UDWiki talk:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive5

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Broken Link?

Under Before Submitting a Report, shouldn't the link to Wikipedia's "Assume good faith" page be

[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]

i.e. assume good faith (the guideline on Wikipedia), instead of

[[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]

the wikipedia article on "good faith? --_LH779 11:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep and done. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wha-? Category:Suggestions?

No seriously. Why is the vandal banning page under the Suggestions category? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Or Current Suggestions category to be precise. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Blame it on : . --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Blame it on you? OK... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I too shall blame it on the gnome._{do not look in the history ITSALIE}--Karek^maps?! 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Blame it on ----> : <---- --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea...well. I don't know any :s. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe : is short for Gnome.--Karek^maps?! 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

: --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...I would love to put that blame on you, Karek...But...Somebody said not to look at the history. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Line 14		Line 14
{{vndl|TerminalFailure}}		{{vndl|TerminalFailure}}
Created [[Suggestion:Play_Fair]], which is vandalism under [[Category:Current_Suggestions#Advice_before_Making_a_Suggestion|rule 10]] of the suggestions rules. --<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)	+	Created [[Suggestion:Play_Fair]], which is vandalism under [[:Category:Current_Suggestions#Advice_before_Making_a_Suggestion|rule 10]] of the suggestions rules. --<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
===[[User:Thekooks|Thekooks]]===		===[[User:Thekooks|Thekooks]]===
{{vndl|Thekooks}}		{{vndl|Thekooks}}

See? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your post went into the contents section. I blame you for that. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But I fixed it, just like I fixed Karek. Hah, so there. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I still blame you for numerous of other stuff. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you are right. You can blame me for fixing Karek's category oops! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I blame you for not keeping an eye on your cardboard knight set while I was stealing it. And giving it to 73. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edges of boxes getting cut off

The colourful boxes at the top of VB are missing their edges (at least they are in my browser; I'm sure it looks different depending on your text size). There's a screenshot to the left.

The right hand side of the colourful boxes are bumping into the table of contents.

Anyone know how to fix it? --Toejam 21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We can fix it by making the boxes a variable width (a %) rather then a fixed width (currently 600px). But only a Sysop can do that at the moment since the template is protected. - If Jedaz = 22:23, 1 January 2008 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

We can also fix it by archiving a bit more frequently :) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:53 1 January 2008 (BST)

Suggestion

Since it's obvious that Izumi (the Perma-banned) won't stop editing the Lockettside page as long as there remains a proxy or library computer she can login to, perhaps locking of the Lockettside page for a period of time would be the answer.

I can't say for sure, but it seems that if the page were locked, she wouldn't have a target for her next puppet to edit.

--Stephen Colbert DFA 18:50, 16 October 2007 (BST)

The problem with that is normal users wouldn't be able to update current news. And I doubt any sysop is going to want to edit for people.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:52, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Would locking the Lockettside suburb page and them making the news an (editable) include help any? The effect would be that only the news section would be edit-able by normal users.  Swiers 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it's a problem anymore. izumi hasnt come back. at least not in any big way. if she's here she's keeping herself on the downlow.--'BP^Tmz 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bit late to the party swiers. And the problem with a method like that is it prevents groups from adding/removing themselves from Active Groups section, not to mention it takes two pages to do what one currently is.--Karek^maps?! 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Banning policy discussions

Guidelines

Why do people keep getting "soft warnings" for commenting on the main page? It is a guideline not to, and (mostly)a good one, but it is not policy and enforcing it as if it were is creating bad precedent... Either a policy to give it force should be made or it should be removed from the page. --Honestmistake 01:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think soft warnings are policy either, so they fit well together. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We have had this argument twice already. A third time wont change the outcome. Unofficial (soft) warnings are not escalations. They are, however, a fencepost that if continually ignored, allow us sysops to deem continued abuse to be done in bad faith, and bring them up for actual vandalism charges. Seeing as how this has been held up by three bans on the subject, as well as two not guilty rulings on misconduct, i fail to see why we need to go over this again. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

because; if a soft warning is not official it is merely your opinion that the user is skirting a breach of rules. if ignoring your opinion is to be taken as evidence of bad faith then your word is tantamount to law and that is why I object, it does not matter what you or boxy or karek or for that matter me thinks; what matters is whether the rule is broken and whether it was a good rule in the first place. There is no rule that forbids discussion on the page and bullying folk with soft warnings is wrong. All that is needed is a formal policy to state that discussion must be on the talk page unless directly relevant (as judged by more than 1 of the admin team) Its a simple idea., For gods sake man, its not like I am even saying they are right to post there; just that it is currently their right to do so and that as such warnings which may or may not be used as evidence are totally out of order! --Honestmistake 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not having this discussion again. You can wrap up whatever you like in emotianally loaded terms and make it look as though you have some kind of compelling case, but the fact remains, these are not being misused, they only get used exceedingly rarely, and you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill which has already been dealt with before repeatedly. Since the discussion started being held on the talk page instead of the admin page, we have seen drops in the level of drama surrounding the average case, as well as a dramatic increase in the level of professionalism on the page. Not to mention the environment has become far, far more respectful than before, when a VB case was merely an excuse to dogpile a user and regularly led to flamewars. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A vote here to settle things once and for all?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Its already been settled at least seven times. Three bans, 2 misconduct cases, and two discussions here. There is no need to "settle" this as it is already settled. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for good measure, I say we keep things the way they are. It's true. And while I still comment on the page every once in a while, I have noticed the page is much cleaner looking than it was in the past.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some would disagree (I don't). Since it doesn't appear to be a policy or an official guideline, the entire community should have a vote to permanently clear things up. Not a new policy or anything, that'd take too long.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken. This is the fourth discussion of this kind on this page, and then most of the nalikill cases had discussions as well, so add four more, then theres the two misconduct. So this is the tenth time its been discussed. Anyhow, as i have said before, thuis does use policy: UDwiki:Vandalism to be specific. The soft warnings are to serve as markers for determining if an edit was made in good or bad faith. After two of them, it can be safely assumed that you are no longer editing in good faith because you have ignored at least two reasonable requests to stop disruption. At this point, things are treated as bad faith and the vandal banning tree steps in to play. Please try to understand it. It is so simple that it boggles the mind how often you people misunderstand it.--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I was just commenting on a possible vote on soft warnings to make it official and to stop futher discussion on the matter. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is official. Its been official for a while. In fact, this was used to shoot down nalikills policy proposal at the time of the issues with him. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But people are still disagreeing because there is no policy or official guideline on it. Saying "We get to soft warn people now" isn't very official. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

