UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 10: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→[[User:Misanthropy]]: I was massively edit conflicted, so I'm posting this then reading everything I missed) |
The General (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude> | <noinclude> | ||
{{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/TalkHeader}} | {{:UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/TalkHeader}} | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
| Line 39: | Line 37: | ||
::::::It is worth figuring out where the line is now that this one's over though. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 21:52, 7 October 2010 (BST) | ::::::It is worth figuring out where the line is now that this one's over though. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 21:52, 7 October 2010 (BST) | ||
:::::::I'd say that this case is a good example of just over the line. The admin page nature made it worse, but this is essentially a good hallmark for borderline.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 21:54, 7 October 2010 (BST) | :::::::I'd say that this case is a good example of just over the line. The admin page nature made it worse, but this is essentially a good hallmark for borderline.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 21:54, 7 October 2010 (BST) | ||
::::::::Agreed. Just ''barely'' over the line. And the usage of the image also came into play, I think, since if it had been used in his userspace alone, I probably would have laughed and said it was fine. That it was posted on A/BP mattered when it came to deciding whether it was Vandalism or not. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:02, 7 October 2010 (BST) | |||
::I can think of a few reasons: | ::I can think of a few reasons: | ||
::#Arbitration rulings have no applicability when determining whether or not cases are considered to be Vandalism. | ::#Arbitration rulings have no applicability when determining whether or not cases are considered to be Vandalism. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:23, 21 June 2011
Archives
Talk Archives
|
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Discussion Archives
October 2010
Darma and Lois Millard
- Is it UHUB then? I'm tired and can't really recall.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:00, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- UHUB?
23:01, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- He's talking about the User Hub where some users list wiki alts in the comments section. -MHSstaff 23:08, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- UHUB?
- Is it UHUB then? I'm tired and can't really recall.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:00, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Shouldn't this be in October's VB reports instead of September's? As well as the report under it? And the latest adbot report? Who's doing the cycling thing or whatever? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:13, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Touche. I'll handle in the morning if it isn't sorted. I'm too tired right now not to make a mistake.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:14, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- I hate creating these new pages so I totally called not doing it. I miss Iz. :( 23:15, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Lazy Psychos...Next time, I'll do the honors, I guess... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:17, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- I actually just did it because it seemed easy (wiki breaks in 30 seconds).--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:18, 4 October 2010 (BST)
- Was gonna say...anyone is welcome to do it. Iscariot used to be really good about it. We've all been slacking off on it ever since he left since it's such a hassle to deal with. —Aichon— 00:05, 5 October 2010 (BST)
- Lazy Psychos...Next time, I'll do the honors, I guess... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:17, 4 October 2010 (BST)
Required Reading For Sysops
In this case, specifically, Warning and Banning of Users. Hopefully this will prevent any further problems. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:31, 5 October 2010 (BST)
User:Misanthropy
Vandalism. I mean, this site can be viewed by anyone... 
-Dezonus- (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2010 (BST)
- You're not a sysop, so you don't get a vote. You're also an uninvolved party, so your comments belong here, not on the main page. —Aichon— 07:24, 6 October 2010 (BST)
Now that it's been deleted it might be difficult for other sysops to judge the appropriate action to be taken, and it might be confusing for users reading this archive. So, just for the record, it was a drawing of a penis going into a vagina.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 13:20, 5 October 2010 (BST)
- In Bizarro World, maybe. That was not a vagina.
~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD | 14:17, 5 October 2010 (BST)
- It was an ass, suggesting homo-eroticism. Giles, you have a serious problem if you can't see the difference :P --
Thadeous Oakley 14:23, 5 October 2010 (BST)
- It was an ass, suggesting homo-eroticism. Giles, you have a serious problem if you can't see the difference :P --
There is an Arby's precedent for this, for those of you who don't know... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:17, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- Bear in mind, some of the links on this Arby's case of Mark D. Stroyer vs Gage doesn't exist anymore due to the data wipe we about a year or two ago. But if I had a say, I would vouch for not vandalism, mainly due to the fact that Gage wasn't required to remove the obscene image, therefore, why would we give Mis a warning for a similar thing Gage did eons ago that was allowed to pass? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:33, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- And as an added point, if we warn Mis, why the hell don't we warn everyone involved in Mod Conspiracy for this, a picture of *GASP* a naked lady! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:38, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- You do realise that both of those cases are completely irrelevant, as they're ascii art and not images?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:41, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- Aye, but they're still pictures, none the less. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:42, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- Well they aren't images and aren't bound in the same way. The arbies case was first off, an arbies case, and second was a user page, where they can put whatever text they want. Linking the image in this case to an admin page is a clear distinction. Still, it was a soft warning. This isn't the world's most serious offence.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:44, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- It is worth figuring out where the line is now that this one's over though. 21:52, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- I'd say that this case is a good example of just over the line. The admin page nature made it worse, but this is essentially a good hallmark for borderline.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:54, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- Agreed. Just barely over the line. And the usage of the image also came into play, I think, since if it had been used in his userspace alone, I probably would have laughed and said it was fine. That it was posted on A/BP mattered when it came to deciding whether it was Vandalism or not. —Aichon— 22:02, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- I'd say that this case is a good example of just over the line. The admin page nature made it worse, but this is essentially a good hallmark for borderline.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:54, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- It is worth figuring out where the line is now that this one's over though.
- Well they aren't images and aren't bound in the same way. The arbies case was first off, an arbies case, and second was a user page, where they can put whatever text they want. Linking the image in this case to an admin page is a clear distinction. Still, it was a soft warning. This isn't the world's most serious offence.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:44, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- Aye, but they're still pictures, none the less. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:42, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- You do realise that both of those cases are completely irrelevant, as they're ascii art and not images?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:41, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- I can think of a few reasons:
- Arbitration rulings have no applicability when determining whether or not cases are considered to be Vandalism.
- Gage's actions weren't given a pass: they were forgotten. The arbies ruling passed the buck of handling the problem to A/D, but it was never followed up, so no conclusion was ever actually reached.
- A/VB is all about coming to a conclusion. A/A is all about reaching a compromise between dissenting users. Their arbitrator compromised, as he should. We didn't, as we should.
- What is or is not considered offensive changes with the culture of the wiki. Back then, it may have been considered laughable to post an image like Mis'. Now, it's considered borderline.
- Had Mark taken him to A/VB, the outcome may have been different for all we know. Either way, that case is inapplicable here, and doesn't support arguments one favoring either side, if you ask me. And besides, we've already ruled on this case and we didn't give Mis a warning, nor did anything go on his record. So, essentially, we did let him off. —Aichon— 21:58, 7 October 2010 (BST)
- And as an added point, if we warn Mis, why the hell don't we warn everyone involved in Mod Conspiracy for this, a picture of *GASP* a naked lady! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:38, 7 October 2010 (BST)
