UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 07: Difference between revisions
Rosslessness (talk | contribs) (→Response by accused: bless.) |
|||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:::::I was getting to those when I was notified of the [[A/VB]] case and ceased pending a proper ruling. Surely you can see the logic in targeting the support base of the largest opponent first. Look at the order, I went straight down the list like a phone book. <small>(Ross, I swear you ninja edit conflict me!)</small> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 22:08, 5 July 2010 (BST) | :::::I was getting to those when I was notified of the [[A/VB]] case and ceased pending a proper ruling. Surely you can see the logic in targeting the support base of the largest opponent first. Look at the order, I went straight down the list like a phone book. <small>(Ross, I swear you ninja edit conflict me!)</small> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 22:08, 5 July 2010 (BST) | ||
::::::Well, now you've put it in your sig, I'll let you off. Mis the issue was such. Rev went to a smurf orgy, and said "I'm gonna fuck all youz smurfs" and then went home after postboxing smurfette with a headache. His intention was never to ''smurf'' everyone, regardless of what he said. It was a highly tactical "smurfing." You massive bicycle salesman. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:48, 5 July 2010 (BST) | ::::::Well, now you've put it in your sig, I'll let you off. Mis the issue was such. Rev went to a smurf orgy, and said "I'm gonna fuck all youz smurfs" and then went home after postboxing smurfette with a headache. His intention was never to ''smurf'' everyone, regardless of what he said. It was a highly tactical "smurfing." You massive bicycle salesman. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:48, 5 July 2010 (BST) | ||
::::::So it was targeted spamming. It was still done purely out of self interest, trying to drum up support. The only time we've allowed talk page spamming like this this, is when providing neutral information such as vandal warnings, orphan page notices and welcomenewbie, or if the recipients "sign up" for it (being in a group that regularly contacts members). Simply voting on something is not "opting in" to receive spam from other parties. If we open it up for people to canvas for votes like this, then it is legitimising any amount of spamming, as long as you can say you targeted them is some manner. It mightn't be that annoying when only you do it... but once every other party starts, it will get old very, very quickly <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 22:51 5 July 2010 (BST)</span></small> |
Revision as of 21:51, 5 July 2010
Archives
Talk Archives
Vandal Banning Archive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General Discussion Archives
General Discussion
JISOR/Halfdan and Mekhan/Tarpenz
Assuming these 4 are all ruled vandalism, are their votes in the election all struck? Would remove 2 additional votes from Stelar, leaving them at 23. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 07:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- We'd strike only the second (time-wise) of the votes for each candidate; e.g. JISOR's first two votes would remain, but any by Halfdan Pisket would be struck. Same with Mekhan/Tarpenz — Mekhan's votes remain, but Tarpenz's have been struck. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 12:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I corrected the title for clarity. I have not been connected to the other two accounts. -- 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- JISOR’s final vote was made after both of Pisket’s. If a user has two votes, I believe it would make sense for all votes struck after the first two votes by a single user. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 14:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Sister Mary
moved from main page
Blanked User talk:Sniper4625 - normally I would give benefit of the doubt, but they seem quite hostile, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards~ Sniper4625 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I won't need any benefit of doubt, thanks for considering my feelings though. After reading I wanted to have my talk page protected both Sniper and Dragontard came to write on my page - if you don't want any hostile behavior I suggest you fuck off and leave me alone :) I don't even know who the fuck you guys are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:37 June 3 2018.
- Oh right. Ban the fuck outta my account if you feel like it Mr. System-Operator-Boss. I have no problem editing some page to get my message across to people who have a hard time getting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC).
