User talk:Mendel/Auron

RfA
One bureaucrat thinks it should be closed, and closes it. Another thinks it isn't, and re-opens it. Seems fair to me. Lord of all tyria 11:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it raised eyeborws, anyway. --mendel 11:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair, yes, but logical? No way.  Auron claimed that it was "not failed" when it had a 0-11-1 record.  True, RfAs are not votes, but the community consensus was obvious.  Making a promotion over that much opposition would not be a smart move.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Legendary Sword
While a one year ban may have been on the harsh side, I feel that it's fully justified given that the anon is repeatedly inserting false information into the wiki on Legendary Swords, most likely in an attempt to use the wiki to scam. It's not just about inserting pricing information (which, currently, is incorrect) but the assertation they no longer drop. I don't see why the editors should be warned when they are, in this case, reverting vandalism. Jennalee 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That was only a one day ban, and I think there is no question that GW:1RV would fully justify that. "Vandalism" means the editor has the will to deface the wiki, and for it to break 1RV I believe it has to be "obvious", i.e. no case for GW:AGF protection can be made. Would another course of action have been possible? Maybe adding a (see talk page) link to the article and contradicting the anon there (on the article talk page), with the final changes being made in a few days when everything's cooled down, would have been more fruitful. --mendel 11:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seemed quite obvious to me that the editor was there to insert false information and since they persisted after reverts, most certainly had the will to. Even had you linked to the talk page, the editor would have probably have removed any sign of counter evidence. If the end result is to remove the aricle defacement and prevent an unlucky sob from being conned, then it may as well be done sooner rather than later. Jennalee 12:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if that is probable, why not let him/her remove the counter evidence and thus remove doubt? You then have a very clear case of ill intent. Put a ban notice up and see what admins may be lurking. --mendel 14:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated on Auron's talkpage, Mendel, the IP was asked on his talkpage to stop, as we don't catalog prices. For another ten minutes he kept inserting it, at which point I spoke to Auron on MSN. [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's wrong with this case either, we've got plenty of precedence for banning "stuck records" with no action taken against their reverters. Even if the original content they added was not in itself vandalism, they became vandals by continually re-adding it and ignoring requests to stop.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 19:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunno, the easiest way out would have been to request a page protect. That also guards against the IP changing, and it is the best way to stop a revert war. --mendel 20:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a better idea to only stop the "wrong" editing done to the page -- while the editor may have been doing it out of good faith, ignoring requests to stop is a bad thing. Don't hinder others' ability to edit the page when a short block for the one person disrupting the page can achieve a better result. -- R [[Image:RPhalange star.png|18px]] Phalange  20:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The page hadn't been edited for 3 weeks prior, and longer before that; so it's not really a sacrifice to have it blocked for a couple days. But it's a judgment call. --mendel 20:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I did that to Gate of Madness (Mission) back when the youtube-video-guy first struck, and this was Entropy's response - basically that protecting a page is a last resort and should not be used as a way to end a simple revert war. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the situation is very similar. However, the course of action that I have seen to be successful (e.g. in the Icon=celebrity case, I can look it up if you want) is to add the information to the talk page with a distinctive headline and tell the submitter that this is the right place to post it (which it is). The message is then not "your information is worthless", which meets with resistance, but rather "your information is in the wrong place", which is a) true and b) defuses the conflict as there is an easy way out. If I want to go this way, it does not help to ban the editor as that sends the message that "not only is your info worthless, you are, too", possibly escalating the conflict; protting the page reinforces the message that "this is a bad place to post it", forcing the editor to take part in this compromise. I agree with Entropy that "As long as it stops the vandals, that the No. 1 priority of course. At the same time though, protting every page that gets hit with a mass vandalizer is counter-productive." What we're talking about here is a situation where information gets re-added to a page specific to that particular info, NOT a mass vandalism. --mendel 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: Maybe this is vandalism prevention: keeping users from becoming so frustrated with the wiki that they want to run amok. --mendel 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's suppose that I have a junk sword worth nothing more than what merchants will pay for it, but I want to sell it for a lot. So I go to the wiki and edit the page to say it's worth 100k+20e, then try to sell my sword in-game.  I tell people, go look, the wiki even says it's worth 100k+20e, trying to con someone into paying far more than it's worth.  Someone reverts my edit, so I add it again repeatedly, until people stop reverting it, fearful of 1RV.