People disagree with everything. There are people out there who think its perfectly all right to pork their baby daughters. This is a ritualised form of enforcing UDwiki:Vandalism. No more, no less. The fact it is not explicitely spelled out in any policy doesnt make it invalid. If you used that tack, then all of A/D, A/SD, A/MR, A/PM, A/PT, A/DM, A/M, A/VB, and A/VD need to be formally written up into policies as well, and all verdicts, bans, escalations, misconduct cases, promotions, demotions, and everything would have to be thrown out. Its stupidity of the highest order. The policies are there to be enforced. How we go about enforcing them is entirely up to us, so long as we are both consistent and fair. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Well I think it's fine how it is at the momment. If Honestmistake/whomever wants to put up a policy or something, then great. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My belief? Either make a policy about it or STFU. If you're tired, grim, of defending it, and believe it's settled, then a vote into policy should make evident and officiate the status quo, or remaining silent will hurt nothing. If whomever is the most fervent opposition to soft warnings is tired of them being given out, you hurt only your own cause by not making a policy and hurt your cause even more directly by speaking against it and then not backing your words with action.

Summarized:

1.If you believe it's settled, there's no need to defend it

2.If you believe it's settled and want to shut people up, make a policy to shut them up

3.If you believe it's against the rules, put your policy where your mouth is

I hope this will (even though it won't) settle the matter. I will take no one seriously whom continues to defend/offend this issue without making a policy persuant to their actions; this includes anyone from God Almighty all the way down to Grievstar.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is it with all you people and drama, do you have a quota you have to make lest you get drawn and quartered? The rule is there, it helps the wiki run smoothly. It's not actually something you get punished for unless you do it incessantly, like 10 times in a day after being told to stop, and they usually don't even tell you to stop until you've done it at least 5 times on one case, are ruling on the cases yourself, or are simply going around commenting on the cases to cause drama. Simple version of that is they warn you when you make bad faith edits on the A/VB page they don't need a rule to warn you for vandalizing the page and they are more lenient than they should be by giving you the soft warnings for actual legitimate vandalism. When it isn't vandalism they move it to the talk page and don't warn you. --Karek^maps?! 10:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Help me with the template/format or whatever and i will put something together.

The current system does not reduce drama it just moves it here and often makes it worse when comments one user feels are pertinent are moved out of context often leaving them looking foolish or at least lost. In simple cases where there is little or no discussion the system works well, it is controversial matters where moving other users opinions or using "soft warnings" make the mods look high handed. In effect it often seems like they are saying "stop being naughty and disagreeing... or else" I don't think they are always used that way but the impression is that they have been and that harms the image of the mods in general. As for Grims assertion that 2 soft warnings mean that any further disagreement can be regarded as bad faith!!! What if you are wrong? What if the person you warn for disagreeing with your opinion is not acting in bad faith? What you are saying is that not agreeing with you can automatically be taken as vandalism if you refuse to shut up or change your opinion! That is not policy, that is dictatorship. Nali got banned for disagreeing with you and (hagnat/karek? sorry i forget who) He was in probably in the wrong; but acting in bad faith or merely refusing to back down from his own stance? That in a nutshell is my problem with this non-existant policy... that it can be used to silence a users genuine opinion by making it bad faith to continue voicing it where and how they feel it is best placed despite their breaking no rule!--Honestmistake 10:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sysop and if I were I would not use soft warning, ever. And Nali got his month ban on his own.--Karek^maps?! 10:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

he got the month ban on his own but it got escalated up to that point after a problem with this guideline and its enforcement. --Honestmistake 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Honestmistake motto: Loaded terms and strawmen for a more drama filled tomorrow! It is not, and never has been, a warning for disagreeing. The guideline is regarding all posts, and is used to keep the page clean. It doesnt need a vote and is pretty mcuh seperate from the soft warning issue that you have. It has been a "warning" for persistent disruption, persistent being determined by the fact that they have been granted two fenceposts. They could be called anything. Demerit Points, Marks of Shame, Zombie Sodomisation Coupons, Stubborn Twat Awards, The Golden Sheepshagger, The Rogered by Sysops Trophy or even AVO's (Aussies here will gt that). It changes nothing. They merely serve as fenceposts to mark where a person has been told to cease and desist from making overly disruptive edits to the administration pages. These are rulings, persistent attacks on the user the case is referring to, or other cases of serious abuse, to be determined at the time. This does not give infinite leeway, and all borderline cases are generally just moved to talk page along with everything else said by uninvolved parties. For those who continue to ignore these "warnings" they face the wrath of UDWiki:Vandalism, as well as the wailing hordes of the Mod Conspiracy. For those who cant possibly tell that i am joking about the mod conspiracy have no business being on this page. I bid you farewell, and hope you dont stain the door with your buttocks on the way out. You do not get them for disagreeing, unless you decide to buck the established flow with wild abandon, and even then, if you back off and cease disruption, we will drop the matter. Given that most of the discussion takes place on this page, it is not unreasonable to ensure that everything be moved here so that the cases are not cluttered with random crap and irrelevancies, and to make sure that the discussion stays mostly together. At the same time, the drama is decreased (Yes, decreased. Minimal random occasional whines that are quickly silenced dont overpower the vast cleaning up of the page since this started). Its gotten to the point where you are the last man standing. The last opponent of a system that has shown it works, a system that is legal by policy and is undeniably lenient. It serves to make the lives of the sysops far easier by preventing drama flamewars from springing up on this page almost daily. Look back into the history. Rummage back to early 2006. There you will see the hideous flamewars that made this place a farce before. It has also, counter to your baseless assertions to the contrary, reduced the drama on this page overall. Its also made it cleaner and more professional, and as far as i can determine, you are the only holdout against this. This is long, and ive been distracted a few times, so i might have missed things, but i think the gist is all here. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing that bugs me about this is using official channels to give unofficial warnings. This means you, Grim. I haven't seen anyone else make new vandalism cases just so they can soft-warn someone. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat did it with the first one. These are just notifications that its happened, that these people are on notice, and that other sysops are to watch. Im not against, however, moving them elsewhere. It just seems natural for them to go there. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the accusations Grim, its always a pleasure to reduce your defence to insults... I agree with you that discussion should be here, but that should mean all discussion! All that needs to be on the A/VB page is the report and the sysop action, everything else should be here! But that is not the rule, the guideline says "strongly ask" not forbidden not will be taken as bad faith and used against you in a Vandal case but strongly ask. That is the same as saying "not a welcome edit" and that is expressly stated in the policy (you know, the inconvenient bit that has force behind it!) as NOT VANDALISM! As such if someone wants to post there and feels justified then it is technically vandalism to remove their comment. Soft warn all you want but if they feel they are adding value then they might be right to post there, if they feel that posting here will break the flow of discussion or lose force then they are right to post there! Just because you don't agree doesn't make any difference unless the policy is changed. State what you like about me being a lone voice but that doesn't make it true and it doesn't even mean I am wrong. --Honestmistake 12:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read what I wrote? Also do you realize you just said administrators removing comments from administration pages is Vandalism? Every time they archive someone should make an A/VB case?--Karek^maps?! 12:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I was replying to Grim but yes I did read what you wrote... thought i had answered it. As for the point about moving comments being vandalism... you are pulling my leg aren't you? I mean have you really misinterpreted my meaning that much?