- -- LABIA on the INTERNET Dunell Hills Corpseman #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now now, there's no need to be rude and start flinging insults. --Dragonshardz (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Might I inquire why you decided the best choice of action to a harmless greeting was a rule-breaking act of vandalism? Quite rude. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Given talk pages are a pretty important element of regulating user behavior without needing to ban anyone the instant they step out of line, I'm really not sure Sister Mary has any interest in learning or following any of the community norms of the wiki. Swissaboo (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per their talk page now they apparently have gotten many such pages deleted, which somewhat confuses me. Sniper4625 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Adding onto this, in their protection request they clearly have no interest in bothering with the proper formatting for responding to other users and on their talk page they have placed the nominated for deleting template without any actual nomination for deletion having occurred. I don't know how much of this is actually against wiki RULES (except perhaps that last one?) but they're very clearly running roughshod over the expected standards of behavior. Swissaboo (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure you meant WIKI LAW when you said RULES. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This was exactly the point of having my talk page protected - the horde/jack/whateverzergs can't seem to leave me alone :) Sister Mary (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Jack got run out of town on a rail. Try again. --Dragonshardz (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- The reason is pretty simple, and I thought you got the message, but okay, I will clarify for you why = I don't like you :) I will eat my warning with pleasure, don't worry about it! But.. this isn't your first time harrassing people, correct? I like that you feel like you have the upperhand over a guy that made 200+ edits within the last 24 hours, and only vandalized a single page of a user that didn't really go about making "a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki" by trying to trigger me by invading my talk page. Im looking forward as to how this will play out. I will just make another account and keep on editing from there so I didn't lose anything catching myself a warning, other than shifting focus to you ugly bunch of motherfuckers :D Sister Mary (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (See, I use my template just like you want to!)
- Isn't sockpuppeting to avoid wikipunishments in itself a punishable offense? You just keep digging. Sniper4625 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- Are you back, Jack? Because you're making the same "alts!" argument he did, and he was similarly disproven. I'm not sure how I put words in your mouth when you said "I will just make another account and keep on editing from there," but well, I did appreciate your attempt to sic Aichon on my compatriot. Too bad it failed. Sniper4625 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see that you're trying to put words in my mouth - unfortunately thats not going to happen. As stated, I will be let of with a warning so I have no intention, and never have I stated that I would sneak away from any punishment. I think it's great that everyone can see how you guys clearly are trying to engage some sort of drama - otherwise you would have left me alone, like I asked to be. So if you think again, I will ditch this account to prevent people like you from being a harrassment. But regarding the sockpuppet behavior - how do we work out the fact that 3 different people came around at the same time, all with the same purpose, and all with the intention of trying to give me a bad time - did you guys coordinate some sort of drama on my behalf - After asking for my talk page to be isolated from people like you. I think im gonna need your shovel m8, seems like it digs that much faster than mine :) Sister Mary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) (Ohhhhh snap.)
- You never did explain why you thought breaking the rules in a very rude way was the best course of action, and why you thought getting demonstrably mad would make people pay *less* attention to you. Sniper4625 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- AHHHHHHHH :D I was actually just waiting for someone to pull out the "you're a Yocum" card! Sure dude - let's say im a Jack. I must be a great Jack. I mean, I edited 2 suburbs completely and have been editing the EMRP for 6 months on another account - but sure! YOU GOT ME! :D Im getting the idea that your dick is all so im gonna leave you to play with that! I will be back with another account, to edit another 200+ locations. Meanwhile you guys will have to enjoy yourself being annoying towards someone else! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2018.
Vandalism and a Warning. Don't blank other's pages. I'll serve the warning officially over at the Sister Mary page, but I assume you'll see it here as well. And yes, warnings carry over between accounts. —Aichon— 02:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- So...how does the wiki handle a user rage-reverting their own edits? --Dragonshardz (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rage reverting? I edited 3 locations due to them being wrong :D Aichon you said something about the parties in question should talk, the rest should shut up. If this doesnt qualify as harrassment I don't know what will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sister Mary (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
Sounds to me like someone is finally bored of this game and is getting one last laugh out of the community by being as much as a cunt as possible on his way out. Either that or it's his time of month and he's out of pads.---- FoD PK Praise Rando!06:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah" A ZOMBIE ANT 00:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
User: Revenant
Now think about it, I have a very distant memory of a user who used to remove all signatures of everyone else on their talk page as a kind of norm, but I can't remember who it was, or if it actually happened. Might have been Iscariot, maybe even Finis. Does this sound right to anybody? A ZOMBIE ANT 22:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was somebody, but fuck if I remember who it was. I think the logic was that if there was no signature, they could do whatever they wanted to the content and it didn’t count as impersonation? ЯЭV€NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
