UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/VB FFO Commenting

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

1st header

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 THE END IS NIGH! 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 talk • teh 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)

Oh, I forgot. Sysops can't have opinions on things unless they match written wiki policy. That's why we are called moderators... Oh,wait... --– Nubis NWO 10:56, 19 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 THE END IS NIGH! 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 THE END IS NIGH! 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 THE END IS NIGH! 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 THE END IS NIGH! 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)

The fact that you use the words "mod" and "moderate" speaks volumes, hope this helps (though I wouldn't mind the system you and Wan have suggested) --Cyberbob 07:24, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I have always thought and made no secret of my belief that moving from mods to sysops was a mistake that increased the problems between the trusted users and the rest of the wiki. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 18:55, 18 July 2009 (BST)
*Cough*--– Nubis NWO 02:50, 20 July 2009 (BST)

All the actual A/VB page should contain is

  • The initial report including the links to the vandalism you are reporting.
  • Evidence. any links to similar cases to support the current case (ie user X posts "just spotted these too ...") that another user wishes to add. Brief factual statements should be allowed to support these.
  • Ruling. Sysops decision as to vandalism or not with the usual short statement explaining why (ie "only 3 edits, all bad!" or "Newb mistake, explained on his/her talk page")

Anything more controversial that a sysop judges likely to draw comment should be on the talk page so that the following shit storm can be seen in full context. This must include posts by sysops because replying on a different page means that a comment loses a lot of its context... If the talk page really is for all discussion then let it be for all discussion.--Honestmistake 12:24, 18 July 2009 (BST)

All sysop contributions that arn't strictly for ruling get moved too, eh? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:54 18 July 2009 (BST)
exactly. Its pretty much exactly what Wan has already said but its not a new idea. It has been suggested and shot down for various reasons on more than one discussion in the past. While Sysops read and enforced the red box as it was intended it wasn't a big enough issue to push but with the recent swing to strict enforcal its worth looking at in a more official way. --Honestmistake 17:19, 18 July 2009 (BST)
That was what I proposed above. So, yes. Frankly, I don't think there is any problem with the system as it is, as long as sysops are mature and responsible and not whinging elitist whingers who think they're too good to deal with reg'lar folk ... this is all some bizarre attempt by cyberbob to impose his own petty will on the rest of the wiki in the name of "efficiency"... However, I'm taking the idea that non-admin-y comments have no place on the A/VB page at face value for the moment. And taking that idea to its logical conclusion: all commentary belongs on the Talk page. This is the only change that is logical and consitent -- and it has to be voted in as policy. --WanYao 13:40, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Cyberbob nor Nubis made this policy. I did. With no discussion from anyone. Now can you please stop spouting this shit about nubis and cb trying to take over the wiki, because it's kind of hard when they aren't the ones trying to make changes. God damn. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:39, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I never said Nubis had anything to do with this making policy, and my comments about nubis are very specifically related to... well... it's all in clear english, above. And, I don't give a fuck who came up with this policy... but its timing and its intent play so perfectly into cyberbob's actions on A/VB... I mean, you're the one who's out to lunch for making snide comments because i see and point the obvious... sheesh, get a grip. --WanYao 18:56, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I'm making snide comments? My comment was not deceitful, nor derogatory. It's your comments that have been snide, saying all these things about cb and nubis about how they "don't care about the wiki and are just trying to further themselves". Combine that with your spouting of shit that's blatantly incorrect, it makes you look pretty stupid AND hypocritical. The reason I reminded you that Nubis didn't make the policy is because you seem intent on portraying him and cb as people tryign to take over the wiki, "all some bizarre attempt by cyberbob to impose his own petty will on the rest of the wiki in the name of "efficiency"". You're pointing out the obvious with this one? Yes, please, tell me how you can point out the oh-so obvious, when there's nothing there to point out. Tell me to get a grip? Please. You're the one calling out imaginary wiki-domination plans using proof that is incorrect.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:08, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Fuck you Wan, nothing I do is in the name of "imposing my petty will" on anything. FUCK. --Cyberbob 13:44, 18 July 2009 (BST)


I admit I haven't been following very closely, but seriously guys. Trolls, flames and irrelevant comments get moved to the talkpage and you wonder why people think it's a shithole? --Midianian¦T¦DS¦SP¦ 13:35, 18 July 2009 (BST)

There should be one standard that applies to both sysops and regular users. If you can word that in a way where the sysops will be happy then do it. What should be avoided is a standard by which sysops can roll up and talk trash with impunity and any counter discussion on the part of regular users gets A/VB.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 17:56, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Well, two things. A) The sysops are the one ruling and making decisions, that's the sole reason why they should get more rights as to discussing and such on the main page. 2) Thats why I added that end clause, I wasn't sure on how to word it properly though. I want it so the long discussions between people are ont he talk, along with the troll-ish comments and such, but the 'ops should still have more leniency then the regular users because in the end, it's really up to us as to what happens to the suspected vandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suicidalangel (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Er... WTH?

