UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prohibiting Content Outside of the Normal Page Area
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
{{Custom Title}} may not have many uses, but they do exist. I would vote against this policy simply due to the complete prohibition you have placed on any such alterations. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:19, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- Not so. Any page that can be shown to require a violation of the policy would be allowed. CNR, man. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:21, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- No, I read that part. I'm more worried about what constitutes a "requirement". I'm certainly not required to place {{Custom Title|left|Prohibiting Content Outside of the Normal Page Area}}, but I may want to. –Xoid S•T•FU!
- Alright, well, how would you like to see this modified then? Or do you just not like the idea at all? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:25, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- Alter the point "Alterations of a page's displayed title." to allow Removing Lots/Of/Stuff/That/Precedes/The/Final/Word, like I did, personally, I'd prefer to see that point changed so that renaming a page, like say, User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel to 'STER would be possible by the page's owner. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:46, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- Better? (The wording was tricky, because I didn't want to imply that impersonation would be allowed). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 10:08, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- I can't see any major problems with it now, I can still see people bitching and moaning about it, but it wouldn't be the UDWiki if someone didn't complain, would it? sigh. –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:28, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- Seems like a good idea. I'd vote for because I much like the UDwiki in this neat 'all the text in one spot' deal. That way nothing is shoved off to the side where you might miss it. EMAG TRESNI 14:15, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- I can't see any major problems with it now, I can still see people bitching and moaning about it, but it wouldn't be the UDWiki if someone didn't complain, would it? sigh. –Xoid S•T•FU! 10:28, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- Better? (The wording was tricky, because I didn't want to imply that impersonation would be allowed). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 10:08, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- Alter the point "Alterations of a page's displayed title." to allow Removing Lots/Of/Stuff/That/Precedes/The/Final/Word, like I did, personally, I'd prefer to see that point changed so that renaming a page, like say, User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel to 'STER would be possible by the page's owner. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:46, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- Alright, well, how would you like to see this modified then? Or do you just not like the idea at all? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 09:25, 4 July 2006 (BST)
- No, I read that part. I'm more worried about what constitutes a "requirement". I'm certainly not required to place {{Custom Title|left|Prohibiting Content Outside of the Normal Page Area}}, but I may want to. –Xoid S•T•FU!
This was the policy i was looking for to write and didnt had the time for. I HATE YOU BOB. Anyway, it look good as it is. Let's get rid of this "This User is watching" crap outside the border of the wiki. --hagnat mod 02:00, 5 July 2006 (BST)
I'm confused at what this is proposing. Is it a restriction on editing material in sidebars and templates, or...? It might be to the fact that I'm not 100% familiar with the ins and outs of the wiki. Sorry to ask such a dumb question, but I'm honestly ignorant to what this is proposing. - Bango Skank 22:29, 8 July 2006 (BST)
- It's essentially prohibiting some of the alterations seen on pages similar to this one (look near the UD logo, and to the right of the page title). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:51, 8 July 2006 (BST)
- Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the help. - Bango Skank 23:09, 8 July 2006 (BST)
What would the policy have to say about pages like this page? --Darth Sensitive talk • W! 22:33, 8 July 2006 (BST)
- It's a gray area. On one hand, you're using a custom title; on the other hand, it's a sandbox page, your custom title is clearly in good faith, and one could argue that you were trying to shorten it from its longer form. I think it would be a judgement call, but my hunch is that it would be okay. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:49, 8 July 2006 (BST)
Im curious, and im not going to vote until i get an answer, but you say that fake system messages wouldnt be allowed, but you arent clear. On my Userpage i have a harmless fake "You have new messages" system message. Would that be covered under it, because ive grown fond of the old girl, even though ive fallen for it myself at least a half dozen times when i wasnt paying attention (Its convincing :D ) --Grim s-Mod U! 23:24, 8 July 2006 (BST)
- Yeah, I've fallen for that message a good dozen times. Damn you, Grim! :) Anyway, to answer your question, that would be fine. I'm talking more about things like Amazing's "This user must not be antagonized." –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:27, 8 July 2006 (BST)
As long as there is a way to navigate back to the Main Page, I feel user pages should be allowed to get as wacky as anyone feels the need. --Max Grivas JG,T,P! 21:03, 11 July 2006 (BST)
- Perhaps you are unaware of what can be done under "as wacky as anyone feels the need". I could create a div that mimics the exact position of various links, and leads to one of the many GOATSE.cx mirrors. I have seen that before, it's not a worst case scenario either. –Xoid S•T•FU! 00:20, 12 July 2006 (BST)
What's wrong with just saying "you're being a total douche, we all know you're being a total douche, this is what we have moderators for?" --Fusilliban 21:26, 13 July 2006 (BST)
- I'm not sure I understand you. This policy would prohibit putting things outside of the normal editing area; it doesn't have anything to do with people being rude or moderators. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:30, 13 July 2006 (BST)