User:The Goth Store Owner
*snif* *snif* I smell drama. Is there drama ? OH MA GOSH IS DRAMA!!! --hagnat 21:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The sooner they learn that 90% of this dispute should be on A/Arbitration the sooner I can sleep at night. A ZOMBIE ANT 01:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a minimum time cases need to stay on the main VB page? Can't this shit just be moved to archives and locked? --KCLZA 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- A/VB is now archived on an annual basis, so it'll be cycled in January 2016. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
So quiet
* shuffles around looking for drama to feed on, finds none *
What happened to this place ? --hagnat 20:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me to drop the DramaLevel. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 21:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hagnat spamming an administrative talk page was the excuse I needed to fulfill our VB case quota required by Kevan. To the wikicourt with him at once! -- Spiderzed▋ 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you can update the DramaLevel to the lesser level of drama. This place is so quiet. --hagnat 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Bots Discussion
Return of old, already banned, bots
Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)
Hmm
It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Bots Discussion
Return of old, already banned, bots
Over the past couple of days, bots who were previous banned have been spamming again. Has the recent update of the wiki somehow unbanned them? -- boxy 10:35, 27 December 2014 (BST)
Hmm
It's been a few years, but we're getting a wave of bots again. Thoughts? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a random burst, not a consistent thing? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has it been going on for a while? Like beyond this week? DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah.... acne.... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 00:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, like acne. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's just a flareup for now... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 23:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not yet. I just realized I've gotten complacent because we've had so few. If it continues for more than a week or so we can ponder other options. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone want to review this? They're still here, and popping them isn't helping. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think the captcha needs to be updated? If so I can try to get in touch with Kev. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 14:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
July 2010
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 11/2. 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)
- 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 11/2. 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)
- 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)
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)
Response by accused
- Originally posted at User talk:Revenant
- I targeted only members who have been involved in the Election page, and only left one message per member, clearly making note of who if was from and why the message was left.
As such, I consider the analogy to be to up-to-date enrolled voters, who have clearly opted in to receiving political material. Only one message was ever left per talk page, and if reverted by the user and not by someone attempting to subvert the political process, I would under no circumstances repeat the posting.
Thus, I respectfully dispute the appellation of the term "spam" to my political canvassing, and request that this judgement be overturned. Thank you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:43, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Also, point of order: as an involved party, sysop DanceDanceRevolution should properly not be exercising his sysop privileges on this case, due to conflict of interest, or else open himself to potential Misconduct charges. Thank you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:01, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Not particularly, if I were so inclined I could vote vandalism on this case to make the vote tally even further against you, and even that would, whilst poor form, be well within my power. Saying a sysop is in a role of "conflict of interest" when simply trying to stop what he deems (and eventually is declared) vandalism is, well, rich (imo) but arguable, not as much so when I have very little stakes to lose in having your votes/spam count either way. Similarly, there is no possible misconduct I've committed here anyway, I am simply ruling in the way the sysops have currently voted (1). Not misconductable, I'm afraid. -- 15:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Please read the following: conflict of interest, prior restraint. Go on, I'll wait. Then come back here and prove my point some more, why don't you? <3 ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:26, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Not particularly, if I were so inclined I could vote vandalism on this case to make the vote tally even further against you, and even that would, whilst poor form, be well within my power. Saying a sysop is in a role of "conflict of interest" when simply trying to stop what he deems (and eventually is declared) vandalism is, well, rich (imo) but arguable, not as much so when I have very little stakes to lose in having your votes/spam count either way. Similarly, there is no possible misconduct I've committed here anyway, I am simply ruling in the way the sysops have currently voted (1). Not misconductable, I'm afraid. -- 15:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Further, I note that unstriking votes was not ruled vandalism. As such, I reserve the right to unstrike and count these votes denied to me by blatant sysop favouritism, pending civil discussion or possible Arbies (sigh) with Yonnua.