Why are we posting on the talk page? --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 07:27, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Are you serious? --Cyberbob 07:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Because that's where post when you're talking about a policy. --User:Axe27/Sig 07:59, 18 July 2009 (BST)
You know, for someone who is so anti-authority and wants their (your) opinion everywhere, you really have no clue what you're doing here.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 08:13, 18 July 2009 (BST)
*YAWN* Dont be an asshole its only the internet --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 10:13, 18 July 2009 (BST)
lol --Cyberbob 10:16, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Irony Linkthewindow  Talk  11:53, 18 July 2009 (BST)

How about this?

It's looking as though the idea of having all discussion on the talk page and the main page being reserved simply for rulings + short reasonings is a popular one so I've ginned up something to that effect:

Administration Notice
This page is to be used for presenting cases and making rulings only. Any and all discussion of the case and/or its rulings is to take place on the talk page.

I was trying to decide between "must" and "should", but settled on "is to" as a sort of neutral ground. I shouldn't think we'll have too many issues with people violating this one; it seems to me like the biggest problem people have with the one in place currently is that they perceive it to be a kind of double standard. I don't think that's entirely accurate but if putting everyone on the same "level" will alleviate those concerns then so be it.

Thoughts? --Cyberbob 18:10, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Meh.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:22, 18 July 2009 (BST)
It wouldn't be my personal first choice either but I do think that something like this is the most realistic path to finally ending the drama over the main page/talk page issue that has been going on for so long. --Cyberbob 18:26, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I still meh at you and your concessions. Meh!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:29, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I like it, I assume that presenting additional evidence falls under the 1st part and that a short description of the rulings reasoning is still going to be part of the ruling? Also I would think a different box on the talk page warning against trolling etc would still be useful. --Honestmistake 18:41, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not too sure about this, but I would say that if someone was to present evidence it would literally have to just be a link to the diff/page in question and nothing else, as well as a post about it on the talk page in order to make it easier to integrate it into the discussion. The trolling warning box idea sounds good, but I've got no idea what measures could actually be taken against it. Every idea I can think of inevitably involves subjective calls on the part of a sysop, which would be almost guaranteed to draw the same kind of drama as the stuff we've been getting already. --Cyberbob 18:50, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I think that posting diff links is really all thats needed on initial reports and additional evidence. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 18:55, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Could that include a one or two word description of what is being reported/presented "in" the link? It would be a label more than anything else; I'm thinking about people looking back and trying to determine precedence. If you're digging through pages and pages of cases you don't have time to give each one more than a cursory glance. --Cyberbob 19:01, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Yeah - I was unclear. Something like "This guy keeps changing my group logo to a dead cat and he sucks ban him (with links)" wouldn't be kosher, while "Persistent group page vandalism (with links)" would be good. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 20:32, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I can't be alone in desperately wanting to see the first of those as a genuine vandal report :)--Honestmistake 20:37, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Looks like we're in complete agreement then. --Cyberbob 07:09, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I hate to admit it, but this is a good idea of Bob's. Having all of the talk on the talk page would pretty much destroy any possible gray areas.--SirArgo Talk 18:51, 18 July 2009 (BST)

