UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vandal Banning page
Altough the policy barely deserves to be discussed, it's still a policy... No, this kind of thing eliminates the right of people to show valid concerns on the A/VB page: the talk pages are more concealed. As far as the power of warning somebody overlycomplicated arguments such as Grim's argument doesn't get abused (like, unofficially warning someone that makes a sound argument on the A/VB page) then things like this policy are unneeded: you are basically barring everyone from the A/VB page because they have done it to you.
You, Nali, have been warned in a pretty agreeable way by Hagnat over your repeated contentless posts that have been spamming the page. While Grim's second unofficial warning is somewhat more hurried, childish and maybe premeditated, his argument in that you have been already reasonably warned and you failed to desist is sound. Wait for two weeks or so to even consider making a comment on the page other than a report itself, be sure that when you make it it's not an oblivious piece of text that insults every user it comes across and then it may be allowed to remain and you won't be warned for it. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:43, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- Hurried and pre-meditated at the same time? Childish for saying what hagnat said, though with a few points of emphasis and clearer wording? geeze. Even when agreeing with me, you manage to make vast exaggerations and fictions just to take some kind of shot at me. Its almost pitiable. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:37, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- Hurried because you only waited for two posts from Nali, not the multiple ones Hagnat waited for before even daring to unofficially warn him. Childish and maybe premeditated because how you treated the case:
| Grim s said: |
| moving to talk. You fell right into my trap little one BWAHAHAHA |
- Vast exaggerations and fictions? I don't think so. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:18, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- BAD GRIM! NO FUN!!! BE ROBOT!!! Has it ever occurred to you that i might have put that in there as a joke? Im sure if you check the second elevated link in my signature you will find the cause for such attempts at humour. Oh, and you give people leeway at the start, then you tell em not to. If they keep doing it you tell em not to again. We had trieddiscussing it with nalikill previously, and wouldnt ya know it? He didnt fucking listen. The second unofficial warning came because that is how things are done. Fact is, that if it were any other sysop making the edit i did, you would not have resorted to your infantile attacks. Im half suprised you havent gone after me for the name of the new zombie group i started. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 21:41, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- Vast exaggerations and fictions? I don't think so. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:18, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- One thing, Matt. I never put any spam on there. I'll make sure it's much more well thought out, and longer next time, but it's never been spam, and it's never been against any policy, so any banning me or warning me over it would be misconduct. Like I said, Y'all may not WANT me to contribute...but that's in the DEFINITION of vandalism as "NOT VANDALISM" Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 14:08, 6 October 2007 (BST)
I'm not even sure there's a policy here; the policy as described on the main project page is a rant, rather than a policy. Can we just kill this and move on?--Jorm 07:30, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- Yes, there is a policy. The 'policy' that grim and Hagnat are already trying to illegally enforce, is here recorded as legal. And like I said on the main page- FEEL FREE TO ADD TO IT IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S COMPLETE OR PROFESSIONAL. Or if you don't have anything to contribute to it, please do me a favor and stop complaining about it. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 14:08, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- I agree with Jorm... Can we seriously go ix-nay on Policies spam, people? There are legit attempts to improve things and to impliment real policies... and then there is spam... The spam makes the wiki look silly, you know... --WanYao 09:21, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- If you think it's spam, feel free to improve it until it is not. Tell me what I need to do. Are there templates I need to add, sections I need to add, or expound upon, and if so, tell me what they are and what else this needs to say. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 14:13, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- I'ts not my job to rewrite your policy. This phrase here: "No, that's just Grim and Hagnat trying to crown themselves Lord God of the wiki" is pointlessly hostile and drama-stirring. You're obviously not trying to get a policy passed; you're trying to take a personal rant and get it canonized. Clean it up; remove all references to other users; use the template. At that point you may have a policy worth discussing, but as it is now I would expect any administrator would be well within the rules to simply delete it as spam.
I understand that you're trying to establish yourself, and you're obviously very eager to be involved in the community, but you're seriously going about it all wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick to you; I'm trying to lay it out flat: in all communities, there is a status quo. Sometimes it's dynamic; sometimes not. Either way, there is a pattern to the interaction between long-time members. As a new user, you can't just jump right in and act like you're a member of the "Old Guard" because a) you're not; b) you don't know the social nuances; and c) Old Guards tend to resent people who try to avoid "paying dues" and "earning stripes." This isn't just a thing in UDWiki; this is a thing in communities in general.
If you want to be part of the community - and you obviously do - you have to follow the rules, both written and unwritten. You can read up on all of the written rules but to learn the unwritten ones you must observe before acting.
Right now, your actions are resulting in the exact opposite of what I expect is your overall goal: to become an accepted, respected member of the community here. I'm not trying to give you some huge dressing down or anything; I seriously want to help you. So as your attorney, I advise you to withdraw this policy (or rewrite it according to the rules), respect the requests of the administration staff, and find some way to contribute other than trying to play cop. Avoid the vandal and administration pages as a whole for a while and find another project.--Jorm 17:27, 6 October 2007 (BST)- Okay, I'll try my hand at some other projects... can you come to my talk page and give me some ideas? Or I could go on yours. My thoughts were: Welcoming Users, Attaching the Danger Reports to their respective squares, and, if I could figure out how he does it, Autoblocking, like HelpfulGnome does. If you could help me figure out how to better do any of those, I'd greatly appreciate it. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 01:09, 7 October 2007 (BST)
- I'ts not my job to rewrite your policy. This phrase here: "No, that's just Grim and Hagnat trying to crown themselves Lord God of the wiki" is pointlessly hostile and drama-stirring. You're obviously not trying to get a policy passed; you're trying to take a personal rant and get it canonized. Clean it up; remove all references to other users; use the template. At that point you may have a policy worth discussing, but as it is now I would expect any administrator would be well within the rules to simply delete it as spam.
