Difference between revisions of "UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/VB FFO Commenting"

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
(omg Bob Boberton)
Line 74: Line 74:
 
:::::::You're right, those are supposed to have more seriousness. And as I agree with the above, I have nothing substantial to add.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 06:06, 18 July 2009 (BST)
 
:::::::You're right, those are supposed to have more seriousness. And as I agree with the above, I have nothing substantial to add.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 06:06, 18 July 2009 (BST)
 
::::Yeah, and this one made me laugh. So two points for you. 4 points for cb.--[[KyleStyle_For_Everything|<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> ]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 05:55, 18 July 2009 (BST)
 
::::Yeah, and this one made me laugh. So two points for you. 4 points for cb.--[[KyleStyle_For_Everything|<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Mr. Angel,</span> ]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 05:55, 18 July 2009 (BST)
 +
 +
Thoughts of an ex-mod/crat. Conversations on the main page weren't a huge problem, though we did have backseat modding. It was solved by asking, then soft warnings, then VB. Not by going straight there. I could only get behind this if all the talk was on the monthly talk page, beyond initial report and short rulings. I don't think the rules are a problem as they stand - the enforcement leaves something to be desired, and this can fix the problems created by people not being moderate in their decisions. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 06:59, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Revision as of 05:59, 18 July 2009

Discuss please.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:21, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Although i disagree with what this template repersents, i would make the last line more forceful --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 23:23, 17 July 2009 (BST)

There should language in there which makes an exception for someone contributing a link to relevant info or volunteering information that would be useful or pertinent to the case.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 00:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)

There's no reason that has to be on the main page, it's not like talk page = totally ignored. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 00:52, 18 July 2009 (BST)

"all discussion must use the talk page for further discussion." A mite confusing, maybe "all discussion must be on the (through / on) the talk page." --Bob Boberton TF / DW 00:52, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Allow all users one comment, all follow-ups to said comment (including SysOp comments) to be placed on the Talk Page with a link provided to on the Main.-- | T | BALLS! | 01:02 18 July 2009(BST)
Wouldn't it just be easier for all non-involved users to use the talk page to begin with? One comment per user still allows "free-for-all" commenting on the main page. Ten users, ten comments, a lot of text that could be on the talk page instead of the main page. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 01:10, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Allowing the one comment with links on the Main gives a better impression of open conversation vs. the appearance of stifling free expression by sweeping it all to the Talk Page. I'm not saying that that is the purpose of sending all non SysOp comments to the Talk Page, but a compromise like this might help lessen the impression of elitism that can sometimes be inferred by the "SysOp only" system that is being suggested here. -- | T | BALLS! | 01:17 18 July 2009(BST)
Two things: One, the page is primarily meant to be a means for users to report vandalism and then for Sysops to rule on them. Discussion (e.g. comments) should be for the discussion page - the talk page. This segways into Two: the talk page is not ignored or invisible and moving stuff there is not "stifling free expression" or "sweeping it under the rug." It's the discussion page - it exists for a reason, why not use it for the exact reason it exists? --Bob Boberton TF / DW 01:49, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Well, if it's going to be changed to "must", I suggest allowing users who do bring up points/input on the talk page to add a simple comment to the case on the A/VB page, something like "More on talk page (link to relevant section)". Only one such comment per case. Cuts down on text on the actual case, and gives an indication that there is more to be found on the talk page, thus helping with the visibility problem. - User:Whitehouse 01:40, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I'd be for maybe editing the {{vndl}} to include a "[[Adminstration_talk:Vandal Banning#<Name>|Discussion on this case]]" or having the same link at the top of the case or somewhere otherwise visible. If people - and I don't mean sysops or otherwise, I mean all users - ignore the talk page, it's because they're doing something they probably shouldn't do. Pay attention to talk pages please~ --Bob Boberton TF / DW 01:49, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Actually Whitehouse, you can, and people already do that. :). Everyone else just wants to post ont he main page becuz day tink it's kool becuz the ops sed dey sholdnt. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:36, 18 July 2009 (BST)