FYI it was my idea, lol --WanYao 18:57, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Then it's even better!!--SirArgo Talk 19:00, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Actually i discussed exactly this with Karek over 12 months ago and i can remember it being discussed earlier than that too. Bob does deserve the credit for listening to others opinions and actually putting into concrete form though. --Honestmistake 19:04, 18 July 2009 (BST)
:( --Cyberbob 19:03, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Too confusing, everybody wins this time. But back on topic, I would vote for this concrete and very specific form of the policy. Talk page is for all talk, makes perfect sense.--SirArgo Talk 19:09, 18 July 2009 (BST)
It also cuts out the ability of an 'op to easily read information that directly pertains to the case. If you haven't noticed, a lot of vb discussions turn into these giant walls of text that end up having nothing to do with the case a quarter of the way through. That's why I wanted 'ops to be able to discuss on the main page, because most of the time it stays on topic. Forcing the 'ops to discuss the case on the talk page also means having to wade through these massive walls of text some times to pick out the parts that matter. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:59, 18 July 2009 (BST)
Sysops are almost as susceptible to going off-topic as users are, and I'm confident that we can come up with some kind of workable mechanism for dealing with spam and trolling. --Cyberbob 19:03, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I would even go so far as to suggest that people would approach the new system with far more goodwill than they were previously (having actually voted on it). If we asked them to try and keep comments as short and to the point as possible I'm confident that we'd see an improvement right there - even before any kind of enforcement. --Cyberbob 19:07, 18 July 2009 (BST)
It's hardly my idea, I think it was Wan who first suggested having everything on the talk page and I know a couple of other people have as well (I was actually trying to sell SA's version). The only thing I've done is to come up with a box written with that goal in mind. (damn, edit conflicted - twice now - by the post that beat me!) --Cyberbob 19:01, 18 July 2009 (BST)
"I think it was Wan who first suggested having everything on the talk page and I know a couple of other people have as well" right hurr --Bob Boberton TF / DW 19:04, 18 July 2009 (BST)
I was in a rush to try and avoid being edit conflicted and I could only think of the one name :P --Cyberbob 19:07, 18 July 2009 (BST)

I don't necessarily support this idea, but given all the drama over A/VB, it seemed like the only consistent solution that would piss off the least amount of people. Frankly, I don't think there is anything wrong with the status quo -- as long as everyone is reasonable, genuinely disruptive users are given warning, and sysops don't go on power-trips. Anyhooo, people like Nubis are always arguing that they don't want to deal with non-sysop crap on A/VB, and it's arguable that you don't really need all those walls of text for most vandalism cases, anyway. I suggested this to give you's what you want: all business, no spam. The way I see it, either you do it this way or you stop whining about the status quo, anything is else is PURE FLAKE... Oh I am sure there will be many people disagreeing with me over that... but, oh well... --WanYao 21:14, 18 July 2009 (BST)

It looks pretty good. But I feel there should be room for a sysop or user to add highly relevant information. It's important because it makes the ruling clearer when the links to any precedent or additional evidence is included in main A/VB area. How about changing the wording slightly?
"Any discussion not critical to the case and/or its rulings is to take place on the talk page" --GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 23:37, 18 July 2009 (BST)
That would basically put us back to where we started. People will want to know exactly what would be critical. And for each case, it would change.--SirArgo Talk 23:39, 18 July 2009 (BST)

What's the bet that the next push for rule creep is to force irrelevant stuff off the talk page, because now a lot of relevant info is being forced onto it? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:07 19 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah coming up with a solution for dealing with trolling and spamming on the talk page itself is something I've been having difficulties with. Like I said above though, hopefully we won't have to cross that bridge too many times because I think people will approach the new rules with a better mindset than they did before. It won't be looking as though it's one rule for "us" and one rule for "them". --Cyberbob 07:08, 19 July 2009 (BST)
"Any and all discussion which doesn't cite absolutely essential info pertaining to the case and/or its rulings is to take place on the talk page". That would make it pretty clear users can't shit up A/VB and add their 2 cents, and it leaves the door open for adding a link to some precedent or bit of evidence that would actually affect the ruling. Thoughts?--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 08:22, 19 July 2009 (BST)
There we go! perfect wording and idea! Thats the concept that was floating around in my head, but I couldn't quite get to it! Thankee!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:12, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Another header

Why not make A/VB like voting on a suggestion? Only votes of Vandalism/Not Vandalism are allowed with a brief justification. I like the change that talk must be on the talk page.

