# Pastebin uFMACi1b
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:50 PM
hi
taytayYesterday at 4:50 PM
Hello
so, let me explain what this looks like from Staff's end:
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:50 PM
go ahead
taytayYesterday at 4:51 PM
a 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.
That is how it is currently being viewed.
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:51 PM
Did they revert it, or someone else?
taytayYesterday at 4:51 PM
Woedenaz did.
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:52 PM
Was it even intentional? because they edited it several times and their inclusion that replaced it remained
taytayYesterday at 4:53 PM
the edits they made all are the exact samee.
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:53 PM
they added a couple things
taytayYesterday at 4:54 PM
I'm going through the edits and I'm trying to find that
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:54 PM
also, several people were jokeying for the edit window.
taytayYesterday at 4:54 PM
oh there's 3 pagese of edits
and I cannot see them because the page is deletede I can only see the first
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:54 PM
so if it was a slipup they may not have had the opportunity to fix it
taytayYesterday at 4:54 PM
ah, I can't seee any more of the various edits because the page is gone, my bad
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:55 PM
yea... maybe next time hold off on a summary if edits might need to be taken into consideration lol
taytayYesterday at 4:55 PM
I mean, summary of edits don't need to be taken into account when you remove thee content of an entire article.
That's not at all relevant.
Someone is perfectly capable of contributing to an article and then vandalizing it
and let me be clear: I am trying to provide an opportunity for you to clear this up.
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 4:57 PM
I don't think it was intentional. i think they made a mistake and got locked out by everyone dicking around
as 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
taytayYesterday at 4:59 PM
So, to make clear what I am going to post on O5 regarding this, just to make sure I have your POV correct:
"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."
Is that correct?
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:01 PM
I 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.
also
the theme was changed like, three times over, would that constitute vandalism as well since content was being replaced?
taytayYesterday at 5:02 PM
I 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.
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:03 PM
also 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"
taytayYesterday at 5:04 PM
I'll note that in the thread as welel
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:04 PM
tldr: everyone was allowing everyone else to fuck with whatever was put up
taytayYesterday at 5:04 PM
got it, do you mind if I put that on O5?
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:05 PM
not really
taytayYesterday at 5:05 PM
alright
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:06 PM
tldr 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.
taytayYesterday at 5:07 PM
ok
O5 has been updated
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:07 PM
link please?
nvm
taytayYesterday at 5:07 PM
I am also posting my own personal opinion of the situation as a reply momentarily
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:09 PM
I think I can be quoted in various channels telling people to do whatever they want, if that helps
taytayYesterday at 5:09 PM
my personal opinion has been posted.
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:10 PM
oh
neat
taytayYesterday at 5:10 PM
I hope that is satisfactory.
shaggydredlocks-ENYesterday at 5:12 PM
as 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
taytayYesterday at 5:12 PM
nod