I mean that it is normally construed as vandalism to remove an editors comments from an active discussion or edit them in any way that alters their meaning when those comments break no rules. Obviously trolling or offensive comments are another matter but even then I am not sure there is a rule for their removal either. This is not a private page, it is an open admin page and as such until the rules are changed it is perfectly acceptable (though not welcome) to post here if you feel you are making reasonable comment. On any other page if someone saw fit to remove your comment it would be deemed vandalism or at the very least a cause for arbitration, reverting said comment and complaining would not lead to your being labeled as making bad faith edits and get you warned/banned. There are acceptions but there are rules and policies that make those acceptions and not an arbitrary guideline that appeared without community approval and the weight that such brings. Is that clearer? --Honestmistake 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"As such if someone wants to post there and feels justified then it is technically vandalism to remove their comment." There's not much of a leap from that to what I said. As it is currently used trolling or offensive comments warrant a warning, soft or otherwise, normal comments that don't add to the page and aren't acting as the person ruling on the case get removed and moved to the talk page. That's how the rule has been used. There are no rules against moving comments to the Talk page, it's actually very common practice on suburb pages but this is a page with a function and a purpose, the users posting there without adding to the case are actively detracting from the function/purpose of this page. Would you complain if someone got warned for doing this on the Move Request page? What about Speedy Deleteions? Here is no different, if you don't have something to add don't add to it, It's a rule that has always been enforced on every other Administration page, this one is no different.--Karek^maps?! 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks for the accusations Grim, its always a pleasure to reduce your defence to insults..." Commenting on your use of loaded language and strawmen is not an insult or personal attack. It is a valid way of attacking the validity and strength of the points you have made. On its own, it doesnt do much, but combined with rebuttals for what you have said, it serves to strengthen my rebuttal while at the same time diminishing your ability to rebut again (At least, if you want to avoid the same problem as before). If you want to delude yourself into thinking that my shooting you down has anything to do with insulting you, think again. I have quite ably demonstrated some of my range on this wiki in the past, and, to be blunt, anyone who remembers would see you are full of it. Moving stuff to a talk page has never, ever been considered vandalism. Deleting stuff is vandalism. Selective archiving of posts in a discussion is. In any case, this all comes down to you saying "I disagree". Thats great and all, but it doesnt prove anything in and of itself. The fact is that keeping non involved discussion off the page has made the cases cleaner and easier to handle for the sysops, myself included. That makes it worth the trouble. Besides, when the page was created there wasnt a policy regarding it, and we dont need a policy to change it again since we have a pretty good concensus on this issue, with you being the only holdout i know of at this time. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the only hold-out making noise but as i say above I doubt i am the only one. As for cleaning up the page how would making the guideline official policy hurt? Oh and I always thought disagreement was good for consensus... its how you test it! Oh and "The Honestmistake motto: Loaded terms and strawmen for a more drama filled tomorrow!" That was meant to be a compliment was it? Obviously Australians use language differently because here in England that could only be taken as insulting. --Honestmistake 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

An official policy would make the system inflexible, and unable to deal with problems for a two and a half weeks, minimum. Also, its not a requirement that everyone like it that allows concensus to move forward. Its that you cant raise any valid objections to the system, and just plain dislike it thats the problem. My comment wasnt meant to be a compliment. It was meant to be a slighly funny comment on your response style. I thought i already went over this. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay this is my final word... i can see its not going to get any support so I am going to drop it until it next causes a problem (and I am sure it will) These mostly answer Grim but...

• I do raise valid objections, you just don't agree that they are valid.
• I didn't say that everyone needs to agree, I said that it needs disagreement to be heard and considered if its to be true consensus
• I do like the system when used fairly, i don't like it when comments that i think are valid get moved and moved in a way that skews their meaning by removing them from context. Thats why i want the system formalised!