I'm still waiting for the change that says you have to show that you actually contacted the vandal trying to work this out before posting the case.You know, Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. . But I know that is a foolish dream. Of course, that would cut down on petty cases brought up by sysops, too. Or at least start the dramafests on non-Admin pages. Which is ultimately the goal here. --– Nubis NWO 10:47, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I totally agree with everything you've said, except that it wouldn't be appropriate to require talking with the user quite in every last case (thinking specifically of obvious vandal alts here, like what's been happening with Izumi). It isn't quite what this policy is aimed at but if you were to put up another one for putting what you've suggested into action I'd be all for it. --Cyberbob 13:19, 19 July 2009 (BST)
Oh, missed the bit about suggestions voting; isn't that sort of a system what people have been saying? :p --Cyberbob 13:22, 19 July 2009 (BST)
I agree, people should do more of the talk first, and VB later, except for clearly bad faith stuff.
If we had a working arbitration/mediation system, extended discussion and drama would be much better off being sorted out there first, and only referring clear cut cases to A/VB. Stuff like pagewiping or insulting edits to group pages go to A/VB because they're clearly bad faith, while editing of group pages to "correct" lies and remove KOS entries (for eg) go to arbies/mediation (it still wouldn't be allowed, but the two sides can talk it out, and the rules of the wiki could be explained). Ignoring arbitration, or a valid ruling from there can then be pointed out to on A/VB, making ruling on such cases simple and drama-less -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:12 20 July 2009 (BST)
That sounds good too - not what this policy is about but you should definitely think about putting something like that up for discussion IMO. --Cyberbob 09:07, 20 July 2009 (BST)
I tend to agree, taking people to arbies over this could work (and I think we just had a case of this type)? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:04, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Header pt. 2, The Changes Spread

Discuss.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:16, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Lets go for it - the new template on the actual page works well too. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:46, 21 July 2009 (BST)
I still prefer that all talk from all parties should be on the talk page, but this is an improvement.--SirArgo Talk 04:49, 21 July 2009 (BST)
I too prefer all talk on the talk page because can still see a window for overzealous sysops to hand out warnings if they don't feel the point you made is valid enough. That said it might work if such abuse isn't tried.--Honestmistake 08:24, 21 July 2009 (BST)
It's not always a matter of abuse if someone makes a subjective call that you disagree with, you know. --Cyberbob 08:27, 21 July 2009 (BST)
But yes - drama is bad whether it is justified or not. Minimising the number of subjective calls that have to be made is what we should be looking at, so while the new version of the template is better I agree that we can go one better by simply putting all discussion on the talk page. --Cyberbob 08:29, 21 July 2009 (BST)
So what are going to be the practical changes that result from this rewording? Will soft warnings still be used. Will they be handed out even on a first offense? How are newbies handled? Etc. I take it, from your wording, that sysops and involved parties are still free to edit as they please -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:13 21 July 2009 (BST)

If you're going to say that you might as well say if you write on the page its vandalism, honestly what on this wiki is absolutely essential? And whats the reason for this anyway? I don't see why me requesting an IP check or anyother similar non confrontational edit should have to be on teh talk page. Not only will it be more of a hassle, but the discussion is split up and its far less likely to be noticed. I haven't heard a single decent argument for why users editing the main page is a problem. If the discussion gets out of hand then you move it on across to the talk, same as with any other admin page.--xoxo 09:18, 21 July 2009 (BST)

It's like having all talk on the talk page, yet allowing things like evidence, calls for ip checks, and other things that could quite possibly be considered essential to the case(pretty much what wan said). Sysops editing as they please would not be allowed because as y'all show up top no one wants it like the that. Soft warnings are something that is an 'ops prerogative because we don't have a policy on soft warning, and I don't really want to policify (needs to be a word) how we do soft warnings. Newbies can easily be handled the way most of the team has always done it. Drop them a friendly line telling them whats what, then go from there.

Oh, and Jed? the talk on one of your own cases is why normal users have been a problem. Sure, the entirely helpful comments I have no problem with. But a lot of the time it's a bunch of trollish horseshit, irrelevant, or there just for arguing's sake. But like on your case, a lot of the comments were on the main page, which all in all had no real connection to the original case. Not to mention as soon as it was posted and cb said something, Thad comes out trying to be a trollin'. It's these sort of things that ruin the chances of at least somewhat free commenting.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:31, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Anything unconstructive = vandalism, hard or soft warning. That's the only consistent change to the status quo. Which would make some of j3d's recent A/VB cases valid (and mine and Honest's, too) -- and the one where he asked for an IP check invalid. And Thaddeus' trolling attempt would = vandalism, as well. But... if regular users aren't allowed to "troll" the page with unconstructive shit, why should sysops be allowed to? It's not like random quips from some sysop or another contribute anything to the smooth functioning of the page, either.... --WanYao 19:21, 21 July 2009 (BST)
His first paragraph said he agrees with sysops not being able to post irrelevant comments. --Cyberbob 19:25, 21 July 2009 (BST)
And on that point, I think my point about you not really reading worth shit lately a bit more valid.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:43, 21 July 2009 (BST)
I know you mean Wan but it kinda looks like you don't :\ --Cyberbob 01:25, 22 July 2009 (BST)
Also wondering if we're going to see another response from him here (no) --Cyberbob 01:25, 22 July 2009 (BST)
Correct you are! Damn you keyboard! How can you sabotage me again?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:05, 22 July 2009 (BST)
There's still the issue of long, drawn out arguments clogging up A/VB, where the accused goes on a tirade and the sysops get together and gangbang him/her. So I prefer Cyberbob's template to the original, in that bob's made it clear discussion goes on the talk page. Is there a happy medium?--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 00:15, 23 July 2009 (BST)
It's quite obvious a long drawn out discussion is not critical to the case. In bob's it makes it to where if you had a piece of evidence and such, it'd go ont he talk page too, potentially lost by the angry walls of texts you'd find. Where as the version you wrote shows that discussion should be on the talk page, yet critical things like new evidence and the like can be posted on the main case. I'm preeeety sure that after reading the box, no one is going to want to try to have a discussion on the main page anymore.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:24, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Why isn't this being discussed on the sysop discussion page? It's a sysop notice, not a page rule so much as a notice of enforcement of a common sense rule. --Karekmaps?! 21:55, 1 August 2009 (BST)

