User talk:Raine Valen/Archive 28

so uh

What exactly possessed you to block an IP for 3 months for a single edit? Or for 6 months? When did we start banning IPs for any lengths of time (barring some blocks in December, which I also don't understand)? Furthermore, specifically for the first one, why did you overwrite Salome's block when he intended them to be short? – Emmett 03:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were a user, how long would you have blocked them for? — Raine Valen 3:44, 7 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Next time you respond, please actually answer my questions rather than just asking an irrelevant one of your own.

And to answer your question, maybe a week if I was in a bad mood. – Emmett 16:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we gave special treatment to anonymous contributors, hence my question.

That being said, if by "a single edit", you mean "a list of contribs that's pure vandalism", then I'm left to wonder what you're taking issue over — had it been a user with the same contribs, they'd have been blocked indefinitely, no? I lengthened Salome's block for the same reason that Tanetris lengthened my block: I felt that the longer duration was more appropriate, so I adjusted it accordingly. — Raine Valen 17:30, 7 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Grumpy, aren't we? Her question is directly related to yours and you know it. Don't pretend you're not intelligent enough to grasp the link between the two just because you don't like/agree with her opinion; it doesn't suit you.

For the record, Raine, banning IPs long term is generally a bad idea because they have less invested in the site, and thus it takes a shorter ban to make them lose interest in the site entirely. A year ban is basically a perma for most users; a month ban does the same for most IPs (if not two weeks). Anything more is just collateral damage on other users of that IP. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining for me why her question was irrelevant Armond!

Raine, I see neither a "long list" nor "pure vandalism" in those contribs. 4 edits including deleted edits isn't a long list, and the other IP has some (though admittedly few) legitimate edits. The difference between Tanetris' lengthening is that A&S has been trolling for forever and has been warned/blocked numerous times; Salome's block "was just supposed to be wee warning bans just to get the point across to stop dicking about with the talk pages, not a 1/4 year ban". And also ^what armond said. – Emmett 20:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

dude rudum -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Could I advise certain users to be less brash with their questions and comments. Honey > vinegar, etc. We generally go for the longer blocks when the shorter ones have been used already - the extend by one MediaWiki length thing. Some user accounts that are purely created for vandalism are sometimes blocked infinitely, but usually if their edits are serious. Also, a user account is intentionally registered and specific to one person while an IP isn't, so arguably IPs should have shorter long-term blocks. pling 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pling! I apologize for forcing you to obliquely but obviously mention me. Next time I'll try to care enough to post my full thoughts, or just post on my break or something instead of when my boss is around.

Emmett, her question was still relevant to her argument. You and I may disagree with that argument, but it's still relevant. Furthermore, that first t troll has more than a few undeleted vandalism contributions (I count five) and a ton of talk page snark. The second appears to only have three or four, though. I'm not saying the sky is falling and bans measurable in months are warranted, but I also don't think it's one edit like you said in your original post, either. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your philosophy — when I read "Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive" in the sysop's handbook (there are guidelines, zomgwat), I took that at face value. I'm not expecting either anon to suddenly start spouting legit contribs in the period of 3 or 6 months; they've given little/no indication of intent to. If you have reason to believe otherwise, you're free to bring that to my attention, though I expect you'd have done that by now, had that been the case.

Armond does have a valid point regarding potential collateral damage, but I believe that it has been acknowledged by several here that the probability there is exceptionally small.

Do you have other concerns..? — Raine Valen 5:37, 8 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Since it looks like no one else is going to bring it up: I strongly disagree with your assessment that neither IP will begin contributing positively within the next few months. We're not dealing with Armond or Raptors or someone here: we're, at best, dealing with some high school punk on a shared/dynamic IP. Said punk has likely already quit the wiki; a long duration block does nothing now but prevent potential legitimate contributors from posting. I'm all for preventative blocks, but only when they actually prevent things we want to prevent. This is gross overkill. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with you after reading it the first time and I do still: much of the duration is unnecessary, in those anons' cases, following the presumption that they exhibit the behavior of typical anonymous contributors (which I think is a safe presumption, for the record). — Raine Valen 20:19, 8 Jan 2011 (UTC)

