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)

Actually i was a sysop, for far more time than you ever were. And a better one too... oh, you meant when i made that comment ? Then no i was not. Still, my comment was pertinent to the way the sysops are handling these spambots, helping them succeed rather than making them fail. Not only that, this was a spambot case, and they involve all users in this wiki --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:00, 15 July 2009 (BST)

BEEP BOOP BETTER SYSOP *ignores multitudes of "fuck da system" misconduct cases* --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:04, 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)

I guess it's a good thing I didn't really bother reading them apart from a quick skim then. The only reason I read yours more closely is because it's nice and short. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 13:20, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Perhaps as the wiki's newest janitor you should start paying attention to what other people say instead of just listening to the little voice in your head. The guideline is clear enough as is, I don't like the way it is sometimes enforced but I long since listened to better sysops than you when they pointed out that it mostly works and is almost never abused. You are trying to enforce it across the board with no regard for either its intent or anyone else's opinion and that put bluntly is not your job. The notice if i remember rightly was added (without vote) specifically to counter repeat spammers who had to butt into every case (Nali) and to stop people gloating in a "hahahaha you is getting banned!" fashion. If I could be arsed, I could trawl the histories and find at least a dozen incidents of Karek, Grim and others making that very point.--Honestmistake 14:51, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Fuck you. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:52, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Honest did you seriously just try and browbeat me into submission with the "your teh new kid on teh block" line of attack? lolllllllll --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:53, 15 July 2009 (BST)

No, I was aiming more at insulting you for continuing to be a dick now that you have supposedly decided to act for the good of the community. What you are doing is nothing more or less than trying to boost your ego by twisting established routine into a weapon for your own aggrandizement and amusement. A/VB is not your play thing and not one of the cases you have just brought has even an ounce of merit... all this is just your way to try and rewrite the rules to make it ok for you to continue being a prick! Try picking holes in the actual meat of what I was saying rather than trying to shift the focus. --Honestmistake 15:01, 15 July 2009 (BST)

can't hear you you're going to have to post even more words I'm afraid --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:02, 15 July 2009 (BST)

STOP BEING A DICK AND TRYING TO CHANGE A RULE THAT MOSTLY WORKS, JUST SO YOU CAN JUSTIFY ACTING LIKE A DICK! that clear and simple enough for you? --Honestmistake 15:07, 15 July 2009 (BST)

i said more words....not MORE CAPS --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:07, 15 July 2009 (BST)

sorry mister but with a combative attitude like that i have no choice but to ignore any further input you have on this matter. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:08, 15 July 2009 (BST)

hahaha, damn but you make me laugh sometimes. Thanks for cheering up an otherwise very dull day :) --Honestmistake 15:12, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Nup. Soft warnings are for making nonconstructive comments on admin pages, not to keep everyone off the page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:59 15 July 2009 (BST)

Would you accept "must" if I added a bit allowing constructive comments from users that don't fall under any of the standard groups that quantitatively add to a case (such as presenting added evidence)? --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 14:04, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I prefer "should". "Must" implies that even a first offense with be dealt with. This soft warning system was only ever meant to be brought out after a long history of unhelpful and annoying posts on admin pages. Even Grim used to put up with a fair amount before bringing out the ole "soft warning" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:11 15 July 2009 (BST)

OK, I can live with "should". The bit about constructive comments is going to draw as much drama as "asks" though, I can feel it. I guess it's easier to argue that someone's comment is not constructive than that "strongly asks" is actually intended to be an order. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 15:16, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Right. I'm going to "be bold" here and "go ahead" and change the template to this because I'm tired and hate to sleep on an open discussion:

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 should use the talk page for further discussion unless you are able to quantitatively contribute to the case (this does not include simply being "on topic"). Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.

Most of the people who might have been interested in having a say on this matter have made edits since this discussion was started so I'm going to assume they either don't care or they agree with what Boxy and I hammered out. --Cyberbob^{POST HERE} 17:04, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Yar, I agree. A/VB cases have too much discussion as is, it should be *bam* *quick* done. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:04, 15 July 2009 (BST)

How does one quantitatively contribute? That just suggests longer, spammier posts to me. --  RoosterDragon  18:24, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Don't you mean qualitatively? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:34, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Yikes, I knew I would get those mixed up and I thought I was being so careful... --Cyberbob 18:48, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I also think that sysop spam, something which Bob is good at doing on VB cases, should now also be moved to talk. Just because you are a sysop doesn't mean you can put shit on the front page just to be an ass.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:41, 15 July 2009 (BST)

I for one strongly disagree with this change. The old version worked but this is just giving Bob ammunition for his petty trolling runs. At the very least such a change should face voting rather than just be done. --Honestmistake 20:19, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Then send Bob to A/M, request a revert of this template through A/PT and then call for a vote either there or here. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:15, 16 July 2009 (BST)