's creation, that it was a help document, and that the reason it was put up for a vote(without a crit) with an incorrect reason(ghost pages still exist, look at my A/SD comments) all mean that if I make an A/U it should be undeleted. However because of the lack of actual process in the A/SD I shouldn't even have to do that. It never should have been deleted the way it was and yes, I do have a good misconduct case should I choose to pursue it. I don't want to, I just want the move/delete undone because every single reason for doing it was wrong, as I've documented quite thoroughly on the A/SD page. Can someone please just do the right thing without making people jump thorough hoops to get some sysops mistakes fixed? Help:Ghost Pages wasn't even acknowledged as part of the delete request, there were comments about deleting the template and obvious assumption that the Help page was going to be kept. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:28, 24 April 2011 (BST)

I mean shit guys, the god damn A/SD requester even was the one to make the comment acknowleding that Help:Ghost Pages was assumed to be outside the requested. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:34, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Oh, I didn't realise the ghosts still existed. I have re-done most of the stuff but kept category:Ghost Files down, since it seems we won't need it anymore if we are going to keep the ghost files deleted. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 05:50, 24 April 2011 (BST)

Thank you. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:56, 24 April 2011 (BST)

CAPTCHA

Hey have we always had CAPTCHA for account creation? We do now. Maybe this will help cut down on bot creation. ~ _{15:03, 21 April 2011}

Pretty sure we have. Not definite, it's been a while. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:23, 21 April 2011 (BST)

We've had it for a number of years. I believe there was a discussion on Kevan's talk page...--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:17, 21 April 2011 (BST)

Yup. Implemented in 2007.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:22, 21 April 2011 (BST)

broken

yo talk page is broken, not completely sure why. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 11:26, 21 April 2011 (BST)

Sorry I just noticed you referred to it elsewhere, never mind. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 11:27, 21 April 2011 (BST)

I was actually referring to my User page, the CSS pages from before the update weren't preserved. Certain codebits that I was using inappropriately in them changed the function of my userpage. The talk page is because of a number of missing span tags somewhere that I don't feel like fixing or pointing out this week. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:45, 21 April 2011 (BST)

Fuck you nigger

Your wiki sucks to navigate and is obnoxious and blue. Also anime=cartoons.-- ►アー・ヒュージ・ゲイピング・バジャイナ◄ ^{スナックストロング} 21:46, 20 April 2011 (BST)

The noise you are hearing is largely intentional. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:05, 21 April 2011 (BST)

Feel free to improve the main as you see fit. At least for now. I only need the things of slight interest and the wiki projects sections because they're there for my use.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:23, 21 April 2011 (BST)

Inter wikipedia links

I'm pretty sure I've tried using the wikipedia internal links on my own wikis and they don't work. It is a plugin that I need? You may know this, not sure if you do or not. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 06:16, 11 April 2011 (BST)

I actually have a bit of experience with that but it's been a few years. [2] would probably be the least work intensive way to do it. There should be an easier database solution but that's a matter of knowing dbs, the extension takes little knowledge of anything technical. --Karek^maps?! 06:58, 11 April 2011 (BST)

Vandalbanning

Because the page is starting to get rather text-wallish, it may be best to continue our discussion (if we're still going to keep going) on one of our talks, other than for new info on the case, etc. Fair?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:51, 2 April 2011 (BST)

It really is relevant to the ruling of those types of cases but, basically what you should answer is where specifically can you show Spiderzed has a reason to know this wasn't an ok edit to make? Simply because he's a sysop isn't relevant because sysops have the same information as established users who also wouldn't have a way to know without previously having it brought up to them. --Karek^maps?! 21:56, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I've responded there with regard to why I think he should know (I read this afterwards, so I've talked about him being a wiki regular more, despite your rebuttal to that here). Frankly, the reverse of what you're saying is also true. Unless it can be shown that he had reason to believe that it wouldn't be vandalism, we can assume he would have thought of it as a standard admin page spamming case, and he would have known that that could be seen as vandalism. Do you see where I'm coming from?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:07, 2 April 2011 (BST)

No, you can't. It's actually outlined in policy that you are 'required to Assume Good Faith and prove bad. --Karek^maps?! 22:15, 2 April 2011 (BST)