 * If my edit promptly gets reverted, by the time I get someone to go look at the wiki, they see that it doesn't give a price and I'm a scammer. If the fraudulent price is allowed to sit there on the wiki for a few days, then perhaps I can use that to con someone into paying a lot more than the sword is worth.  Maybe I let the person bargain me down to 100k or so, so I "only" con someone out of 100k.
 * Suppose after a few days that the page is finally reverted and I get a short ban. By then, I no longer care.  I've gotten rid of the sword I had.  The damage has been done, both in-game, and to the reputation of the wiki, once the person realizes that the wiki is a tool of con-artists.
 * Assume Good Faith only applies until there's a pretty clear demonstration of bad faith. If a newbie adds a price to an article once, he might just be trying to help out.  That's also true if he adds prices once each to a bunch of different articles.  Once a price has been added and reverted repeatedly, and the IP address in question insists on re-adding a price to that particular item, while not caring about any other article on the wiki, it's awfully hard to come up with an explanation of how someone did that in good faith.  And that's when we ought to declare the IP address a vandal and/or a scammer and give him a ban.  Quizzical 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could just've been pigheadedness. Like I said (where? dunno), it's probably the way you suggest, but there's room for doubt. Add a "(but see here)" linking to the talkpage after the price, explain on the talkpage, and most readers won't be fooled (certainly not players who have 60 ecto without having bought them with money, and if they have, I've no pity). Now if the editor then removes the "(but see here)" that is clear evidence of ill will, and THEN you can ban. --mendel 22:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Peelo
All of his articles were deleted; he moved them to spam pages, so he has no contributions. Special:DeletedContributions/Peelo will probably say he has a bunch. &mdash; Warw/Wick 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see here, Peelo moved 65 pages in 10 minutes until he was banned. --mendel 20:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Purpose
Mendel, what's this for? While some scrutiny of admins is appropriate, I can't help but think it's a gathering of evidence to launch an all out attack on Auron. I believe there are policies which are against that sort of thing. But maybe I'm being too hasty here. Kindly tell me the reason for this? Thanks. -- R  Phalange  20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I stumbled across most of the items while I was trying to find precedents for the "entropy four" bannings (including yours) (following Shadowcrest's comments on the admin board), and for an "inserting wrong information" ban. I am very surprised that I found that, and I wanted to be able to find it again easily. It pertains to the wiki, so I saved it on the wiki. I avoided commenting much because it is, as you say, evidence, that is openly available, merely collected here for my reference, and NOT an attack.
 * If you want to know what I am concerned about, read the admin noticeboard, read my talk page, read Auron's talk. I am a very open person and my plans do not go much beyond what I have openly written (I may decide to make a timeline for the Warwick/Felix bannings, but I also want to work on my version Monaco and do some wiki maintenance). I would have hidden this page, but you can't hide edits from the RC patrol. Still, no other page links here, readers not browsing recent changes won't see it. If you think the evidence constitutes an attack (or even that it would support one), you ought to ask yourself what that says about you, your relationship to Auron, and the impact of this evidence.
 * Please consider: if I was seeing this as an "I against Auron" situation, would I have him read all my preparations? wouldn't I make a much more thorough investigation of his actions on this and other wikis? what would be my motive? and what would I have to gain? It makes as little sense as your RfA makes to me. --mendel 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess anything that serves as a quick reference for an ongoing situation makes things easier. Note that I only wanted to know what it is about, and my hasty suggestion was simply what it would appear to be without your reason; as you've just given that reason, I can see it's not that. So thanks. -- R [[Image:RPhalange star.png|18px]] Phalange  21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)