Haru-Haruko said:

Mike, you're talking about the no_socks edit war you've been having on a few pictures? People (or a person) keep changing those because they're *not* examples of the no_socks tag. For example, post #2196573 is wearing open-toe high heels. The tag is generally reserved for closed-toe, closed-heel shoes that are primarily worn with socks.

Another one, post #2187394. sandals and no_socks should never really be concurrently used tags, as sandals aren't meant to be worn with socks in the first place. Maybe the reason people keep reverting the changes you and NWF Renim make is because they're actually wrong, and you're clogging up the tag with irrelevant images.

The problem with that reasoning is that you forget some of the most basic examples of japanese footwear and accessories. Tabi are in many cases worn with geta, and the two are deeply associated. There's plenty of situations of socks and sandals together to begin. For sandal wearers both with and without traditional socks, it's useful to have the no_socks tag so you can go without having to use a -tabi or -sock tag in search.

There's also no point in telling long term users or the mods that they're cluttering up the tags. If it was a problem, you could always have vocalized it in the forum first and brought it up for discussion. As far as I can see, the tag is just fine to begin with.

Haru-Haruko said:

The tag is generally reserved for closed-toe, closed-heel shoes that are primarily worn with socks.

Debatable. No solid consensus was ever reached regarding what kinds of footwear that tag is "reserved for", and the tag's wiki doesn't presently contraindicate using it for images with slippers or open-toe shoes. Also, EB brought up a good point in forum #105108 that limiting the tag to certain kinds of shoes needlessly makes certain searches more difficult. Making images harder to find goes against the entire purpose of using tags in the first place.

Also, regardless of anyone's feelings about that particular tag, the point remains that the user in question was edit warring over an extended period of time, undoing good-faith tagging across hundreds of posts and never once attempting to explain his or her position in the comments or forums. That's vandalism by any measure.

buehbueh said:

The problem with that reasoning is that you forget some of the most basic examples of japanese footwear and accessories. Tabi are in many cases worn with geta, and the two are deeply associated. There's plenty of situations of socks and sandals together to begin. For sandal wearers both with and without traditional socks, it's useful to have the no_socks tag so you can go without having to use a -tabi or -sock tag in search.

There's also no point in telling long term users or the mods that they're cluttering up the tags. If it was a problem, you could always have vocalized it in the forum first and brought it up for discussion. As far as I can see, the tag is just fine to begin with.

Tabi, I could somewhat understand, but posts like post #2196573, post #2202783, post #2192705, post #2190527, and post #2193513 are just regular high heels or open-toe shoes, and really shouldn't include the tag.

Haru-Haruko said:

Tabi, I could somewhat understand, but posts like post #2196573, post #2202783, post #2192705, post #2190527, and post #2193513 are just regular high heels or open-toe shoes, and really shouldn't include the tag.

Regarding post #2202783, I may be in the wrong, but I also use no socks to indicate that shoes are worn over no legwear of any sort. Even though some types of shoes aren't typically worn over socks, it's not uncommon for them to be worn with stockings or pantyhose. The no socks tag is the most descriptive tag in cases where those shoes are worn over bare feet.

iridescent_slime said:

Regarding post #2202783, I may be in the wrong, but I also use no socks to indicate that shoes are worn over no legwear of any sort. Even though some types of shoes aren't typically worn over socks, it's not uncommon for them to be worn with stockings or pantyhose. The no socks tag is the most descriptive tag in cases where those shoes are worn over bare feet.

That seems like slightly too wide of a net to cast, considering the open-toe style of shoe isn't typically worn with traditional socks anyway. Heck, people wear socks with beach sandals, but it'd be super unnecessary to include those too. high_heels and -socks or -pantyhose should be enough.

Generally, I'd use the equivalent 素足履き Pixiv tag as a frame of reference.

Haru-Haruko said:

high_heels and -socks or -pantyhose should be enough.