I can see the benefit in using a long term block for an IP like 98.234.65.188 which is listed in 2 black lists... but not for other IP's like 174.117.153.43. The first one that got the 6 month block appears to be a IP with a long history of being associated with spambots, Open proxies, etc etc. But the other one is an IP that trolls, and even though that IP appears to be owned by the same person since early 2010, it may be released to other net users that are subscribed to the same ISP and block an innocent user, and hence the collateral damage armond is talking about. It is "unusual" for an IP to be assigned for a single user for a long time like that so it may be a low profile (small/home?)business static IP address... which in that case, IP address switching to other users is less likely. --Lania 00:23, 08 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, Lania. — Raine Valen 20:19, 8 Jan 2011 (UTC)

You wanted my feedback on this page, so be it. From an outsider's standpoint, the Wiki is a place that has always tolerated feedback in the form of complaining, so long as it was legitimate. Compared to, say Guru for example, the Wiki was always more liberal. You guys (sysops, etc) are going WAY OVERBOARD with this. That's where our votes come in though; if you have the inability to be rational about punishments, then in all honesty, you shouldn't be in a position of power. Flying off the handle and dishing out blocks/bans that are incredibly too long for the offenses is the definition of illogical. You are supposed to be a voice of reason on the Wiki; you are supposed to be fair and just overseers, not fascist dictators. I've been around on the Wiki for a while, and while I'm not a huge contributor, I have contributed my fair share, and I do keep an eye on things as a good user should. If you cannot do your jobs in an effective manner that is constructive, while avoiding demoralizing the user base, then you can expect to lose your job come the next round of voting. Or, if you really want to have push come to shove, you can be petitioned out. Simply put, it's unacceptable. The same applies to Salome I might add, or any other sysop/etc that cannot do their job in an effective, fair, balanced manner that is conducive to a positive environment. LordSojar 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't advocate punitive blocks. In fact, there ostensibly isn't any punitive system in place on the wiki: everything up to and including permanent blocks and ArbComm is intended to minimize harm to the wiki (not to maximize harm to any user), and that is all. Accordingly, there isn't any proper rationality for doling out punishments here, because there is no doling out of punishments here.

As stated previously (twice, now), Armond's point is very valid: much of the preventative measures put in place will go to waste, at best, and prevent other legitimate users from contributing, at worst. That is, admittedly, an unnecessary potential issue, and I will amend it. — Raine Valen 20:19, 8 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything but it seems that you are abusing your right to ban ppl, i mean banning ips for months, that is ridiculous. you know what they say power corrupts and it seems you are abusing your power131.104.246.113 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, if you're going to try to point something out, please try to do it in a logical, not emotional, fashion. It's hard to see the point in a comment that slips into common misconceptions and propoganda-related fallacies. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is that ridiculous? The only real argument I've seen against it is the tiny potential for collateral damage, and that's been acknowledged ("excessive" is not an argument against: it's a neutral argument). Did you have something to add? — Raine Valen 5:13, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

So, I don't know why Raine is getting so much flak. I've banned IPs for 3 months, heck, I've banned an IP range for 6 months. Yes, there is the chance of collateral damage, but there are a lot of people out there in the internet who will never come here, so often times the chances of overlap aren't that bad. So, banning IPs happens. Generally, I reserve the longer IP blocks for pure vandal bots and repeat offenders (e.g. trivia vandal). --JonTheMon 03:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

People had spare buses and wanted someone to throw under them. -Auron 04:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment, "They did it, so I can do it" isn't an argument that I want to make. :> — Raine Valen 5:06, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Jon, that would be because this is another bullet point in the list of things Raine hasn't done right. elix Omni 08:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The "some blocks in December, which I also don't understand" were referring to yours. I would have eventually pointed it out to you, but it seems you found it yourself. :p – Emmett 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm On Your MSN Contacts, But...

How the shit'd you find my facebook page? xD--TahiriVeila 04:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

idk. — Raine Valen 5:20, 8 Jan 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a search button on Facebook that goes through your MSN contacts. InfestedHydralisk 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have my msn listed on facebook though xD--TahiriVeila 17:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you using the same email for your facebook account? Because if Raine has your email in her list, then she can send the invite. InfestedHydralisk 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook has super pro stalker skills, apparently. — Raine Valen 5:14, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Also, could we please keep Facebook conversations off of wiki? MSN works better. Hell, Facebook works better. — Raine Valen 5:15, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Wot, you expect me to use wiki for something other than posting nonsense on user talks?--TahiriVeila 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Smooth.