On that last point, I have seen this happen a few times, and mostly its been done by accident. I challenged you (Grim) on it when it happened to my comments and you complied with my request to move the whole chunk of discussion, problem solved. (of course you might have been doing it to shut me up but thats not your style) I don't comment on the page unless i feel it is the right place to do so and as such I don't like my comments moved in such a way that they no longer make sense and i am sure I am not the only one. That is the nub of my problem, disagreements over what is valid comment will always be won by the sysop if he has the power to assume bad faith. Your argument is very convincing and you are right it does cut out a lot of crap, sadly though it just moves a lot of it rather than stop it. --Honestmistake 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Warnings

Pardon me, but ive always understood the warning removal as lowering the persons warning status one notch, eg, from 48 hour ban to 24, then 24 to second warning and so on. I could be wrong, but the wording of the warning removal in the guidelines supports both positions. He should, in my view, be banned for 24 hours instead of 48, a simple downgrade one level of the warning tree. Cutting chunks off the bottom just doesnt look or feel right. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with Grim here. I'd also say that the guidelines should be amended to make a removal of the most recent vandal punishment the clear course of action as opposed to removal of a warning (or whatever). – Nubis 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, as the reporter, I don't get a say in this, but I would support the unbanning with warning (as it stands now), especially if Karlsbad's in agreement. Boxy's coming at this from a pure good faith angle. As long as Sockem realises he has no right to delete my contributions (in this case), and stands by the ruling, I'm a happy bunny. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Im going to reblock him for 24 hours now in accordance with the original ruling. Also, im of the opinion that this is a more sensible option because by knockingw arnings off the top people can descale their warn/ban pyramid by contributing sensibly, and wont get caight finding themselves suddenly gone for a month just because of a bad week and a couple of warnings. Anyway, with this, if we decide to downgrade after discussion, we can do that easily, but if we have the ban after a discussion, this gets some of it out of the way. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in here, I wouldn't if I hadn't to, but warnings and warnings only were meant to be striken out. Anything else would be to alter the way I wrote that rule and the community voted on it. The most significant change with your interpretation and the intended one is that by removing bans and warns an frequent vandal could suddenly end up with a clear record after being banned for a year, and with only warns striken a frequent vandal such as that can get second opportunities, but his old ban record will still be standing if he decides to go rogue again. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats a considerably poorer concept. Not only does it prevent opeople from being able to reform completely with time, but it also hamstrings sysops with regards to a person who renounces his good ways and returns to evil by forcing a mere warning rather than a ban on the sucker. I like this more lenient approach. If people back off and things cool down, they get everything back andm hopefully, become a valuable contributing member of the community. With the way you are suggesting matt, people like Nalikill would never be able to reform properly over time. Their next proper ban would be a month long ban, regardless of how much they clean up their act. Not everyone is an emotionless and sensible person, and they could, conceivably, find themselves at the door of a perma without much hope at all, and just one minor slipup would push them over that precepice. I sure hope most of this made sense. Im half asleep. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my intrusion on this page once more, but if I agree or not with what you just said is not relevant: the rules were written an accepted a way and the only question is if you (and by "you" I mean Sysops in general) will follow it by the letter or change it. By Nubis' latest comment above I get that to properly make the rule reflect your interpretation a rewording should be made, so it's even more obvious that the current interpretation is not the one intended. And, obviously, any rewording of the A/G reflecting significant changes should go through A/PD. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As i said previously, the letter supports both when the warnings and bannings are considered steps on the same tree. Both are vandal escalations, its just that the bans have little blocks on them. EDITL Basically, they are all warnings, some are just stronger than others, with penalties attached. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bans being called warnings along with the warnings themselves was not covered by the wording at the time. It's the same as If I said "from now on the word 'ban' in the Guidelines will be read as 'praised' and so all vandals must be praised for X time after their first and second warnings have been issued". That you (as Sysops in general again) don't want to recognize that you're twisting the original meaning of a rule doesn't make it any more acceptable. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Mat but Grim is right... sort of! A ban implicitly carries a warning, ie: do it again and get a bigger ban! As such it is possible to "twist" the meaning as he has done without making innovatio. Obviously it is not the interpretation that you intended and probably not the interpretation that voters who accepted this had, that doesn't mean that it is wrong though! If it is possible to have serious crimes purged from your criminal record in the reral world I see no good reason to hold things like Nali's "crimes against him for ever and that should go for anyone else too! --Honestmistake 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how 'right' he is if that has nothing to do with the intent of the rule, which is to remove warnings as in the 1st two warnings a user receives before he is banned for 24 hours on his third infraction. – Nubis 18:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of removal of warnings, do I qualify for ANY of them being removed yet?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You need two months after your latest warn or ban and 250 edits or more. I pressume that you fall short on the time requeriments, if not both, but I'm not checking. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I qualify. I've mentioned it in the past, but my warning has yet to be removed. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be a new page or a section on this page for people to request those removals.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're that desesperate for striking off your warnings... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This feature is meant to be checked when you're about to be warned or banned. To check and deal with all warnings needing to be striken after people fulfills the requirements would require more time and resources (Sysops) and also would not necessarily translate the amount of time and resources invested in usefulness (only if you believe a warning standing reflects a whole lot poorer on your reputation than a stricken one). I'm sure that if you point to a willing Sysop that a warning you have should be stricken then he would strike it, but hassling unwilling Sysops just for an image issue would play against you. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd be nice to see them do it if someone requested, but I am not going to harass them about it. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me, I'm almost up for mine to be struck. Oh well, not too worried about it. Man, I forgot all about them things!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, what the fuck. By the time this is sorted out, the guy will have served yet another ban. I've read this discussion before, and it was stated that bans are meant to be permanent, and only warnings are eligible for removal. You could have left it until we worked it out... and banned then once an agreement had been reached, if it was in your favor -- boxy • talk • 09:17 16 November 2007 (BST)

And you could have at least knocked off the 6 hours he had already served before I even bothered to check his eligibility -- boxy • talk • 09:19 16 November 2007 (BST)

Well, striking a warning from someone with a ban already doesn't seem to have ever come up before. I've looked, but damned if I can find any discussions that I'm sure I've read (and I've even said it myself) where others (Xoid I believe was one) stated that the rule was meant to be only for the striking of warnings, and that bans were much more serious, and not stikeable. This was to give an added incentive to avoid bans at all costs, because they never go away. However I'm not all that attached to the idea... but I would have appreciated being bloody well consulted before you go and set the precedent in an obviously marginal case, Grim. All your talk about how decisions on this wiki should be run via consensus, and you can't even be bothered waiting so that I have time to put a defense of my decision in a case over interpretation. You present a fait accompli that I can't undo because the time has already been served -- boxy • talk • 12:40 16 November 2007 (BST)