Unfortunately, using exclusions like that causes you to lose potential search results in the case of images with multiple characters. Your example of high_heels -socks, for instance, wouldn't turn up post #1478326 even though it quite clearly has a woman wearing high heels without socks. Also, you'd have to add -thighhighs and -kneehighs to unclutter your results, which makes for a cumbersome search that isn't even possible for basic members. The bare legs tag isn't a workaround either, as it permits socks while excluding garments like leggings or long skirts.

Seriously, the narrow definition of no socks you're promoting causes all sorts of problems and solves none. There is a clear benefit to using this tag in places you're arguing it shouldn't apply, as other tag combinations simply can't replace it. How does anyone benefit from removing the tag from those posts?

(Also, this has gotten completely off-topic. Probably better to continue discussing the tag at topic #11714 and leave this thread for discussing the problem of tag vandals.)

Haku, this is just beyond pathetic. Maybe if you had tried to argue your case before making 50 sockpuppets, people would give a shit to what you said.

And speaking of argument, a miko's attire typically consists of a pair of socks called tabi. It's such a common sight that it's almost a central piece of the ensemble. When they don't wear a pair, it tends to stick out. Hence, the tag applies. And regarding your wanton removal of the leggins tag, you were just flat out wrong on all fronts - or blind.

MikeTheV said:

Haku, this is just beyond pathetic. Maybe if you had tried to argue your case before making 50 sockpuppets, people would give a shit to what you said.

Seeing how the vandal only seems to speak Japanese, lives on the opposite side of the world from Haru-Haruko, and isn't as civilized in discussions, I don't think Haru-Haruko is the same person as the vandal.

Toks said:

Seeing how the vandal only seems to speak Japanese, lives on the opposite side of the world from Haru-Haruko, and isn't as civilized in discussions, I don't think Haru-Haruko is the same person as the vandal.

Japanese? That in itself would be odd then, if you're going by the same criteria to argue Haru-Haruko is from somewhere else, since the vandal should be from China then, no? It is known the vandal has several countries reported for them, and there is only one record for Haru-Haruko (which was only generated after I called him out here on the forum). Furthermore what is the likelihood that a completely brand new user who is completely unrelated to the issue would of all things come to this topic to be their very first interaction on the site? There are way too many dots (of which those mentioned is just a portion) connecting him with the vandal.

NWF_Renim said:

Japanese? That in itself would be odd then, if you're going by the same criteria to argue Haru-Haruko is from somewhere else, since the vandal should be from China then, no? It is known the vandal has several countries reported for them, and there is only one record for Haru-Haruko (which was only generated after I called him out here on the forum). Furthermore what is the likelihood that a completely brand new user who is completely unrelated to the issue would of all things come to this topic to be their very first interaction on the site? There are way too many dots (of which those mentioned is just a portion) connecting him with the vandal.

The vandal spoke Japanese in my dmail conversation with him. If the vandal could speak English fluently as well why wouldn't he use any English?

Toks said:

The vandal spoke Japanese in my dmail conversation with him. If the vandal could speak English fluently as well why wouldn't he use any English?

I'm really curious what he said to you Toks, did he say anything about his motivation?

Toks said:

The vandal spoke Japanese in my dmail conversation with him. If the vandal could speak English fluently as well why wouldn't he use any English?

And I frankly think he was deceiving you. The vandal himself was at least familiar enough with English to use contractions, such as with the account name "renimsanal" which reads as "renim's anal".

As for why the vandal would do anything the way they do it, I don't know. Just because I don't understand why they wouldn't do something that seems logical to me, doesn't mean it isn't logical to them in why they're doing it.

buehbueh said:

I'm really curious what he said to you Toks, did he say anything about his motivation?

He said he thought leggings and pumps were mistagged on a few posts. He didn't go into much detail but upon closer inspection he's correct.
post #2160093: The toes being off screen makes them look similar to pumps at a glance, but they're sandals, as can be seen in post #1756132.
post #2199559: We can't see the feet in order to determine that they're leggings.

NWF_Renim said:

And I frankly think he was deceiving you. The vandal himself was at least familiar enough with English to use contractions, such as with the account name "renimsanal" which reads as "renim's anal".