"(diff) (hist) . . m User talk:Salome‎; 17:42 . . (-714) . . Raine Valen (Talk contribs) (Reverted edits by Raine Valen (Talk) to last revision by 122.111.229.52)
(diff) (hist) . . m User talk:Salome‎; 17:41 . . (+714) . . Raine Valen (Talk contribs) (→Chatter unrelated to the actual updates page.: new section)" --Neil • 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading is too hard. :( — Raine Valen 17:00, 8 Jan 2011 (UTC)

LOL -- Salome 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, wait. The edit I reverted and the subsequent edit were two completely different posts. It is, indeed, an extraordinary coincidence that the character counts are the same, though! — Raine Valen 20:20, 8 Jan 2011 (UTC)

You know, kinda makes me wonder about this one:

"(cur) (prev) 10:37, January 6, 2011 Raine Valen (Talk " — contribs) m (2,204 bytes) (Reverted edits by Raine Valen (Talk) to last revision by Halogod35) (undo)

"(cur) (prev) 10:36, January 6, 2011 Raine Valen (Talk " — contribs) m (1,793 bytes) (Reverted edits by Halogod35 (Talk) to last revision by Raine Valen) (undo) →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Accidental rollback and intentional revert. — Raine Valen 18:12, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

However, those edits are of different sizes. What are you trying to censor? Koda Kumi 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course they're different: one's the opposite of the other. — Raine Valen 21:06, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

If you want to avoid accidental rollback, try adding

body.page-Special_RecentChanges .mw-rollback-link { display:none; }

to your /monobook.css. elix Omni 13:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See above. elix Omni 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Scrambled Eggs

I prefer the stir then transfer to pan method. Discuss. -- Tha Reckoning 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Crack the egg into the pan, then scramble it while it cooks.--TahiriVeila 00:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer when my maid cooks them. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 01:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Blender (w/ beaters) -> range for best scrambled eggs IMO. Fluffy and consistent and perfect every time. — Raine Valen 3:54, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

OH MY GOD IS THERE A BLENDER THAT, LIKE, HAS HEATED BLADES THAT CAN COOK THINGS??? — Raine Valen 5:17, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

There is actually. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Many frictions! Now, handle it! -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I need to archive. :(

But all my big sections are still active. :( — Raine Valen 5:18, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Yes?

you're welcome--TahiriVeila 04:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! — Raine Valen 16:55, 10 Jan 2011 (UTC)

What is this 'sleep'? InfestedHydralisk 19:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The most interesting thing about this wiki:

It trolls itself.

I present as evidence the two long sections above. Minimum, perhaps even unintentional in once case, effort from the perpetrator, maximum effect. These are not isolated cases.

To anyone crusading for the rights of a contributor that may or may not have accidentally made an RfA as one of their first contributions due to a misunderstanding, to anyone who feels it is necessary to type several paragraphs just in case some innocent person may have been caught in the crossfire of a hasty IP ban I have one simple question: Why?

The only reason I can think of that doesn't insult your intelligence is that you are trolling. Just so you are aware, I am not going to read your answers. Misery 10:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On Conservapedia, you can get 5-year'd for last-wordism. -- pling 12:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Some would argue that the people who frequent Conservapeda are psychotic, bigoted morons who prefer delusions in place of reality.--TahiriVeila 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"section about above sections being stupid" makes you instant cool. I know this because I've seen it work out on numerous update talkpages! ^^ -Cursed Angel 13:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I question your intelligence, but because I am Koda Kumi, I am probably not allowed to say that while you, being Misery, are. Koda Kumi 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree and it's exactly why I'm still visiting this site. Morphy 19:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm seldom visiting the wiki, and I'm glad Anet ppl stay good troll-targets. Except John (Stumi), who is cool. --Boro 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

MSN

koley.nya@gmail.com Ryuu - lol wiki 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember to delete the above... Koda Kumi 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a weird rule, but I believe it only applies to pages that say in big, bold-faced caps Do Not Post Your Email. Everywhere else, I think you are allowed to post your email freely. --Riddle 18:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel the stubborn need to protect people from themselves. Koda Kumi 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be bigger and redder. --Neil • 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Raine Valen. — Raine Valen 18:35, 18 Jan 2011 (UTC)