{"body":"shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:50 PM\nhi\ntaytayYesterday at 4:50 PM\nHello\nso, let me explain what this looks like from Staff's end:\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:50 PM\ngo ahead\ntaytayYesterday at 4:51 PM\na collab log is opened. A contribution to a collab log is supposed to be an addition to a page, not removal of content you did not create. By the site's rules, removal of content you don't create for reasons outside of staff purview (licensing/rule enforcement) is vandalism.\nThat is how it is currently being viewed.\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:51 PM\nDid they revert it, or someone else?\ntaytayYesterday at 4:51 PM\nWoedenaz did.\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:52 PM\nWas it even intentional? because they edited it several times and their inclusion that replaced it remained\ntaytayYesterday at 4:53 PM\nthe edits they made all are the exact samee.\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:53 PM\nthey added a couple things\ntaytayYesterday at 4:54 PM\nI'm going through the edits and I'm trying to find that\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:54 PM\nalso, several people were jokeying for the edit window.\ntaytayYesterday at 4:54 PM\noh there's 3 pagese of edits\nand I cannot see them because the page is deletede I can only see the first\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:54 PM\nso if it was a slipup they may not have had the opportunity to fix it\ntaytayYesterday at 4:54 PM\nah, I can't seee any more of the various edits because the page is gone, my bad\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:55 PM\nyea... maybe next time hold off on a summary if edits might need to be taken into consideration lol\ntaytayYesterday at 4:55 PM\nI mean, summary of edits don't need to be taken into account when you remove thee content of an entire article.\nThat's not at all relevant.\nSomeone is perfectly capable of contributing to an article and then vandalizing it\nand let me be clear: I am trying to provide an opportunity for you to clear this up.\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:57 PM\nI don't think it was intentional. i think they made a mistake and got locked out by everyone dicking around\nas the page owner, I don't have any issue with a temporary, accidental, replacement. and hell, even if it was intentional, it was funny af\ntaytayYesterday at 4:59 PM\nSo, to make clear what I am going to post on O5 regarding this, just to make sure I have your POV correct:\n\"Shaggy believes that the edit made was in the spirit intended of the article and was part of a larger meming that was happening at the time and was not malicious. As the original author, he does not hold issue with the temporary content-replacement.\"\nIs that correct?\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:01 PM\nI would say: Shaggy believes that the edit made was accidental and unable to be rectified due to competing edit locks, and besides this, was in the spirit intended of the article and was part of a larger meming that was happening at the time and was not malicious. As the original author, he does not hold issue with the temporary content-replacement.\nalso\nthe theme was changed like, three times over, would that constitute vandalism as well since content was being replaced?\ntaytayYesterday at 5:02 PM\nI honestly have no idea for that, to be perfectly honest. I'm not entirely certain where CSS themes lie on that scale and I would defer to someone else on that.\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:03 PM\nalso also, I think there were several edits where others' content was edited, replaced, or removed -- with the encouragement of everyone involved. Not a single person suffered from having their content edited, as they were all one-upping each other/egging others on. you'd need to look at an edit-by-edit view of the page to see precicely every single edit that would constitute \"vandalism\"\ntaytayYesterday at 5:04 PM\nI'll note that in the thread as welel\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:04 PM\ntldr: everyone was allowing everyone else to fuck with whatever was put up\ntaytayYesterday at 5:04 PM\ngot it, do you mind if I put that on O5?\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:05 PM\nnot really\ntaytayYesterday at 5:05 PM\nalright\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:06 PM\ntldr tldr: Nothing that was changed on the page would constitute vandalism, because nothing was actual deliberate, malicious destruction. I permitted folks to go wild, and they did.\ntaytayYesterday at 5:07 PM\nok\nO5 has been updated\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:07 PM\nlink please?\nnvm\ntaytayYesterday at 5:07 PM\nI am also posting my own personal opinion of the situation as a reply momentarily\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:09 PM\nI think I can be quoted in various channels telling people to do whatever they want, if that helps\ntaytayYesterday at 5:09 PM\nmy personal opinion has been posted.\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:10 PM\noh\nneat\ntaytayYesterday at 5:10 PM\nI hope that is satisfactory.\nshaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:12 PM\nas an aside, I'm glad the -20 rule was finally implemented after arguing in its favor each time it came up. though it pains me people couldnt have more fun with this, it's a exemplary case of why that rule needed to be in place\ntaytayYesterday at 5:12 PM\nnod","name":"convo w tay","extension":"txt","url":"https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/uFMACi1b/convo+w+tay","modified":1595643039,"id":"uFMACi1b","size":5121,"lines":86,"own_paste":false,"theme":"","date":1595643039}