At the time it was 2:1 against you, hence you were overruled. The reason i gave the ban immediately was to get it out of the way if i was right. If i was wrong, then it would be knocked off without much harm being done, seeing as how sockem believed he was gone for two days. Spending possibly a week discussing an issue while his ban waited in limbo to possibly be granted again would just be blatantly unfair to him if it had worked out in my favour. And i would have gladly consilted you had you dropped by during the discussion, but you had apparently dropped offline, without any contributions since that edit, and about 20 minutes between the thing cropping up and the decision being made, which is more than enough time for a person who is online to drop by and have a look. In any case, you were gone for 16 hours. The opportunity to consult was gone. In any case, my problem with the no striking bans thing is that a person could come in, be a dick, get all the way to a month ban, reform, wander about the community being helpful for years, then have something happen that pushes him over the edge and wind up with three warning in A/VB, which would punt him off the wiki for a year. Stripping of vandal escalations in reverse order of application enourages sustained reformation, allows a stick to be used in the case of sudden reversals instead of threat of stick. Its an all round superior implimentation. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Grim can you just clarify for me if you want these things stripped in reverse order or only once the warnings have been stripped? If its last in 1st out the warnings will stand longer than the more serious bans... If the bans can't be stripped till the warnings have expired then I agree that it is a much better system. --Honestmistake 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i think the most recent one given should be removed, so if a guy has two warns, a 24 and 48 hour ban, and had a strike removed, he gets the 48 struck. Then his 24, then his second warning, then his first warning. It promotes sustained reformation, while still allowing for vacations for people who go back on it early on. That said, i dont have a problem with striking the warnings first, i just prefer striking from the top down. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And then when he does one single mistake after over two months and 250 edits, he gets the 48 hour ban straight up? Not good. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You need more than just another sysops agreeing with you to change a clearly worded policy, I'm afraid, Grim. A ban is not a warning. It's a punishment/preventative measure... it is what the warnings are there to warn people about! Check out the warning templates, they warn people about bans. What is a ban warning against?
Here is the policy, if you check the talk page you will see that Matthew is credited as being one of the major influences of that policy (the only one still around actually), so I will take his word for it that the wording is indeed talking about warnings, not bans, being struck. Perhaps cyberbob may remember it, he is also mentioned as giving feedback during it's development.
Just because you believe it can be done better, and get the support of one other sysop, does not give you the right to go reinterpret the policy, and it sure doesn't give you the right to overrule my decision and ban someone without a discussion when it was clear that I disagreed. It is a major reinterpretation, and it is wrong. If you want it changed, get a clear consensus, or go to policy discussion with it -- boxy • talk • 14:50 16 November 2007 (BST)

The policy ISNT clearly worded, as i said. From the time i read it, i have always thought that it meant warnings as in all escalations instead of just the first two warnings, and i wasnt alone in that interpretation. I thought i already made both points clear. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why Boxy suggested that you go to Policy Discussion to get it changed to something a little more objective. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It consistently says "warning and banning", "warns and bans", "warning/ban", "warned or banned", "warnings and bannings" when it means both. There is nothing unclear about it. A warning is a warning, a ban is a ban. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that lumping them together so often like that implies equal treatment... which is why it should be edited to be more clear in its message. Grim's interpretation is indeed against the original intentions of the writers, but I can easily see how he came to that conclusion. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If they should be treated equally, why the hell would they be mentioned separately every goddamn time? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the policy ever stipulate that they be treated differently? No, it doesn't. That is where misinterpretation strikes - some people see it as implying that they be treated differently, others as implying that they not be treated differently (as they are always mentioned together). I'm not saying people who disagree with you are right; only that their position is a very easy one to arrive at. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is could be interpreted like that, for someone who wasn't involved in the policy creation, or hadn't talked to anyone who was involved. Now it's been pointed out to be wrong by the two people left on the wiki, who were most involved with actually creating the policy, I expect Grim to go to the main VB page and add a note to the effect that his and Nubis' interpretation is indeed not what the policy intended, and to make it clear that the precedent they set there is not to be used in future, without getting more support via policy change, or general consensus at least -- boxy • talk • 15:57 16 November 2007 (BST)

Fair enough, someone else can go do the policy proposal. Given how things are there are people who will use it to try and start drama with me again if i make it, and ill wind up catching the blame as usual. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Due to the fact that Sockem copped 2 unwarranted bans (6 and 24hrs) during this drama, what do you guys think about us giving him an apology, and striking the warning I gave him on the 15th (which is still the current version of A/VD)? -- boxy • talk • 16:20 16 November 2007 (BST)

Is it just me...

Or is Grim's recent totally unilateral (and policyless) movement to ban all non-sysop discussion - whether pertinent to a case or not - on the main page complete bullshit? I hate to dredge things up, but I really feel like this has gone unnoticed by the community and it is a fairly important matter. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