(Blob, this place is a clusterfuck. Now I am back I think I would have run for sysop even without Grim's Faustian bargain.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:17, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- And please see here for why no page rules were breached, either. ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:20, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I'd prefer to not go to arbies about it, given it's within the last few hours of the election. Once again, not my place though, because I didn't make the page or set the voting rules.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:28, 5 July 2010 (BST)
Oh, and Vandalism Deleting other people's votes? Not cool. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:03, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Which I feel comes under the "Blanking sections" area of the vb policy. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:10, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I'm pretty sure the removed comment was an edit conflict.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:12, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Why would an edit conflict show up in page history? Especially as between miss' vote at 7.34 and revenants edit at 7.41, the page had already been modified. By revenant. Are you saying, miss voted, revenant modified and saved the page, and then edit conflicted miss with his second edit? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:21, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I assumed it was that thing where you have multiple tabs open, and so it doesn't tell you about edit conflicts, and just overwrites the other edit. I seem to recall it happening a few times, once with me and cyberbob on here. But I dunno, he could be bluffing.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:37, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- So he edits line 133 of the page, then accidentally scrolls down to line 213 and simply deletes it? Why would he do that? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:40, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I was assuming somethingto do with complete versions of the page. Once again, I'm not a wiki specialist, this was just why I thought his theory sounded plausible.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:41, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- So he edits line 133 of the page, then accidentally scrolls down to line 213 and simply deletes it? Why would he do that? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:40, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I assumed it was that thing where you have multiple tabs open, and so it doesn't tell you about edit conflicts, and just overwrites the other edit. I seem to recall it happening a few times, once with me and cyberbob on here. But I dunno, he could be bluffing.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:37, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Why would an edit conflict show up in page history? Especially as between miss' vote at 7.34 and revenants edit at 7.41, the page had already been modified. By revenant. Are you saying, miss voted, revenant modified and saved the page, and then edit conflicted miss with his second edit? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:21, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I'm pretty sure the removed comment was an edit conflict.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:12, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I said as much, yes. What the fuck ever happened to assuming good faith, people? Am I expecting too much of the current crop of sysops? (Also, lol @ Ross edit conflicting me.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Fucking Edit Conflicts! This. Is wrong. "I targeted only members who have been involved in the Election page, and only left one message per member, clearly making note of who if was from and why the message was left." You didn't. I see no messages for those that voted for the eightees party, the example party, thermonuclear party, jorm, the blob or the green party. you simply spammed those that had voted for kyle. And Kurt Cocaine for some reason. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:34, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- He at no point said "everyone involved", merely "only those involved", meaning he didn't speak to those who had not involved themselves in the election. 21:37, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- SO those that voted for parties other than kyle weren't involved in the election. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:39, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Are you deliberately being obtuse here? No one said that, at all. What is meant is, election notices were posted to people who had voted and therefore cared about the election, therefore it was not random spamming. AT NO POINT did anyone say they were posted to anyone and everyone involved, they were of course deliberately targeted, but targeted about something they obviously cared enough about to involve themselves in, exactly in the same way that, for instance, Axe Hack posted blanket reminders about the Manhunt to everyone who had signed up regardless of their activity. You're either putting words in people's mouths on purpose or you really need to sit down with some tea and collect yourself, mister. :( 21:42, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- SO those that voted for parties other than kyle weren't involved in the election. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:39, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- He at no point said "everyone involved", merely "only those involved", meaning he didn't speak to those who had not involved themselves in the election. 21:37, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Fucking Edit Conflicts! This. Is wrong. "I targeted only members who have been involved in the Election page, and only left one message per member, clearly making note of who if was from and why the message was left." You didn't. I see no messages for those that voted for the eightees party, the example party, thermonuclear party, jorm, the blob or the green party. you simply spammed those that had voted for kyle. And Kurt Cocaine for some reason. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:34, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I said as much, yes. What the fuck ever happened to assuming good faith, people? Am I expecting too much of the current crop of sysops? (Also, lol @ Ross edit conflicting me.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- I was getting to those when I was notified of the A/VB case and ceased pending a proper ruling. Surely you can see the logic in targeting the support base of the largest opponent first. Look at the order, I went straight down the list like a phone book. (Ross, I swear you ninja edit conflict me!) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:08, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- Well, now you've put it in your sig, I'll let you off. Mis the issue was such. Rev went to a smurf orgy, and said "I'm gonna fuck all youz smurfs" and then went home after postboxing smurfette with a headache. His intention was never to smurf everyone, regardless of what he said. It was a highly tactical "smurfing." You massive bicycle salesman. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:48, 5 July 2010 (BST)
- So it was targeted spamming. It was still done purely out of self interest, trying to drum up support. The only time we've allowed talk page spamming like this this, is when providing neutral information such as vandal warnings, orphan page notices and welcomenewbie, or if the recipients "sign up" for it (being in a group that regularly contacts members). Simply voting on something is not "opting in" to receive spam from other parties. If we open it up for people to canvas for votes like this, then it is legitimising any amount of spamming, as long as you can say you targeted them is some manner. It mightn't be that annoying when only you do it... but once every other party starts, it will get old very, very quickly -- boxy talk • teh rulz 22:51 5 July 2010 (BST)