UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive/2010 07
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: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. --
- Classic.-- Adward 14:16, 31 July 2010 (BST)
01:56, 31 July 2010 (BST)
- Thank you for your input. --
???
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)
- 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)
- Fixeded -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:45 28 July 2010 (BST)
- Yeah, I think it might be a template issue. Looking into it now. —Aichon— 10:42, 28 July 2010 (BST)
- Uhm, have you checked A/VB? July is missing.--Thadeous Oakley 10:39, 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 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)
- 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. --
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)
13:32, 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. --
- 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)
- 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)
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. --
- 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)
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)
- 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. --
- True, hadn't thought of that. Linkthewindow Talk 15:28, 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)
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. --
- 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)
- Only during the manhunts ;D -- 06:00, 20 July 2010 (BST)
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)
- 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! --
- "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)
- How do I know Colette's not really a guy in disguise here? ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 10:08, 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)
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)
- 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! --
- 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)