Template talk:VandalBanningNotice

Smaller text? <small> </small> ? Didn't look too shabby when I previewed it.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:32, 24 September 2007 (BST)

This is big so people for people to notice. If you make them small, people will ignore these boxes the same way they already do ignore the SAME rules that are written in the beginning of the page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:33, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Thats better.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:49, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Discussion

The administration strongly asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.

The Keyword there is ask not demands. Grim, this is not an order that you not comment on the page. --User:Axe27/Sig 00:39, 24 October 2007 (BST)

You had nothing to add to the conversation so you shouldn't have commented on the administration page, how hard is that to understand?--Karek^maps?! 01:09, 24 October 2007 (BST)

the keyword is strongly ask. It's a nice way to say this is an order. And please don't carry on with a discussion we already had with nalikill and he failed miserably as all SysOps agreed that the administration pages should be kept useless-comments-free. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:03, 24 October 2007 (BST)

2009 Discussion

Let's revisit this conversation because apparently saying it nicely doesn't quite get through to people. I propose changing the box to this:

Administration Notice

If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, you must use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.

Thoughts? It is in keeping with the original intent so there should be no issues there - all this is doing is closing an imaginary loophole whose only function was to create endless amounts of drama and headache because people thought they could argue using it when in fact they couldn't and telling them such was OMG ABUSE. --Cyberbob 04:22, 15 July 2009 (BST)

It seems this hair is only up your ass, Bob. Why is it such a big fucking deal if people post on the main page? I mean, if it's total trash or someone starting a fight, then it can be deleted/moved to talk. Otherwise, it's just easier if it's on the front page. Then, once a case is finished, if you are so distracted by the text on the front page, nonessential posts or long conversations can be moved to the talk page.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:22, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Nah. Better to stop those kinds of posts before they happen. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 06:25, 15 July 2009 (BST)

No it isn't Bob, making it a polite request which can be enforced with a gentle reminder (or soft warning)is the far better solution. Should someone continually take the piss with random garbage and taunts then the evidence of previous infringements is available to back up a vandalism report of its own. Just because a comment from a non sysop is made does not mean it is not valid and such comments often belong in the main page rather than lost in the irrelevant talk page. Changing the box to say something like: "This page is for reporting vandalism and sysop rulings on said report only. All further discussion should be on the talk page" and then enforcing it across the board might be worthwhile though. --Honestmistake 10:50, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmno. There needs to be a place for the involved users to discuss the case without the peanut gallery (whose opinions are entirely irrelevant, by the by) spamming things up. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 11:18, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Like i said in A/VB, The box was not supposed to hinder *all* duscussion, only the conterproductive ones. You are taking this up to the letter, YOUR LETTER. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 12:25, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Were you the user who made the vandal report? Were you a sysop? Were you directly involved in the case? --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 12:46, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Haggy and mine discussion was relevant and respectful (what the fuck is that even in relation to actually?) moving it to the talk not only immediately ends a discussion about the way things are done but makes trying to peice together what people are talking about all together more difficult.--xoxo 12:29, 15 July 2009 (BST)

All of that has literally nothing to do with the discussion on this page. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 12:46, 15 July 2009 (BST)

It's about what should and shouldn't be allowed on the page. Which if i'm not mistaken is what this template is supposed to help outline...--xoxo 12:53, 15 July 2009 (BST)

There's nothing changing in what is and what is not being allowed on the page. All that's changing is that a loophole that never existed is being closed (ie - "strongly asks" is becoming "must"). --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 12:58, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Actually if you bother reading what Argo, Honest and Hagnat all wrote it's in relation to what should be allowed on the page, not just changing those few words.--xoxo 13:01, 15 July 2009 (BST)