UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 07

July 2010

User:DCC

Wow, I used to be a real dick.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:36, 30 July 2010 (BST)

If he's not abusing the alt, then it should be considered not vandalism.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 20:00, 30 July 2010 (BST)

Thank you for your input. --

 

 

 

 

01:56, 31 July 2010 (BST)

Classic.-- Adward  14:16, 31 July 2010 (BST)

???

Like I mentioned in RC, why is the July record already archived? --Thadeous Oakley 10:34, 28 July 2010 (BST)

They're always set up like this for A/VB, that way we can set up links to cases immediately and not have them break later when we archive the cases. What I want to know is why A/VB is broken... —Aichon— 10:37, 28 July 2010 (BST)

No, that's what I mean, I know they get archived like this, but I was under the impression someone already did, because July isn't appearing on A/VB.--Thadeous Oakley 10:39, 28 July 2010 (BST)

Talk page, FTW -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:38 28 July 2010 (BST)

Uhm, have you checked A/VB? July is missing.--Thadeous Oakley 10:39, 28 July 2010 (BST)

Yeah, I think it might be a template issue. Looking into it now. —Aichon— 10:42, 28 July 2010 (BST)

Fixeded -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:45 28 July 2010 (BST)

See, that's the good way to do it. Me? I was checking template after template, trying to find which ones were the biggest. I like your method better. —Aichon— 10:46, 28 July 2010 (BST)

I still can't get my head around what happened though. What happened Boxy :o? --Thadeous Oakley 10:47, 28 July 2010 (BST)

When too many bytes of data are included on a page as a template, they just stop being included. It's a safeguard to stop people breaking the wiki by including huge pages multiple times on a page. There were too many sigs and too much discussion on the archive page. By noincluding that extensive discussion at the bottom of the page, I lowered the number of bytes being included on A/VB so that it now works -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:50 28 July 2010 (BST)

Oh. Never knew there was a data cap on templates. Thanks Boxy. --Thadeous Oakley 10:55, 28 July 2010 (BST)

Ya, noticed A/VB was broken a few days ago, tried to fix it, couldn't be bothered (as Rooster has his specific maintenance tasks he gives me like category moving, fixing mass-templated included pages is the job I give him) and just figured people would just follow the link. I guess I also have nothing more to add here since both the technical questions Thad and Aichon asked have been answered, so now my text here feels somewhat redundant... :( --

 

 

 

 

11:24, 28 July 2010 (BST)

User:Revenant

This is fucking bullshit. It wasn't fucking vandalism when the Gibsonton Squatters posted on every fucking talk page on the wiki in a derogatory manner to another group, nor when me and Axe Hack went on a +1 rampage earlier in the week, so why should it be vandalism that Rev is posting a few tongue in cheek voting notices? It's pretty pathetic that this is even being considered a case, let alone being ruled on. Had one of the supporters of the other candidate in this election done likewise I doubt we'd be seeing anyone escalated and you all fucking know that I'm right. 15:04, 5 July 2010 (BST)

No, I don't. You're little +1 escapades annoyed, "threatened" or addressed no one, except for the people who genuinely give a shit about special:mostlinkedpages, of which the count is approximately 1^1/2. Comparing them is completely different. Unfortunately I don't know about the gibsonton squatters affair so I can't discuss. Regardless, it was hitting the nail into the coffin of what turned out to be a colossal hissee fit over becoming "mayor of malton" imo and it seems you're following suite. --

 

 

 

 

15:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I still fail to see what is threatening or bad faith about Rev's actions here. Had he been posting notices for anything else this would have been overlooked and seen as not being bad faith. I'm jumping on this not because of the election (look at it, there's no way I'm winning it now, I already pulled out all the stops like a week ago), but because a man who committed no vandalism is being escalated because of some bullshit tantrum thrown by a rival. The conduct surrounding this thing has been deplorable and I refuse to stand by while someone who has actually kept things above board the entire time becomes the only person actually punished in the whole affair. 15:28, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I've read the vandalism page, and I fail to see how Revenant's actions qualify.

On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". ... We make the following notes on what isn't vandalism: An unwanted edit to any page.

The fact that the banners were probably annoying doesn't make them a violation of the rules. They were properly attributed, weren't misleading, weren't deletions of existing content, etc. I would appreciate it if the people who are voting for vandalism can point out exactly what part of the policy Revenant's actions violated. ~ AphelionT 19:04, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Goof faith edit = improving this wiki. spamming crap isn't improving a wiki. Plus it's backed up by precedent which doesn't have to be part of the guidelines or policies. There that's my interpretation, deal with it and stop floundering around with such naive arguments. --

 

 

 

 

00:58, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Spamming multiple talk pages with cut'n'paste messages has long been considered vandalism. Precedents; 1 2 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:55 6 July 2010 (BST)

I couldn't find anything in any of the official wiki policies that indicated posting a few notices on talk pages is unacceptable conduct, although feel free to correct me if I've missed something. Regardless of precedent, if certain behaviors are going to be punished, that needs to be clearly explicated in an obvious place, or I don't see how it's fair to expect people to know about them. Considering that the vandalism page doesn't address this sort of behavior, why is everyone assuming the edits were made in bad faith? What happened to assuming good faith? It's not like Revenant continued after being asked to stop. I'm still not convinced that what he did was wrong, but that isn't the crux of my argument; I just don't like how this was handled. A formal warning seems excessive when a "please don't do this again" would've sufficed. ~ AphelionT 09:41, 6 July 2010 (BST)