This gonna go up for voting, or what?

Is it?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:20, 8 August 2009 (BST)

SA's given a promise that he intends on putting it up for voting, so we're giving it a bit of leeway in terms of archiving it, as he has some busy IRL things on. --ϑϑℜ 01:25, 9 August 2009 (BST)

I don't particularly like this development. That notice box was only meant to give a heads up to what may be considered vandalism if someone continually, and intentionally kept "shitting up the page" with idiotic comments or un-needed drama despite "soft-warnings". If you want to make specific rules for the A/VB page, then the policy needs to be the rules being proposed, and the notice box will automatically reflect them. Spell out the rules you are suggesting, in detail, in your policy -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:15 9 August 2009 (BST)

MANDATORY 3-DAY DISCUSSION PERIOD STARTS NOW.

In light of recent events, I'm going to push this into voting. So, is there going to be any discussion on it or what?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-add the link to the talk page into the vndl template, and change this so it's rulings/reports only. Ether everything's on the talk page, or nothing is, we don't need a gray area. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That's where it went. Silly Cheese :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this really going to change things?

I say no, but feel free to convince me otherwise. Regardless, in the past we have had countless drama vb cases about this subject. This was about whether or not uninvolved users could make (on-topic) comments on the main page. Now, in case this passes, we will still have countless drama vb cases about this subject. And then it will be about whether certain comments are absolutely essential to the case or not. Because, who is going to decide what exactly this "absolutely essential" is. Sure, this will nail the most spamfull and off-topic comments to the talk page.

However, there will remain a gray area of sorts about what is essential and what is not. This policy narrows down what and what isn't allowed on the main page, but it still doesn't solve the problem. Also, when did this a/vb main and talk page split started? Has there ever been a time in which that "free for all commenting" was actually allowed?--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 18:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest ammending it to add that any moving of comments to the talk page must warrant a note on the main page, at the point where the conversation was split, to point to the moved comments. Anything else is too confusing for my simple Irish brain. Other than that, I'm not really convinced this is going to change a whole lot. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that if linked as Mis suggests for splits is applied to the page generally, then the new template should work fine. If people can't use a little common sense to determine what is absolutely essential to a A/VB case and what isn't, then they should just default themselves to using the talk page. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 09:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Just ban bob from making cases against anyone and this'd all go away. No one else holds that guideline to the letter to further personal vendettas. xoxo 12:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This policy needs more potatoes

That is all. -- Cheese 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not dead

I'm just tired.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is seriously going to face another archival if you don't do something soon SA. If you are really so set on getting this fixed, it doesn't really take 6 months of on-and-off development to do it. -- 10:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
beep Cyberbob  Talk  10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
first contribution a sysop besides myself, ross or mis has made in a week and that's what it is- don't go and clean up A/VB or anything. -- 11:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made more contributions in the last week - check my contribs. Or at least I think I have. I've been really fucking busy IRL and I've been tired in the spare time I have had. Cyberbob  Talk  11:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
yesssss I made a crappy post on my talk page 6 days ago. owned Cyberbob  Talk  11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:/ and that's something to be proud of. -- 11:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
lrn2joke Cyberbob  Talk  12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
lrn2contrib -- 12:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
lrn2irl Cyberbob  Talk  01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
lrn2contrib -- 03:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
lrn2FUCKINGSTOP For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 03:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived, again. --

03:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/VB_FFO_Commenting&oldid=1655908"