	Attention
	Please do not feed the Trolls

--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

tyfyc --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the policy, but I have a problem if there was indeed no policy vote to make it. – Nubis 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a gander at the policy lists. Not a single relevant one in sight. He's been getting around this inconvenience by using "soft warnings" (pardon me while I catch my breath) to set users who violate his Holy Word up to be punished for "disregarding continued requests to stop". --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of which only three have been handed out, for abusing the page. Two to Nalikill, and one to Sockem who, might i remind you, learned his lesson immediately. Also, i only handed out two of those, and i didnt invent them, Hagnat did, and he laid down the first one. It is a creative use of the vandalism policy to handle matters, and it cant result in people being banned unless they are seriously set on violating them. If you are going to have a fit, then at least get your facts right and quit it with the rhetoric. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very creative. I applaud your twisting the meaning creative use of the vandalism guidelines, Grim. Top quality stuff. As for the lack of handing them out... that only means your Act of Intimidation worked like a charm. Why, I remember a certain conversation in IRC wherein you threatened to warn me if I posted there again... So the fuck what if Sockem "learned his lesson immediately" like a good boy? What point are you trying to prove there? That you can scare people into doing what you want? I already knew that. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to present this as though its all me. The fact of the matter is that i was only one of the several people who played a part. Now, would you kindly cease and desist trolling and try to contribute meaningfully without attempting to provoke a confrontation? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll excuse my gales of laughter. It's just that for you... to ask for civility ('specially after that IRC conversation we had back in the infancy of this issue)... it's too much. Now, if you don't mind... I'd like to get back on topic about your invention of a new rule without making a policy to back it up. Don't bother replying to this if you can't be polite - I've had quite enough derailment for one day. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been advocating level headedness and putting fights where they belong for over a week. This is nothing new. I suggest you reread the talk page archives. I think you will find these links might be enlightening --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By "had quite enough derailment" I was subtly trying to nudge you on-topic. Sorry, I should've made that clearer. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it you have decided to ignore the clearly on topic links i provided which were the previous discissions of this issue. Quite possibly because they contradict your oft stated claim that i am trying to conquer teh wiki (Spelling intentional) --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it you decided to ignore my initial post (and to forget my posts below), because I implicitly stated there that I'm OK with spammy comments being banned. What I'm not OK with, however, is pertinent ones being banned - and indeed any action without first the passing of a policy. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if i move a pertinent and genuinely contributive post to talk and give them a warning for it, you will have a case. Until then, id appreciate it if you stuck to facts instead of hyperbole. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I don't mind being proven wrong - because that would mean I've achieved what I've set out to do. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I don't have a problem with what Grim - or the multitude of other sysops - have been doing on the Vandal Banning page. Whats more, I don't understand what people are so upset about. A/VB is a page for reporting vandals, not for having a 32 page dissertation on the validty of said vandal reports. If you have something to add, and you have evidence, then you are okay to put a comment on a case from what I have seen. However, if you are editing there just to put your two cents in, then you are going to get a warning. Seems pretty simplistic to me. Even in a real world court case, the general public that is admitted to see/hear the hearings are not allowed to speak at them. --Ryiis 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryiis, if you'll just take the time to read my initial comment you'll note that I did (in a roundabout way, admittedly) acknowledge that spam should be kicked from the page. Pertinent comments/offerings of evidence, however...? No way, especially not without the community having voted on it in a policy first. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also recommend the dialogue on this matter below for perusal. There you'll find proof - straight from the horse's mouth - that he's looking to stamp out evidence-offering, too. A "blanket ban" is the term I believe he used to describe it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you are saying. Here is the edit in question you were referring to:

Grim_s said:

Actually, i want a blanket ban on it. If you have something pertinent to say, feel free to create the heading here on the talk page and make it here, instead of the page. The only people who should post on the A/VB page itself should be the sysops and the accused, with other users only being permitted to edit the page to add new reports. Keep the drama on the administrative pages to a minimum, if you want to talk about a case, talk about it on the talk page. Allowing any other possible "solution" without very, very wide abilities for sysops to deal with anything they think violates it without a case being made against them will not work (HAHA! Fat chance of that happening, and i dont want it either. Too much fucking work). Use the talk page for its purpose. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:49, 16 October 2007 (BST)" [empahsis added]

For me, if it is the elimination of spam from the page and removal of all non-pertient commentary - I would say that is well within reason. However, not allowing relevant information regarding the case to be put there is a bit much. Particularly if a decision is made - overlooking crucial data regarding the case because it is on the talk page. That being said, I do see Grim's point in the above quote. To limit drama, he is suggesting that such information is put on the talk page so that it doesn't turn into a flame war. At least, that is what I take from his statement.

As long as the ruling Sysop in the case is checking the talk pages and taking that information into consideration/advisement, then it really isn't an issue (though, there should be some warning on the main page that this is where you need to be). Otherwise, all it is doing is just cleaning up the mainpage for the "meat and potatoes" if you will, no? --Ryiis 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryiis, I can virtually guarantee you that in 9 out of 10 cases the sysop does not check the talk page. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as Grim is concerned if its not his opinion its got no place here... i am sure he would like to move a lot of sysop comments too but can't. Adding trash comments to a case is needless, thats what the talk page is for... when (such as the case below) the ruling is made and then turns into a discusion it is as much my right or bobs or yours to make comments we feel are worthwhile. Grim doesn't like that so he moved mine. at least the second time he took enough of the discusion for it to still make sense. good job really or i would have put it back again and probably got a warning!--Honestmistake 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It does indeed appear to be an attempt to suppress genuine debate. If someone wants to answer a point entered on the main page that is itself a discussion point (rather than the original stated topic itself), then it should appear with that entry. Otherwise it loses its meaning due to the lack of context. It follows that either all discussion should be on the Talk Page or none of it should. --Richardhg 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no debate. The person is either a vandal, or they aren't - and that's only up to a Sysop to decide. There is no need to have discussions. The only thing you need is: a)the inital vandal report, b)evidence for or against the accused, c)anything the accused has to say in their defence, d)a ruling by a Sysop. It's an Administration page, not a forum to discuss the size of epeens. Discussions not presenting evidence should be moved to the talk page where they belong; if you can't follow the discussion then copy and paste the two things into Notepad or something. --Ryiis 22:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, as one of the people who used to participate in the drama on this page it's fine as it is now. It should have been vandalism before to crap up the Vandal Banning page making it harder on sysops to read the case and for a long time soft warnings have been a way of dealing with it, or even the threat of warnings. It's not some new thing, it's just finally being enforced in all the cases instead of just the ones the devolve into an argument between the reporter and reported. Even in the mentioned case the policy was shot down because users viewed the way it is now as how it should be. Common sense doesn't need a policy rule.--Karek^maps?! 22:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Karek, drama obviously falls under the spam umbrella. Insightful comments should not be banned from the page, especially ones that involve offering evidence relevant to the case. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to see an instance of something that added to the case being removed from the page, please link.--Karek^maps?! 06:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a question / concern / comment

This user, Loosermass, has been adding bazillions of photos to various informational pages on the wiki. I mean BAZILLIONS. And... okay... this is a matter of taste, but the photos are mostly ugly and IMNSHO they actually detract from the very clean, very well designed pages to which they've been added -- pages someone went to some trouble to create to be exactly well designed, visually appealling and cool... I didn't see him discussing this mass image uploading with anyone first... I even approached him on his talk page and he pretty much ignored my polite comments and my request to slow down, and he keeps uploading more images. As far as I'm concerned, he's in effect visually spamming the wiki... and without any real community consensus to do so... I understand he probably thinks it's for the good of the wiki, but I beg to differ... especially when it's a unilateral decision on community pages. Whatever... it's not a big deal, but... still... and I don't know how, if at all, something like this is dealt with. --WanYao 17:43, 19 October 2007 (BST)