- If you think it's spam, feel free to improve it until it is not. Tell me what I need to do. Are there templates I need to add, sections I need to add, or expound upon, and if so, tell me what they are and what else this needs to say. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 14:13, 6 October 2007 (BST)
Ok, so it is suggested that we should have a policy set in stone by which the only people allowed to comment on the main vandal baning pages are Sysops, the vandal in question and the reporter of the vandal. At the moment this is not set in stone and as such Sysops are getting annoyed by people posting stuff on the main page which they then have to wade through beore they make a judgement. C'mon people, why are we even arguing about this? --SeventythreeTalk 18:25, 6 October 2007 (BST)
New policy
OK, what we had before was not a policy per se - It even asked users to edit it, and so i did. This new policy explain why we need (even though i think we dont) a policy to rule the vandal banning page and comments made on reported users. It explains that we dont need to follow it by the letter of the law, but use it only to prevent those who abuse their freedom in that page. And thank you, nalikill, for being an arse again. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:38, 6 October 2007 (BST)
- Thank you, hagnat, for expounding on this, and helping me make it a real policy. So, for future reference: reference any applicable policies, materials, and provide historical context for the reasons why it's needed, whenever I create a new policy. And I'm making one small change, making the 'unnofficial' warning system a little more like the real one. If it turns out to be an unpopular change, I'll change it back to give a little more wiggle room. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 00:17, 7 October 2007 (BST)
Well, whichever way leads to less drama, gets my vote.--SeventythreeTalk 21:10, 6 October 2007 (BST)
What exactly does this policy do besides define two words most of us know?--Karekmaps?! 06:15, 8 October 2007 (BST)
- Nothing. It just plain isnt needed. Nalikill only started this because the sysops were going to kick his arse for ignoring repeated calls to cease and desist his disruptive behaviour, and posted all sorts of whines and lots of caps and some bold, and even some bold caps before we patiently explained to him what he would go down for and how it worked, and even then he still whined and came here. Hagnat has, rather foolishly in my opinion, decided to humour him and turn his breif whine into something that approaches an actual policy. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:08, 8 October 2007 (BST)
- Foolishly or not, it was a serious attempt to show nalikill HOW one should create a policy and behave in the wiki. His original policy was not even close to a serious rant, more close to whine, whine, whine, hagnat and grim are mean rant. I hope that can show him the huge gap of reasons in our actions and his. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:22, 8 October 2007 (BST)
- Hey, I'm new. I don't know how to format policies, or exactly how to expand basic statements into a pagelong policy. So hagnat really helped me. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 11:49, 8 October 2007 (BST)
- It's not a policy unless it changes a policy or sets up how something should be done. This does neither.--Karekmaps?! 12:12, 8 October 2007 (BST)
- And it shouldn't even be a policy. This is a pointless exercise. It's an Administration page with a specific purpose and the normal editing rules apply. Relevant content goes on the main page, discussions about that content goes on the talkpage. This is true all over the wiki. When the misuse become even more pronounced then normal we placed a banner on the page to remind people of the proper use and pointed the users engaged in non-relevant discussions to the talkpage after they were gently admonished for not using the proper page. This policy isn't needed as one of the most basic rules we have in this wiki already covers this. Just retract this policy and we're done.-- Vista +1 18:11, 8 October 2007 (BST)
- It's not a policy unless it changes a policy or sets up how something should be done. This does neither.--Karekmaps?! 12:12, 8 October 2007 (BST)
moved from the main page
- For.Because it's already on there, illegally. This would validate it. If this is rejected, I will remove above notice from the vandal banning page with a clean conscience, knowing that the policy has been rejected by the wiki. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 20:32, 9 October 2007 (BST)
- You are not an administrator to remove that notice. Doing so will be vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:22, 9 October 2007 (BST)
- Howso? The notice wasn't voted into place, nor even agreed upon... it was put into place unilaterally, which the moron who put it there had no right to do. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 00:14, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- Thank you for calling me a moron. I love you too Nalikill. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:23, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- While we're being open about our feelings, I love you haggie.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:25, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- ....I love you all? Its ok to say that, right?-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:29, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- While we're being open about our feelings, I love you haggie.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:25, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- Thank you for calling me a moron. I love you too Nalikill. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:23, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- Just thought I'd tell you, all my edits are minor by default. And a duel can't happen. I have no alts free. Engel is trying to finish a duel with someone, Xardion is in the manhunt, and Strawberry clock is on a PK tour with some NMC PKer alts. Which I'll have a wiki page up for it soon...Maybe later we can have a duel. And I love you Moar then you love me or anyone else moar. Ha!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:16, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- Awww! I Wuv you guyse so much!--SeventythreeTalk 18:07, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- Howso? The notice wasn't voted into place, nor even agreed upon... it was put into place unilaterally, which the moron who put it there had no right to do. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 00:14, 10 October 2007 (BST)
- You are not an administrator to remove that notice. Doing so will be vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:22, 9 October 2007 (BST)
