Forum:Talk page block?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Talk page block?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6306 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

It's kind of angersome that a blocked user can't edit their talk page. So when they're blocked, all their articles fall down around them and they have no way to say anything about it. Why is this? It sucks. Pine 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you touch yourself at night. --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell, MoneySign? I'm smeging serious here. Pine 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the nature of a block on Wikipedia, namely that you can't edit. So, to undermine them we have set up the same system here. Oh, and its also what "ban" means to MediaWiki. Oh, and finnaly, if you didn't touch yourself at night, MediaWiki wouldn't be that way. --The Zombiebaron 21:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So am I... You dirty boy.. And besides that: being able to edit one's talk page during bannation was an experiment. Due to the infavorable results there-of, it has been decided not to persue its full implementation. Our appologies to those who feel they are inconvenienced, but we would still like to point out that there is a chat available for discussion of your ban (except if you're the crackvandal or in his IP-range, in which case you're pretty much screwed). --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut! On Wikipedia you can edit your talk page while blocked. And MoneySign, that's not me touching me at night, it's you and ZombieBbaron. Stop it. Pine 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also: I have a plan. It goes like this: You can edit your talk page while blocked, unless you start screwing that up too, in which case your talk page will be protected. Eh? Pine 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. If someone wants to say something to you, they can convert your userpage into a talk page. No more pages created, and the blocked user still can't edit it. I'm a friggin' genius. Pine

THERE IS NO CAPITAL "B" IN MY NAME. Thank you that is all. --The Zombiebaron 21:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Pine 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But there is a capital 'M'. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... In reply to all your interesting requests: No? No. And no! --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 22:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pineviper, why are you asking about this? Are you expecting another ban soon? Well, you can probably expect one. Disruptive and strange edits like this and this and this. As well as trying to hamper our attempts to get relisted on google by creating Template:C2 and revert warring to get it used (and here) are not endearing yourself to us. Well, except maybe to Flameviper and Nintendorulez. --Splaka 00:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Splarka, I'm afraid that you pwn. You are maybe the only admin that makes a licka sense around here. Anyway, I would wish that MonkeySign would actually give me a fucking reason why he is pummeling my proposal and provide something contructive. I'm not trying to shove my ban up your arse, I'm trying to work with you guys toward a solution for a problem. Because flaming you apparently gets me barniratezorized. Best of Wishes, 24.145.222.85 (who forgot to log in) 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what??? I did answer you! Fine, I didn't give you examples and such, but still! You think I don't have anything better to do than to rummage through a pile of dogwank edits just so you'd be satisfied? --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we ought to have Wikipedia's same method of ban dispute. Not everyone wants to use IRC, and often the channel's filled with unrelated nonsense that makes a conversation hard to carry on, for both the silliness and the seriousness. And with IRC, you're merely subject to the erratic will of the cabal, whereas with a talk page, any admin will be able to chime in, when looking at wherever all the uses of the ban dispute template are. And really, would the right to edit their own talk page harm anyone? --User:Nintendorulez 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It was tried (enabled) for several months. No one used it constructively. It was only ever abused. So: no. --Splaka 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh! I want an example! 24.145.222.85 16:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Ninny, you should be an admin.

Your precious example, not because I like you, but I like proving you wrong: User talk:Danger Dude 2.0 —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 06:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. If one of those jackasses is the price you have to pay for the freedom of users like Flameviper and Nintendorulez, then I see no harm. And besides, if the blockee was doing something seriously harmful (like disclosing or threatening to disclose personal information of other users) then you could just protect their talk page, which I think ought to be pretty easy. And if Wikipedia can do this with a milllion users, why can't we do it with several thousand? (Okay, nobody cares because I'm an IP sut still...24.145.222.85 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Because they have several-fold the number of admins we do. As such, we like to do everything in our power to minimize problems before they happen. Until we become as big as wiki, we probably need to be more preventative in scope.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pine: The main problem is flooding of recent changes. If a blocked user can edit their talk page, they can spam recent changes with maybe 20 edits a minute until the page is protected, and if they made a lot of sockpuppets before being blocked they can go back to all those and edit. We had to protect I think 30 blocked sockpuppets at one point. So: not gonna happen soon. And, lets be honest, Flameviper and Nintendorulez are not worth it. They've both earned multiple and compound blocks, complained constantly, and have contributed little (the lack of contributions caused by people aruging with them has offset any contributions they have done). --Splaka 03:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is...you adamantly oppose any new admins yet whine that you have none. I know at least 5 users who would qualify to be such. Hrodulf, Ghelae, Nintendorules, Flameviper. The last two might be a little out-there, but still. These people are tireless contributors and I was actually surprised that they weren't admins already. If you simply let the users be admins, you wouldn't have a shortage. Duh. 24.145.222.85 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to kibbutz, but where exactly is this whining about not having any new admins? Is that in IRC or something? I read practically everything on this site, and I haven't seen anything like that - not even when new admins have actually been necessary. Even if that were mostly in IRC, you'd think there'd be some spillover onto talk pages and such...? Besides, you only named four people, and all four of them tend to be even more contentious than I am. (Not that I'm actually trying to be contentious, mind you.)  c • > • cunwapquc? 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pine (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser and 24.145.222.85 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Block (rem-lst-all) • Whois • City • Proxy? • WP Edits • Checkuser) have been blocked for 1 month due to constant behaviour consistant with sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and general ban evasion for Flameviper (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser (who has been blocked indefinitely from en.wikipedia as well as uncyclopedia). This edit for example, indicated it was Flameviper talking with Pine's known IP. Before this, he/she/it/they have contributed little except complaints.

Thank you for your time. --Splaka 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(TV political commercial voice) I am Chronarion and I approve this ban. --Chronarion 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that vote for sysop is still disabled, and until there's a vote to re-enable it, talking about who should or shouldn't be an admin is at the very least premature. For what it's worth, this place seems to run pretty well with the admin population we currently have so I see no reason for any more admins right now; of course, I could always be wrong. I just focus on what I see and from what I've been seeing, this place seems to work pretty well. That being said, if there was a need for more admins I'd certainly be willing, but right now it doesn't look like we have a need, otherwise vfs would have been reopened. --Hrodulf 09:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

r u hrodulf hitler? if u aren't then u must be pine/24.145...am i wrong? -- mowgli 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Me? An admin? It'll never happen, the Cabal hates me. --User:Nintendorulez 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)