Discussion page of said user, discussion page of each page, arbitration and then maybe you come here. He is anything but a vandal. This is vandal banning.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 18:07, 19 October 2007 (BST)

I was just asking a question... And I didn't know where to ask this question, so I posted here, hoping for some input... And notice that I didn't actually accuse anyone of vandalism, per se, now did I? And... the rules and policies and such on this wiki are rather byzantine at times, even for one who tries to soak it up, as I attempt to... So, like I said, I was just fishing for some input. Well, anyway, that's all, I guess. Thanks. --WanYao 00:13, 20 October 2007 (BST)

You're allowed to remove images if you think they detract from the page. I'd start with the most obvious ones, and see if he gets the message -- boxy • talk • 01:37 20 October 2007 (BST)

New administration notice

It's a joke right? I won't revert the changes out of a great sentiment of mercy and maybe pitty towards the poor guy that made them (nope, I still didn't read the history) but such an offensive notice shouldn't be allowed to stay... ever. Right? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:57, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Thanks Vista! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:39, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Biasedness towards commenting users on A/VB cases

This is a particular something that has been bothering me for a while: why users are still allowed to keep shallowly commenting on A/VB cases whithout even an unofficial warning filed when Nalikill got himself not one, but two unofficials warnings and a ban? I'm the last one to want them warned, but AFAIK users such as Darkmagic, Blood Panther, Suicidalangel, Sarah Silverman, Cyberbob240, Sockem, Axe27, have been making at least one if not several contentless posts on the page, and that's just making a quick check only as far back as Nalikill's first unofficial warning. Neither counting our beloved Sysops that are still allowed to post bunchs of crap without being touched (yeah, that's unfair! =( ). Now, I'm not gonna say that I think none of the Sysops are fond of enforcing the rules only when it fits their fancy (like, when targetting a particular someone) but the rest of you could at least make this look legit... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:05, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Hey Matthew still crying about not being a mod anymore? Sockem 06:08, 16 October 2007 (BST)

I feel totally uncapable of talking you out of your current childish position towards a more constructive conversation, so I wouldn't try: I'll limit myself to tell you that my comments above aren't aimed at warning anyone, but at pointing a problem so we can have a more equalitarian wiki. That said, go and bash your head against a wall for all I care. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:20, 16 October 2007 (BST)

well first of all, that notice isnt on the page anymore. secondly, it's up to the sysops to decide if an edit is helpful to the case or not.--'BP^Tmz 06:21, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Hey matthew GTFO teh wiki all you do is try to act like a damn fool doin shit like this. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Nali got punish those people didnt WAAAAAAAAAAAH! Sockem 06:24, 16 October 2007 (BST)

1^st, see here. 2^nd, I mostly agree, but this doesn't excuse biasedness. I just don't want them to selectively enforce rules to favor people they like and target people they don't. Ignoring Sockem's comments... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:26, 16 October 2007 (BST)

oh i agree with that. however in a case like that, one would go to misconduct.--'BP^Tmz 06:28, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Differing content, by a lot.--Karek^maps?! 06:44, 16 October 2007 (BST)

The key difference, Matt, is that Nalikill's comments generally involved backseat moderation. That's what the sysops don't like. Of course, with the way things are and the shit he's brought on himself, pretty much any comment he posts there now will be dealt with mercilessly. Others who have shown themselves to be capable of constructive input on a case - without backseat modding - are shown a little leniency. You yourself are well known for your advocacy of not rigidly following guidelines where doing so would be poor moderation... what happened to that? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:28, 16 October 2007 (BST)

OK...in light of Grim's comment below, swap out "backseat moderation" for "being disruptive". There are ways to comment on the main page without spamming it up - which is what the sysops are trying to prevent. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:33, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Actually, i want a blanket ban on it. If you have something pertinent to say, feel free to create the heading here on the talk page and make it here, instead of the page. The only people who should post on the A/VB page itself should be the sysops and the accused, with other users only being permitted to edit the page to add new reports. Keep the drama on the administrative pages to a minimum, if you want to talk about a case, talk about it on the talk page. Allowing any other possible "solution" without very, very wide abilities for sysops to deal with anything they think violates it without a case being made against them will not work (HAHA! Fat chance of that happening, and i dont want it either. Too much fucking work). Use the talk page for its purpose. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:49, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Aren't you forgetting those with evidence to present? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:56, 16 October 2007 (BST)

As i said, use the talk page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:40, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Have fun with your power trip. Hope it doesn't bring you down too badly. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:43, 16 October 2007 (BST)

You're going overboard here Grim. Adding extra information about the case should always be allowed as it is part of posting a vandal report. Like the information Sarah Silverman gave about Dragon fang. While personal judgments should be moved here. If that means we'll sometime save to endure a non-relevant comment so be it. counterproductive rules just so it's easy to enforce them is, well, counterproductive.-- Vista  +1  12:22, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Overboard? I have seen only perhaps four cases in my entire two years on this wiki where such contributions have been made that were beneficial in the way the edit you described was. Most others are just other edits dug out of the contributions we were going to check anyway. People trying to be important by pointing out the bleeding obvious. Besides, in the case in question, her word had no bearing on my decision. My ruffling through huge amounts of checkuser and history did that. Even if someone is going to assert that someone isnt the same someone as someone else, we have to do the investigating ourselves unless they provide pretty strong evidence to back up that assertion. It is much, much better for all such comments made by uninvolved people to go to the talk page, where we can reveiw them if it is needed. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:04, 16 October 2007 (BST)