The box was created to prevent non-constructive comments off the front page. That said, users should still be able to voice concerns about a vandal case is handled, as long as they dont abuse such right. Asking for a sysop to do an IP check (i hardly did it when i was a sysop), providing new evidence that wasnt considered, etc. should be made in the front page. Users shouldnt backsseat mod, adding such requests to more cases than a regular sysop does or telling how a sysop shold rule and what should be the punishment (if any) that should be applied to the reporeted user. This should occur in the talk page, and thats what the box hopes to counter. The vandal report page is a simple venue of communication between users and the sysop team... do not close it because of some few users who might or might not be abusing it! --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 03:14, 18 July 2009 (BST)

That's just it, we can't leave it how it is because it can, and will always be abused unless we seal it off completely. The box fails because it doesn't enforce anything at all. If the community could keep themselves from abusing their ability to comment on the main page, fine and dandy. But even now it's still used as a talk page where petty flames and insults are thrown around. Fuck it, move that shit to the talk and let me see whats important without reading walls of shit-text.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:25, 18 July 2009 (BST)
When several such walls of text involve a sysop or two along with other involved users, you have no leg to stand about forbidding regular users to join the fuck fest too. example. The sysop team has the right to use the front page as they please - even to harass, bully and ridicule the reported users - but regular users are not supposed to edit the page even if they have something constructive to say ? This goes completely against the whole spirit of a wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 03:42, 18 July 2009 (BST)
The spirit of a wiki is to use the talk page too. :( :( Don't neglect the talk pages! It's in an administration section, and the two main purposes are for reporting vandals and for sysops to rule on those reports. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 03:45, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Now that you say it, maybe every regular user uses the talk page and if there are important details or evidence or whatever a sysop can quote from the talk page. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 03:46, 18 July 2009 (BST)
me not like to have to switch from one page to another just to check a vandal report. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 03:48, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Usually one-off vandals / open-shut cases don't even get comments added to the talk page. Watchlist A/VB, get A/VB Talk watchlisted as an added bonus! --Bob Boberton TF / DW 03:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)

It should only bar unconstructive commentage and excessive chit-chat. --  AHLGTG 03:28, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I would make it so that only irrelevant conversations between involved parties get moved, but apart from that it's looking good. --Cyberbob 04:10, 18 July 2009 (BST)

So I guess what AHLG said? --Cyberbob 04:11, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Hm, I guess not what he said. --Cyberbob 04:22, 18 July 2009 (BST)

As the gnome. The history of "that box" is that people were being soft warned (and then warned if they ignored too many requests) for repeatedly "shitting up admin pages", and even then the post had to be shown to be done in bad faith for it to be ruled vandalism. This change, to bar all non-sysop comments on cases is far away from the original intent. It will give sysops the right to assume bad faith in good faith edits. Trolling by a sysop on A/VB will become a more legitimate edit than a helpful, well intentioned edit by an ordinary user -- boxy talkteh rulz 04:17 18 July 2009 (BST)

Right so this is why a policy like this would be a good thing. Doing this in dot points because paragraphs are easily overlooked.

  • The myth that the talk page is not read, or is a place of irrelevancy is in fact a myth.
  • If we can encourage sysops to engage in the discussions started on the talk page that would greatly help to alleviate concerns that there is an "us vs. them" mentality going on here (there isn't).
  • The arguments over whether an uninvolved user's comments are constructive or not are infinitely more disruptive than the comments themselves. This is a problem that is unavoidable in any attempt to legislate against some comments but not others.
  • Someone had the idea of adding a reminder to check the talk page to the vndl template? That would be fantastic; it would greatly help with the aforementioned point about getting sysops into the discussions started there.
  • To plug the suggestion I made just above, moving irrelevant conversations involving sysops to the talk page would again cut down on the amount of white noise, and I think it would vastly improve the whole idea of enforcing the use of the talk page in the minds of the community. There is a double standard going on at present, and it would be good if we could do away with it.

Were there any other concerns? I really want to say again that this is not about shutting people up. I think that's the single biggest misconception people have about this whole thing, and it is just not true. --Cyberbob 05:16, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Here's a serious suggestion....
ALL conversation is banned from the main page. All conversation. By Everyone. Only thing allowed is the report itself and votes -- Vandalism/Not Vandalism and a short justification, only. Suppimentary evidence could be brought in, or strictly admin requests like IP checks, for example. Everything and everyone else remains on the Talk page. --WanYao 05:33, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I could live with that. It wouldn't be ideal but I could live with it - plus it would cut down on the number of judgement calls that have to be made, and those always seem to get someone up in arms. --Cyberbob 05:39, 18 July 2009 (BST)

You wanna make it a "must", then make it a policy vote. Period. And... what boxy said... and hagnat, too.