- Well, I'm comfortable classifying things outside the normal editing area in an attempt to trick people as rude and then some. And I'm comfortable classifying moderators as people who deal with that sort of thing. But I'm not convinced that stuff outside the normal area has no legitimate purpose at all, or can't be used to any sort of good effect, and so I'm not a fan of making an explicit rule. --Fusilliban 18:05, 20 July 2006 (BST)
- Ah, I see. You must not know that as moderators, we can't do anything about it, hence the need for a rule. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:15, 20 July 2006 (BST)
- I guess, then, that I don't understand what mods are and are not allowed to do here. I took a peek at Moderation/Guidelines but couldn't find any clause saying "Moderators are not allowed to do anything not explicitly allowed here" nor could I find an actual documented instance of "User pages are sacred," though it is pretty well-established custom. Can you give me links to the recent arbitration/misconduct cases you allude to in the opening of the proposal? --Fusilliban 01:21, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- Happily. First off, you can find the guidelines allowing virtually anything on user pages right here. The arbitration case to which I alluded can be found on this page. The recent misconduct case can be read at this page. And although you're correct that it doesn't say that we're not allowed to do anything that is left unmentioned, trust me, it would be taken to misconduct. For example, see the recent unsuccessful misconduct case against yours truly to see the hell that is being a moderator and trying to do your job. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:37, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- User/talk pages sez: "An exception to this broad authority is the impersonation of others. Impersonation of others can still be reported as a vandalism attempt, even if you are the one that did it on your User page." I'd just go ahead and report that as an attempt to impersonate Kevan and/or the authors of the Wiki software, report it as Vandalism, and call it a day. --Fusilliban 18:53, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- Okay. You would almost certainly fail, but whatever. The policy has passed at this point so it's all moot anyway. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:07, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- User/talk pages sez: "An exception to this broad authority is the impersonation of others. Impersonation of others can still be reported as a vandalism attempt, even if you are the one that did it on your User page." I'd just go ahead and report that as an attempt to impersonate Kevan and/or the authors of the Wiki software, report it as Vandalism, and call it a day. --Fusilliban 18:53, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- Happily. First off, you can find the guidelines allowing virtually anything on user pages right here. The arbitration case to which I alluded can be found on this page. The recent misconduct case can be read at this page. And although you're correct that it doesn't say that we're not allowed to do anything that is left unmentioned, trust me, it would be taken to misconduct. For example, see the recent unsuccessful misconduct case against yours truly to see the hell that is being a moderator and trying to do your job. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:37, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- I guess, then, that I don't understand what mods are and are not allowed to do here. I took a peek at Moderation/Guidelines but couldn't find any clause saying "Moderators are not allowed to do anything not explicitly allowed here" nor could I find an actual documented instance of "User pages are sacred," though it is pretty well-established custom. Can you give me links to the recent arbitration/misconduct cases you allude to in the opening of the proposal? --Fusilliban 01:21, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- Ah, I see. You must not know that as moderators, we can't do anything about it, hence the need for a rule. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:15, 20 July 2006 (BST)
- Well, I'm comfortable classifying things outside the normal editing area in an attempt to trick people as rude and then some. And I'm comfortable classifying moderators as people who deal with that sort of thing. But I'm not convinced that stuff outside the normal area has no legitimate purpose at all, or can't be used to any sort of good effect, and so I'm not a fan of making an explicit rule. --Fusilliban 18:05, 20 July 2006 (BST)
- What's wrong with that, Fusilliban? Try looking up Amazing. There are other cases as well, but none as recent, or as well known. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:06, 14 July 2006 (BST)
- I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't see how that answers my question. --Fusilliban 18:05, 20 July 2006 (BST)
- If everyone considers that person to be a douche, but the person who is being called a douche doesn't agree, then there is little that can be done to stop them without the rules being on your side, except for arbitration of course, which we all should know is a pointless waste of time. It's not like it ever solves conflicts. Also: Hammero managed to sum up what being a moderator is like quite nicely: more responsibility, and no power. Oh, of course we can do moderator stuff, but we certainly aren't allowed to. –Xoid S•T•FU! 01:52, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- Xoid, I'm taking you to misarbiconduct for saying that. I can tell you're plotting to use your moderator powers. 48,000,000 year ban!!! –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:04, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- If everyone considers that person to be a douche, but the person who is being called a douche doesn't agree, then there is little that can be done to stop them without the rules being on your side, except for arbitration of course, which we all should know is a pointless waste of time. It's not like it ever solves conflicts. Also: Hammero managed to sum up what being a moderator is like quite nicely: more responsibility, and no power. Oh, of course we can do moderator stuff, but we certainly aren't allowed to. –Xoid S•T•FU! 01:52, 21 July 2006 (BST)
- I apologize for my ignorance, but I don't see how that answers my question. --Fusilliban 18:05, 20 July 2006 (BST)
Voting Ended
Well, looks like the time is up. 34 For votes, 3 Against, and 2 Abstain (even though those aren't really allowed). Even considering the last bunch, that's 34/39 ≈ 87% approval. I guess that means it's implemented. I'll update the main page and start notifying people later. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 02:31, 21 July 2006 (BST)
