| rdfs:comment
| - I was holding myself from taking part in this discussion/argument, and don't regret. In addition Tanaric had the same opinnion as me, which seems to be rare. :) Okay, issue solved, nothing more to see here. Move along and contine contributing. --Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2006 (CDT) I also agree that Not a 55 was in the wrong in this situation. His actions were reprehensible. I think Karlos made the right decision here, and I think Tanaric has dealt with this arbitration request well. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:45, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
|
| abstract
| - I was holding myself from taking part in this discussion/argument, and don't regret. In addition Tanaric had the same opinnion as me, which seems to be rare. :) Okay, issue solved, nothing more to see here. Move along and contine contributing. --Image:Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2006 (CDT) I missed most of this while it was taking place as I was on vacation last week and not watching Special:Recentchanges or my watchlist as closely as I normally have done. However, after reviewing the considerable amount of talk on this, I can say that I would have also banned User:Not a fifty five, and likely for longer than the three days done by User:Karlos. There are appropriate ways to bring attention to issues, but intentionally vandalising builds to gain attention is not one of them. And yes, his actions were vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:45, 11 September 2006 (CDT) Clarification: I am using Wikipedia's definition of vandalism here, which states: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. The edits in dispute, for a time, compromised the integrity of GuildWiki entries until reversed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 11 September 2006 (CDT) :) thanks for giving a better quote: "For example, adding a personal opinion once is not a vandalism - it's just not helpful and should be removed or restated." Anyways it was removed. no vandalism /yawn. (Not a fifty five 00:52, 12 September 2006 (CDT)) and "any good faith effort to improve the encyc, even if misguided or ill considered is not vandalism" I believe you are all calling what I have done I believed to be in "good faith", I can quote many people on this, even those in my opposition. You are also calling it ill-considered and misguided but as the quote shows this is not vandalism. I think all the administers, and this is pretty sad, have no idea what vandaism is. (Not a fifty five 00:58, 12 September 2006 (CDT)) You are making incorrect assumptions. The edits to the build article were intentionally done to incorrectly classify a build for the sole purpose of making a point. That is not a good faith edit. As the policy points out, assuming good faith does not mean that we should ignore bad actions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT) Nope, I've said before (tho comments are spewed all over the place so who knows where it is) That the vote I made was the vote I intended. I simply replaced what I meant to write down and put up gibberish. The only regret I have is not informing the build author of that, so I apologized to him the day after my ban ended. (Not a fifty five 15:51, 12 September 2006 (CDT)) My comments are based on your statement from User_talk:Tanaric#Unreasonable_vote_down.: "I was proving a point by selecting about 5 builds every day and voting by flip of coin to show the community what its like. I had changed all of them back as of liek 3 hours ago, that one slipped through >.< Needless to say, it started lots of discussion, which is the only reason I had done so." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 12 September 2006 (CDT) Oh, I lied there >.< I was getting Skuld riled up (He's insulted me soooooo many times you cant blame me). With that reasoning I can see why I was banned, except it still was not disrupting, so I hold me ground :P. I also agree that Not a 55 was in the wrong in this situation. His actions were reprehensible. I think Karlos made the right decision here, and I think Tanaric has dealt with this arbitration request well. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:45, 11 September 2006 (CDT) Tanaric's best arbitration yet. --Xasxas256 18:56, 11 September 2006 (CDT) I am completely in agreement with Tanaric's decision and the above comments. --Rainith 20:44, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)