"renim's anal" isn't proper grammer since anal isn't a noun in English. But in Japanese anal is both an adjective and a noun.

Toks said:

Seeing how the vandal only seems to speak Japanese, lives on the opposite side of the world from Haru-Haruko, and isn't as civilized in discussions, I don't think Haru-Haruko is the same person as the vandal.

Judging by the original vandal user's IPs, they are from Taiwan (or are using Taiwan-based proxies). Either way, looking at recent feedback, that's some remarkable persistence. It's a shame that such diligence goes to waste.

Toks said:

"renim's anal" isn't proper grammer since anal isn't a noun in English. But in Japanese anal is both an adjective and a noun.

You're wrong, as it is proper English. "Anal" is also short for "anal-retentive" which is a noun.

Oxford English Dictionary - anal-retentive

noun (also anal retentive)

A person who is excessively orderly and fussy.

OED - Anal
anal

1.2 informal Anal-retentive:
he’s anal about things like that

edit- Since you missed it, the name is saying "Renim is anal-retentive" which would be referring to the fact that for a short while one night I was literally banning his sockpuppets in minutes after he'd make them over the course of an entire hour. It first started with simply banning an account with gibberish for a name and then he started making accounts with the name "fuckrenim" in the name. He then moved to "renimsanal" in the name and made several accounts with that in it. He finally ended with an account named "mikefuckrenim". After that he stopped for a bit, and then made a new account with a non-offensive name (which I left alone) and I stopped for the night, since the whack-a-mole really wasn't doing anything and he stopped with the offensive account names.

Haru-Haruko said:

What? I doubt you'd believe me, but I literally just created an account to respond to this topic, I've never made a Danbooru account before. The jump to accusation is incredibly unnecessary.

Mhmm. You JUST made an account JUST for this topic JUST so you can defend a particular tag vandal. Not to mention, you used the term "edit war" to explain my previous encounters with the vandal.

Know what I think? You should probably piss off right about now.

MikeTheV said:

Mhmm. You JUST made an account JUST for this topic JUST so you can defend a particular tag vandal. Not to mention, you used the term "edit war" to explain my previous encounters with the vandal.

Know what I think? You should probably piss off right about now.

I made the account because I'd noticed images typically not associated with the no_socks tag being edit-war'd over, and that you were the one reverting the tags. I came here to air my grievances, that's all. No need to think that anybody who disagrees with you is a single, obsessed individual. The attitude's incredibly unnecessary.

Also, I live in Canada.

Haru-Haruko said:

Also, I live in Canada.

Well, that explains it! We've got a moose loose aboot the hoose.

But honestly though. Even you have to admit it's hilariously suspicious and on-point that you showed up at this particular time in this particular juncture. But, no worries. It's actually not that difficult to prove you're not the guy - and if that's the case, then we really do owe you some big apologies.

Renim here, or any other admin or mod (I think) can simply check your IP, and cross-reference it with any known proxy addresses, or he can just give me the IP and I can do that. Almost always, out of convenience and ease of use, trolls will still use the same service when switching their IP's. All the same, if you're NOT using a proxy but you have a variable IP (simply by resetting your router), I can check for the ISP and area code to see if any of them match.

Is that fair enough? We'll stop with the accusations until we're certain.

Haru-Haruko said:

I made the account because I'd noticed images typically not associated with the no_socks tag being edit-war'd over, and that you were the one reverting the tags. I came here to air my grievances, that's all. No need to think that anybody who disagrees with you is a single, obsessed individual. The attitude's incredibly unnecessary.

Also, I live in Canada.

I don't think I'll ever trust what you say, but that hardly matters in regards to the current subject. I will say that it is my fault for derailing the topic and for that I apologize.

The subject of this topic is to prevent or hinder the actions of future vandals such as the one who has been recently active. At this point the motivation of that vandal hardly matters, the fact still stands that a banned user continued to circumnavigate our current checks we have in place and continued their actions that resulted in their original ban.