UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 10

Archives

Talk Archives

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

General Discussion Archives

• Archive1
• Archive2
• Archive3
• Archive4
• Archive5
• Archive6
• Archive7

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)

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)

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)

Damn I've been pumping the wrong hole all these years. No wonder I can't get anyone pregnant.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:57, 6 October 2010 (BST)

It was DDR's penis and Ross' peachy ol' bum, in response to some confused comments by Thad. Glad I could clear this all up. 15:00, 6 October 2010 (BST)

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 can think of a few reasons:

1. Arbitration rulings have no applicability when determining whether or not cases are considered to be Vandalism.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)