I'm not not assuming good faith. I'm saying that, failing evidence that shows that he had a very limited and specific knowledge of precedent that meant that he only knew about cases where it was ruled not vandalism, he would have either known about cases being ruled as vandalism, or he wouldn't know about any. And if he didn't know about any, then he would have had to think about it as a spamming of admin pages, which he does know about.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:19, 2 April 2011 (BST)

No, you're saying he should have known better but don't have any reason why and you're trying to hide that with fancy words probably to convince yourself more than anyone else. The burden of proof of prior knowledge is on the person claiming vandalism, it's not his job to prove to you that he actually means well this time, or any other time. The fact that you can claim that if he didn't know about it you think he should have thought about it anyway kinda shows he's not being given the basic assumption of good faith. That doesn't mean you're biased against him it just means you need to step back and think about why you're actually ruling the way you are, is it a knee-jerk reaction to the type of edit? The fact it's on an admin page? The user? Take a breath and reassess and hopefully come back with the assumption of good faith and the patience to seek out an actual point where he has ever had reason to know this isn't ok. --Karek^maps?! 22:24, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Fair enough. I've had a read through some of the edits and precedents again, and I believe I'll ask spiderzed some questions on VB regarding it to try and work aroudn this. Sound reasonable?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:30, 2 April 2011 (BST):

Very, thank you. --Karek^maps?! 22:32, 2 April 2011 (BST)

No problem. I don't know why sysops never ask questions of the accused on vandal cases, actually.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:33, 2 April 2011 (BST)

It's fallen out of practice I guess. We used to do it at least on occasion. --Karek^maps?! 22:36, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Obviously I wouldn't suggest it for open and shut cases, but for more divisive ones like this, I might have to start doing it more.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:39, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Really the only open and shut cases are Suggestions rule 13 or whatever that was, and 3 page wiki vandals. It's a good practice that I can only encourage, just like actually ruling arbitration violations based on faith of the action as that furthers the purpose of arbitration more than auto-escalation. --Karek^maps?! 22:42, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Topic Bookends

So, your back? A proper return or just a visit. You'd be amazed at how much standards have fallen.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 17:10, 1 April 2011 (BST)

I'm back at least for the foreseeable future. Gives me something to do while I'm busying working on some other stuffs around. --Karek^maps?! 00:07, 2 April 2011 (BST)

Omni map

Thank you for the tip on the omnimap. The method and scope is a bit different but this was helpful. I prefer the one I mentioned though for ease of updating based on the 81 point grid. That said, noting says they cannot both be useful to the people of Malton. If you are still involved with this map, feel free to use any of the images we collect to update it if you like. On another note, do you think they would mind if I steal the color key?

-- Al be rt Sc hw an 20:23, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Axe's Banner

Axe's banner is offensive to the eye. I wasn't comitting vandalism, I was preventing a massacre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo the Sly (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Revision History wipe (again)

Anything we need to preserve etc? --Like Moss and The Dude..... 17:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we preserve anything? I see that we can export pages along with their editing history. Where would we go from there? ~

_{17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)}

Kevin is usually pretty good about getting diffs requested of him left alone. That being said no, there's probably nothing of import. Also, don't be surprised if I take a day or two to respond, or in this case a week. I'm pretty busy, that time of year plus a few new projects. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Karek/20121021154920

Note To Guests

Cause I Need a Real Header

Locator

Sewiously

Blanket Permission

What!?

Pre Purge Vandal Data History

ta

Iwitness

Now's your chance

New Status Map

Lazy witness system question

lol

didn't we

What the hell, man

Pinata

A/RE

Wiki Suggestions

Arbitration

Professional help

Is this...

Arbies List

Arbies

iwitness down?

Cobra on A/D

boo.

Arbitration

A/RE

Getting rid of Recruitment timestamps

Cobra Arbitration

A/A

Admin Archives

Subbing

Derrrrr

a/vb/b

Off wiki

Good catch on Mean Battle Rating

NEXTMONTHNAME and PREVIOUSMONTHNAME

WN

Hey Newbie

Congrats

that goon sig

Help:Template messages

District SE-4/Minimap

VB Header Links

PM Bid

Please tell me your opinion on the shotokan martial arts

How Dis Gonna Go Down?

SeriouslY

CAPTCHA

broken

Fuck you nigger

Inter wikipedia links

Vandalbanning

Topic Bookends

Omni map

Axe's Banner

Revision History wipe (again)

Navigation menu

Search