I argued to death too when i got my warning even though a sysop at the time told me i could do it, it was never repealed >: ♥ Moonie ^{Talk | Testimonials} 09:51, 6 July 2010 (BST)

If you're talking about the humorous suggestion, that's a good example to demonstrate because both that and this are backed up by such enormous precedents that both repeals will end up the same way. --

 

 

 

 

13:32, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Do you mind addressing the part about precedent not being an excuse for punishing people for something they had no way of knowing about? Also, please note that precedent is not a good reason to do something if the ruling isn't backed up by actual reasoning too. The fact that this has apparently happened before doesn't make it right. ~ AphelionT 17:39, 6 July 2010 (BST)

I apparently missed the section of the rules where it says posting the same message >20 times is generally considered vandalism. My bad. That said, it would be helpful for it to be on the vandalism page as well. ~ AphelionT 18:44, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Who care? It's a single warning.... it's not like he got banned or anything... -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 21:48, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I would say the people posting care. Obviously. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:08, 5 July 2010 (BST)

It's not the warning itself; it's the principle of the matter. ~ AphelionT 09:41, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Respect -= 10 for all of you. —Aichon— 02:30, 6 July 2010 (BST)

I'd say not bad faith. If he continued after being asked to stop, that'd be another story, but he didn't and it isn't. Where do you draw the line between informing and spamming? That's my two cents. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:38, 6 July 2010 (BST)

lmao Cyberbob  Talk  12:46, 12 July 2010 (BST)

User:TripleU

Yeah, I have done this a couple of times, reliant on the "good faith effort" clause saving me. But if people want to ramp up this stuff, lets have a discussion.
In fact, in some hidden corner of the wiki has been some talk about getting rid of that authour-only re rule, as it doesn't seem to serve a purpose but to save clutter (which is as likely to sprawl out whether the original authour or some concerned voter starts it, and which would get moved to the talk page as soon as it gets out of hand anyway). I just lack the time to create a write-up, or else I'd already have proposed its removal in Policy Discussion. -- Spiderzed▋ 12:24, 16 July 2010 (BST)

I've never seen the use the non-author RE rule holds. We should just deal with clutter on suggestions the way we deal with clutter on other areas of the wiki (moving long discussions to talk.) Linkthewindow  Talk  13:04, 16 July 2010 (BST)

That argument doesn't apply to the suggestions system, though, because we've got DS, which we try to encourage all suggestions to go through. Opening up actual suggestions to extended discussions from all parties turns them into a pseudo-developing suggestions pages, and encourages suggestions that arn't ready to be submitted. Under-developed suggestions gum up the system by becoming dupes of more thought out suggestions well into the future -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:24 16 July 2010 (BST)

True, hadn't thought of that. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:28, 16 July 2010 (BST)

I had, and I still think the system is garbage. All non-author RE's should be wiped and put on the talk page, not striken. --

 

 

 

 

15:30, 16 July 2010 (BST)

That would probably work well, especially if posters deliberately go out of their way, like this, to break the rules -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:39 16 July 2010 (BST)

Fair enough. It's one way of solving the problem. Linkthewindow  Talk  17:14, 16 July 2010 (BST)

User:Colette Hart

I reverted the edit I made in a friend's page, that was mistaken for vandalism. What happened with the Good Faith policy here? Instead of immediately reporting me as vandal, you could explain the situation to me. Anyway, It won't happen again.

By the way, I noticed that an user called Axe Hack called me "he." Colette is a female name, in case you don't know. --Colette Hart 05:46, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Don't worry, nothing should happen of it. We aren't all meanies like Axe Hack. --

 

 

 

 

05:53, 20 July 2010 (BST)

I was in a hurry... T_T Don't blame me...And it was already mentioned on the main page the the case was dropped because you reverted your edit, so no harm done. As for the gender confusion, sorry about that. And meanie, DDR? Colette here is behind the International Axe Hating Week...Don't tell me you're part of that as well? T_T --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 05:56, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Only during the manhunts ;D --

 

 

 

 

06:00, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Why must everybody hate me this week? I'm gonna go hide in my corner... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 06:01, 20 July 2010 (BST)

I'm glad you mentioned the gender confusion, because I was about to call them both out on missing the obvious. And yeah, even if it hadn't been reverted, I'd still have gone with NV on this one, since there was no clear bad faith action taken and it seemed to be meant in good humor. —Aichon— 07:02, 20 July 2010 (BST)

idrc about genders, to me everyone on UDWiki is just part of a mass of names and numbers. That's all you are to me! --

 

 

 

 

08:56, 20 July 2010 (BST)

"Names are just symbols. Like Kyo and Kyoko Tohno and Sieg and Tomonari Kasumi. Though they are different, they all stand for the same thing." --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 09:54, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Shame you messed up a pronoun rather than a name then, since pronouns aren't exactly unique and identifiable symbols. :P —Aichon— 10:05, 20 July 2010 (BST)

How do I know Colette's not really a guy in disguise here? ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 10:08, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Does it matter if she is? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:50, 20 July 2010 (BST)

It could be argued that "he" is the generic pronoun in the English language… but I'm pretty sure it was just a fuck-up. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:02, 26 August 2010 (BST)