It is my opinion that everyone uninvolved with the case stay off the main page and instead contribute, if they really need to (And only then) on the talk page. Unfortunately, unlike everyone else, Nalikill was being extremely disruptive. That doesnt mean its not starting to tick me off. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:48, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Reveiwing the latest case has made me give Sockem a unofficial warning for it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:01, 16 October 2007 (BST)

this discussion is almost over, aight ? Anyway, like it's said in the policy that is not a policy, only users who abuse the system are going to be warned to stay away from the front page. Nalikill was the perfect example of a user abusing it, while the others are just in process --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:10, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Well, it's ok now I suppose. For a blanket ban on posting on A/VB you'll need a policy Grim, as you couldn't possibly rule all comments out as bad faith without a clearly worded rule that says so... not to mention that no one would support such a un-wiki thing (including me). I'm not asking anyone here to do some superhuman thing, but to keep unbiasedness: you brought up from the ashes a rule that wasn't used in the ages of drama so you can avoid it, and it's a cool thing, but enforce it properly or more drama will be at hand. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:53, 16 October 2007 (BST)

Im not saying zero tolerance and everything is ruled bad faith if posted there, im leaning towards blanket instituting the two soft warnings for posting there before any actual escalations take place (With the obvious exception of one of them posting a little note that read "Discussion on talk page" (Where "talk page" would be a link to the discussion). Hell, i think soft warnings would be a neat administrative tool for use on cases which are clearly against the rules but equally obviously in good faith, a sort of "This is wrong, but we arent going to punish you for it, because you obviously meant well and didnt know, try not to do it again. Read the page rules and, if you are unsure, ask a sysop". --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:20, 17 October 2007 (BST)

Thank you Vista for saying that my first contribution at least was an attempt to be constructive. I'm happy to say such things on the discussion page in the future, but it seemed an appropriate addition at the time. Also, I got to witness some pure-strain hypocrisy and get to know Sockem too! So win-win all around.--Sarah Silverman 16:49, 17 October 2007 (BST)

Backseat modding and feeding trolls warnings

is there anyway we could make the If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or in any way directly involved in the case, the administration strongly asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. an offical policy? i really like this idea, however as it stands now it's not offical and as such has no weight.--'BP^Tmz 05:55, 30 September 2007 (BST)

discussion taken from Nalikill unofficial warning on backseat modding and feeding trolls

Im really concerned about this. I can understand why you added the notices above, but to actually warn and ban for them when they weren't even agreed on by the community is too much. Does this mean that anyone that makes a comment without being the accused party/the reporter/a Sysop, like me just now, is in danger of being warned for it even when his input adds something to the conversation? "backseat modding" is something I have been accused of by users such as yourself: are you going to warn/ban me for that from now on? A lot of doubts arise from this seemingly simple ruling, mostly concerning the so called "freedom of speech" that you seem so fond of. Let's remember that the very same Sysops that today request "not feeding the trolls" are the ones that screamed "banhammered!" weeks ago, and things about witches just some months in the past. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:33, 1 October 2007 (BST)

when the user in question is asked to stop these activities, then yes, he should be warned. When the user input on vandal cases are nothing but silly comments about how annoying/silly/ban deserving those reported here are, then yes, he should be warned. What it's trying to be enforced in this page is more respect on those being reported, even those who are known vandals like Izumi, PQN and Amazing. And witch burning ? I know nothing about this subject. *hides the torch behind his back* There wasn't this kind of regulation in the past, which explain such kind of behavior was acceptable in this page. It's been weeks already that we have been moving discussion to the talk page, this is just the rational progression of a vandal banning page with less drama. Freedom of speech was only moved to a better place. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:42, 1 October 2007 (BST)

And only those who abuse of their rights deserve to be warned. When a user add his input in several cases, and these inputs add nothing to the case, then yes, they would be warned. But if a user add input to a case, and this input is constructive, then he wont. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:56, 1 October 2007 (BST)

Then this has nothing to do with "backseat modding" but just "feeding trolls" and other contentless posts. "Backseat modding" as you call it has to do with telling Sysops what to do or doing some types of community work for the sake of selfpromotion, and I agree that if the user in question isn't an active party in the report then he has no reason to add himself to the discussion trying to boss Sysops around. But if a guy as the reporter party says "I found a vandal alt, ban him and this other alt as well", there's nothing to be contended: he's just pointing the obvious, but there's no harm done unless you consider hurting your feelings a bannable offense. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:40, 2 October 2007 (BST)

My feelings are easily hurt :( --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:04, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Matt Warned for hurting Haggies feelings! -- boxy • talk • 14:46 3 October 2007 (BST)

Miscontribulation! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:07, 3 October 2007 (BST)

Actually we've been doing this on and off right from the start. It's simple, like any page only the relevant data should be on the primary page and all the discussion about that should be the talk page. The fact that the relevant data here is a vandal report and the sysop judgment on that report doesn't change that. The page isn't meant to let everybody have say there, just the people involved. If people want to talk about the case or the possible judgment they should do so in the manner that is used all over the wiki, by using the talk page.-- Vista  +1  20:40, 6 October 2007 (BST)

Treatment of vandalism and impersonation

In an interesting case that was recently reported, a person who had broken ties with a group proceeded to vandalize that groups page. They then reported themselves for vandalism (scratches head). Anyway, one of the page owners edited their vandalism post in what is technically a case of impersonation.

Understanding the rules against impersonation, is it really a situation where the impersonator deserves a warning for messing with the someone else's vandalism?

I'm definitely not looking for a policy here. And Nalikill can feel free to exercise what little restraint he (or she) has and keep out of the discussion. Once again, I DON'T want another policy for the wiki lawyers.

But my question becomes one of "What's fair game?"

I'd like to hear from a sysop or two, if they feel inclined.

Thanks, --Stephen Colbert DFA 21:19, 9 October 2007 (BST)

And I can feel free not to, as is my right.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:02, 9 October 2007 (BST)

"is it really a situation where the impersonator deserves a warning for messing with the someone else's vandalism?" Yes. Yes it is. Instead of editing the comment, its best to delete it entirely. Its a warning, they go away after a while. --Karlsbad 00:47, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Grimch made pretty much the same point. Editing the vandalism to make the vandal look bad invites more headaches for the sysops, etc. As tempting as it is, I'm convinced that it's not the answer. Either way, Pavluk is a friggin busybody. --Stephen Colbert DFA 14:47, 10 October 2007 (BST)