Frankly, this is just an excuse for a certain clique of sysops to avoid doing their jobs and dealing with the "plebains" of the wiki... People like Nubis who seem to think they're too important to have to listen to the rest of the us users (i.e., "I am tired of scrolling through the whining of people that are not sysops, the victim, or the suspect in A/VB cases. There should be no extra comments on this page. Unless they are adding a link to a precedent that might have been overlooked by those involved there is nothing worthwhile that they can add."[1]...Cry me a fucking river, Nubis....)

And isn't it funny how it's not ok for users to make the occaissional non-obtrusive comments on A/VB -- but it's perfectly ok for a sysop to shit up the admin pages with a series of petty, bullshit cases which had no precedent?? --WanYao 05:26, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I actually don't think there is a single point there that I haven't already dealt with. Well done. --Cyberbob 05:31, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I don't read your mountains of trash anymore, cybertroll. --WanYao 05:34, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Right so this is why a policy like this would be a good thing. Doing this in dot points because paragraphs are easily overlooked.
  • The myth that the talk page is not read, or is a place of irrelevancy is in fact a myth.
  • If we can encourage sysops to engage in the discussions started on the talk page that would greatly help to alleviate concerns that there is an "us vs. them" mentality going on here (there isn't).
  • The arguments over whether an uninvolved user's comments are constructive or not are infinitely more disruptive than the comments themselves. This is a problem that is unavoidable in any attempt to legislate against some comments but not others.
  • Someone had the idea of adding a reminder to check the talk page to the vndl template? That would be fantastic; it would greatly help with the aforementioned point about getting sysops into the discussions started there.
  • To plug the suggestion I made just above, moving irrelevant conversations involving sysops to the talk page would again cut down on the amount of white noise, and I think it would vastly improve the whole idea of enforcing the use of the talk page in the minds of the community. There is a double standard going on at present, and it would be good if we could do away with it.
Were there any other concerns? I really want to say again that this is not about shutting people up. I think that's the single biggest misconception people have about this whole thing, and it is just not true.
(I copy this in the hopes that you do read it because he even made it in points and not a wall of text and because it's extremely relevant. Also I share much of the same "the talk page is not the shithole page" sentiment.) --Bob Boberton TF / DW 05:36, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Wan are you sure you don't have two people using your account? Your reply above was a really good one but it doesn't fit with that comment at all. --Cyberbob 05:41, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry Wanyao, since when have I been included in this "secret clique"? Considering I made it with no intention of ignoring users, only making the VB cases more clear cut and concise on the main page. Go ahead and try a different angle, the whole "shadow society that wants to control the wiki" thing never works. Oh, and the cyberbob quip is also pretty stupid because you never tried to get anything done about izzy when he was making his petty cases against the ops team. One treatment for regular users, one for the sysops eh?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 05:49, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Not trusted users... --  AHLGTG 05:50, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Truly a great contribution to the discussion. --Cyberbob 05:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Thanks, I already made mine above. --  AHLGTG 05:52, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Which was also a one-liner, and there's no "quota" for contribution that allows you to do whatever once you've reached it. --Cyberbob 05:54, 18 July 2009 (BST)
You're the one to talk. --  AHLGTG 06:01, 18 July 2009 (BST)
A/PD is not A/VB or A/M. Besides which I have acknowledged the double standard that goes on in A/VB, and have suggested a way to eliminate it. --Cyberbob 06:03, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I feel this urge to alert this line of discussion that kittens are awesome. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 06:05, 18 July 2009 (BST)
You're right, those are supposed to have more seriousness. And as I agree with the above, I have nothing substantial to add.--  AHLGTG 06:06, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Yeah, and this one made me laugh. So two points for you. 4 points for cb.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 05:55, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Thoughts of an ex-mod/crat. Conversations on the main page weren't a huge problem, though we did have backseat modding. It was solved by asking, then soft warnings, then VB. Not by going straight there. I could only get behind this if all the talk was on the monthly talk page, beyond initial report and short rulings. I don't think the rules are a problem as they stand - the enforcement leaves something to be desired, and this can fix the problems created by people not being moderate in their decisions. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 06:59, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements