UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Commenting on A/VB

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

Discussion

This is almost 100% word-for-word the contents of the current notice on A/VB. I've had it with this BS of "oh hay imma just make up this rool and if yuo dont do it its bad faith!11111" - time to put a few of these shitpies to the test. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:27, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Include a bit about putting anything useful on the talkpage, and that sysops will always read what is on the talkpage.--Seventythree^Talk 12:34, 23 April 2008 (BST)

No. That's the rule in use, and I want to keep it as unadulterated as possible. Besides, I'd be lying. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:38, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Um - Cyberbob if it was realy the case that people got warned or banned every time they commented on a VB case that they had nothing to do with you would probably be permabanned or something by now..... If you are actauly interested in getting this turned into a proper policy then you should realy add some stuff about putting points of interest on the talkpage. Personaly I think this should be turned into a proper policy if possible, but it needs some work. Most of the cases of vandalism warnings for commenting on VB are due to the user persistantly doing it... Nalikill for example got a bollocking for it at some point, if I recall. I realy do think you should add a line about persistant commenting being what gets you warned, as most of the time all that happens is comments get moved to the talkpage. and there realy should be a line about putting comments that are useful on the talkpage, I'm sure the rest of the sysops read the talkpage too.--Seventythree^Talk 12:59, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Sorry, no. My only interest in this is putting to the test the rules the sysops are trying to sneak through the cracks. Should the wording of the box be changed so too will I change this, but other than that... --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:03, 23 April 2008 (BST)

It should be something like 'if you do this repeatedly you be banned'. Maybe first time you get a sort warning from a sysy on your talk then after that you get a proper warning/banning. This seems a tad harsh, also the talk page is BS. If you have something useful to say you always feel like putting it on the talk page is a waste of your time.--xoxo 09:57, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Read my comment again. This thing is staying as close to the text in the box on A/VB as I can keep it. I think you're misunderstanding my intentions here - I fully plan on voting against this policy. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:17, 26 April 2008 (BST).

I call bullshit on your "100% word-for-word" crap. The policy you put up says that no non involved parties can comment, no matter how relevant their input, or it will be considered vandalism. The actual text box you claim to be quoting from however says "the administration strongly asks that you use the talk page for further discussion", and in practice no one is even given a soft warning without being total jerks for a significant period of time. You're proposing a policy that you want to fail, so you're making sure it's unacceptable -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:20 26 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah that part went straight over my head, thanks for telling me! Boxy is right but couldn't you just make your own policy proposal that words it as you'd want?--xoxo 10:23, 26 April 2008 (BST)

That is not the point of this exercise. If somebody wants to suggest an alternative, let them do so if this fails. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:25, 26 April 2008 (BST)

That you was directed at boxy, as in couldn't be make his own policy.--xoxo 10:28, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Ah, I see. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:29, 26 April 2008 (BST)

It's as close as I can make it to the text in the box while actually making it a viable policy if passed. At the moment the rule is enforced whenever and however whatever sysop that does so feels like, which ends up in some fairly disgusting displays of bias. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:25, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Cyberbob, I say this very very rarely but, Fuck Off. It's a guideline, as it is now. You know that. You're just trolling and causing a ruckus for the hell of it and it's starting to cross that line of generally harmless to bad faith. You know perfectly well that making this into a policy will make it what you bitch about and you're making a policy only because you want to use it as leverage in an argument, with no intent of it actually being a policy, and with every intent of it altering the current reality so you can claim make some shitty point. Regardless of if this passes or fails the reality of the situation will not change, how it's dealt with will not change, and inane and useless comments will still be moved to the talk page.--Karek^maps?! 13:36, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I lol'd. If this fails I will be bringing a Misconduct case against each and every sysop who issues any form of warning - soft or otherwise - to people for posting on the main page. I have no problems whatsoever with the moving of comments, but bestowing upon oneself the ability to punish people under a rule that hasn't been voted through is completely bullshit. So I think I'm justfified in saying no you fuck off. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:28, 26 April 2008 (BST)

And I'll be sure to bring up an A/VB case for each one as that would be acting in blatant bad faith. The "rule", and it isn't a rule, does not give anyone the ability to punish users for anything. It's a notice to keep crap off the main page, it's something being put in writing just as an extra notice to users that is enforced on every page of the wiki everywhere else because that is a page where users, like yourself, frequently troll reports. Users aren't punished for commenting on the cases, users are punished for acting in bad faith. The two have nothing to do with each other other.--Karek^maps?! 14:53, 26 April 2008 (BST)

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Next time when you decide to twist the guidelines beyond all recognition to suit your desires, make sure the person whose eyes you're trying to pull the wool over actually doesn't have a clue. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:46, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Let me get this straight. Cyberbob, you want a new, definite policy that will provide strict guidelines for how sysops behave on A/VB cases in relation to user-posting, limiting their bias towards or against certain users, the trade off being the elimination virtually any community commentary on VB cases, even that which is relevant and constructive. To me that sounds weird and doesn't seem to be worth it at all, unless of course I've missed something here.--Scurley7 14:38, 26 April 2008 (BST)

No, he doesn't. He's making a policy with the intent of it failing so he can be a pain in the wiki/Administration's ass.--Karek^maps?! 14:54, 26 April 2008 (BST)

What a complete and utter waste of time.--Scurley7 15:03, 26 April 2008 (BST)

You clearly do not have any understanding of the situation. I suggest you do some reading - the archives of Talk:A/VB would be a good start. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:43, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry for trying to get rid of, or at least legitimise (if the people vote it in I'll back down without a fight) an attempt to completely bypass the very system designed to keep sysop powers in check. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:43, 26 April 2008 (BST)

To be honest, this is real and utter crap. It was only last month that I posted on the A/VB to try and help figure out who was to blame in a particular vandal banning case (found here) and last time I checked this wasn't in bad faith in any way whatsoever. If this 'policy' were to actually be put into pracitce, it would stop those (like myself in this case) who were just trying to do the right thing, from doing anything whatsoever! Also, if some n00b were to be vandalised and didn't put in any of the vandal templates or links, would this mean that if I saw this, I couldn't put in the template and make a link to the possible vandal act in question? If I did, then would I be banned for being just too damn helpful and saving someone a little job? As if I were to be banned, then that seems really harsh. If you're really that fussed about people saying utterly ridiclous crap on the wiki A/VB, then why don't you just do it so that the first person who sees the case and is not involved in the case can start a discussion on the talk page thus taking all the bullshit off the A/VB page. However, allow it so that the person that started the discussion on the talk page (unless a verdict by a mod has already been made) gets to put something like Vandal case discussion on talk page, see [link]here[link] for more information? Then once any confusion is resolved on the talk page, the facts can be put on the actual A/VB case by a mod or the person who originally made the case. This would keep the crap off the main page, still allow people to discuss/help in a case that aren't directly involved and is pretty simple for everyone in itself. Acoustic Pie 15:32, 26 April 2008 (BST)

READ THE DISCUSSION BEFORE PASSING JUDGEMENT ON MY INTENTIONS. THANK YOU. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:43, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I already read the dicussion so what is the problem with what I said? I can't change it if you don't say anything which I can work with. I was actually trying to suggest an alternative way for people who aren't involved in a case and those who aren't a sysop to actually help. So please, do tell me what I have missed out here and how exactly the alternative I suggested is wrong. Acoustic Pie 15:56, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I call bullshit on your having read the discussion. I am of course working off the assumption that you are not a complete imbecile - for only such an individual would be able to read the discussion and completely miss the fact that I personally want for this policy to fail. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:00, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I already saw the fact that you were trying to make your policy fail, but what I was trying to do was to make a suggestion for an alternative which may actually work. Still, if you wanted this policy to fail from the start, then don't act like such a 'tard when someone is trying to make a valid point which could help it pass. Acoustic Pie 16:13, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Again, I feel I must call bullshit on your claims of having read the discussion - as not only do I want for this policy to fail but I believe I have also outlined why I will not be changing it. If you need some pointers I suggest you take a look at the exchange with Seventythree near the top of the page. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:15, 26 April 2008 (BST)

I have read the discussion, but admittedly missed the part where you said you were going to vote against it, so for that I am sorry. However purposefully making a policy, as a way of making a point (whatever that may be), to vote against it does seem really hypocritical and almost childish. Thus, I find myself asking for clarification, what exactly did you want as the outcome to this policy? Acoustic Pie 16:33, 26 April 2008 (BST)

He got a bee in his bonnet because Hagnat tried to enforce his guideline about discussing vandalism with the party before bringing it to A/VB (advice that quite frankly is questionable in many cases anyway). If he wanted to make a point, he should have tried to force that guideline to a vote, rather than this one, which works quite well as is -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:32 27 April 2008 (BST)

because Hagnat tried to enforce his guideline - CAHEM. That is not *MY* guideline... this is written in the vandal page, and is there for decades already. The blue box serves for nothing but to remind users about this fact. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:07, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Your argument of "the community rejected this policy, so the red box is invalid" doesn't work, for the very simple fact that this policy isn't the same as the red box. This is much harsher. Unless you copy it verbatim, your argument isn't worth shit. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:02, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Was the abusive tone really necessary? I will consider your point, despite your obvious need to be insulting. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:48, 27 April 2008 (BST)

The point that you're trying to make isn't exactly valid, since the wording aren't even the same. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:58, 26 April 2008 (BST)

As Midianian, except without the point about being abusive. Thank you for remaining civil. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:48, 27 April 2008 (BST)

People have been warned for ignoring that little box and have been banned (no i will not trawl through the history for examples) It is why I have always had a problem with it... As it stands that box can be used as grounds to warn users making points a sysop does not agree with, while it has not been used like that recently it has been used like that more than once. An arbitrary warning which can be used as grounds to punish has no place on that page and no place anywhere on this wiki. It is well meant and rarely abused but that does not mean it is right!--Honestmistake 02:14, 27 April 2008 (BST)

First of all, no one gets warned/banned for posting an opinion that the sysops dont like... it that were the case, plenty of drama-centric users from this wiki would be gone a long-long time ago. Second, cyberbob is a troll, he is only making this so that if this policy were to fail, he could rub it on our noses as he would continue to shit on administration pages. Third, cyberbob is not only a troll, but an idiot... since this policy doesnt copy the red-box in its exacts words, even if this were to fail it wouldnt imply that the redbox couldnt be enforced. Fourth, the redbox asks users to refrain from posting on the main page, but their opinions are still welcome and helpful occasinaly... that's why only a few users got warned by this guidelines, because they were so annoying that the admin staff had no other way but to warn them to make them stop shitting there. Because of the text change in this policy, EVERY comment on the vandal page would be deemed vandalism, which is something that the redbox doesnt. And finally, this discussion is a complete waste of time... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:03, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Stop resorting to personal insults if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:48, 27 April 2008 (BST)

So said the annoying troll who usually insult people for no good reason and that is whining because the administration staff is mean to him. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:20, 28 April 2008 (BST)

I don't troll when the discussion is serious. Usually. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:21, 28 April 2008 (BST)

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. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment.

thats the exact text and it is not doing the job it intends. If I (for example) make a comment on a VB case no matter how germane it will often be removed to the talk page.... if I felt that was the place for it then thats where I would have put it! Either ban all discussion on the page (and that includes sysops debating the case... thats talk too!) or allow all of it--Honestmistake 13:23, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Wait, so now you're complaining because non-relevant comments and complaining about users x user likes getting punished is getting moved to the talk page? I, for one, don't care if you feel it belongs on the main page, if it isn't relevant to the resolution of the case it doesn't belong there. Would you prefer the comments deleted right out like is done on every other page on the wiki?--Karek^maps?! 03:49, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Not my point at all, I agree that the guideline does a reasonable job of keeping SPAM of the page... my problem is that it can (and has) be used to keep relevant comments off the page too because they disagree with one of the sysops definition of relevant or even just his opinion on the case. There are times when such opinions should be on the talk page and there are times when they should be on the main, this arbitrary guideline has never been agreed upon and can easily be abused especialy when some give it the weight of a policy when it suits them. --Honestmistake 10:02, 28 April 2008 (BST)

My concern with these guidelines not being policy is that sysops can threaten warnings and the like to those they want but are not obliged to punish everyone. Either agree that punishment cannot be dished out regardless of what people put there or make a policy about it.--xoxo 10:06, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Policy would require that, Guidelines are not enforceable through escalations. It will never be agreed to that punishment can not be given regardless of content for exactly that reason, it's regardless of content, it would be equivalent to saying do whatever you wish no matter what rules it may break or how bad faith it may be, but only here. It can't be abused. It still requires them to break some rule or act in bad faith to be punished for something, and, in the one case where a user was punished for something relating to that notice it was because he was spamming pretty much every report. Those would be the Nali archives, full of stuff like this tidbit. But, I think the most relevant thing here would probably be this.--Karek^maps?! 10:49, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Almost half Nali's contributions were arguably not SPAM and even those that were hardly merited a ban... As it was his strong opinion that he was right got the better of his self control and led him to making a few very dodgy edits which did deserve a warning but because of his ongoing argument and the warning they led to he ended up copping a very long ban and eventually leaving the wiki. All of that stemmed in very large part from the assumption that disregarding the informal guideline demonstrated Bad Faith and led to the situation being escalated waay out of control. Net result one less (potentially) good regular user. If the guide is to remain it should make clear that ignoring it is seen as bad faith, that would require it be voted on. If it is not to be usable as evidence of bad faith then it is little more than a polite notice which mostly exists to remind those who are already sensible not to Spam the page. If ignoring it is not bad faith then threatening to see it as such is a bullying tactic and more than likely misconduct--Honestmistake 17:36, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Now he starts to get it. Repeat those last few lines over and over again until it starts to sink in more. Specifically until you start to realize that everything you've been asking for or proposing in relation to it is exactly counter to them. You're trying to make it more than it is because you seem to think it's been used as such it hasn't, it isn't, it can't, it won't. This is something that has been generally understood by most everyone involved on that page or any of the "debates" regarding said "rule". As for Nalikill, you want to debate how bad his spamming got, please, don't or take it to a user talk page but, keep in mind that you'll have to explain away this which was linked above and was just one example of the type of thing he did on a regular basis on the Administration pages.--Karek^maps?! 18:20, 28 April 2008 (BST)

"Those boxes are not policies, you are correct. But they are a request from the administration staff, to make our life easier to deal with vandalism and to avoid creating drama when a user is reported. Going against these requests, knowing that they were made, is a sign of bad faith towards the maintenance of this page." (Hagnat on the A/VB talk page)

If that is not a direct statement that the text in that box is usable to officially warn folk then what is it? I state again: either it can be used to prove bad faith or it can't. Not sure I really care which any more but it needs to be made clear. Funt pretty much sums up exactly why at the bottom. As for debating the Nali case, I do not particularly see a need to go over it all again, those of us who care where there at the time and probably have not changed our minds.--Honestmistake 11:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)

That requires an assumption about his intent and meaning I can't see and, having spoken with Hagnat frequently both in and outside of this wiki, is completely contrary to his character. It's a statement that posting things on the page that have absolutely nothing to do with the case may result in a warning.--Karek^maps?! 15:04, 29 April 2008 (BST)

I'd hope that this would stop general "it's a soft warning so it doesn't need to be accountable but now I'm going to just tell you what to do" harassment or preferential treatment but it probably won't. I approve this issue being moved to community vote and becoming official or officially rejected, though, although I'm not optimistic there won't be some new "opinions I don't like are bad faith" measure that to replace this one in no time flat. --Riseabove 20:56, 29 April 2008 (BST)

This was already discussed

Ok Cyberbob, then would you drop it if it was pointed out to you that we've already had this discussion before, along with a policy vote, and the general consensus was for this exact box to be kept? --Karek^maps?! 09:15, 28 April 2008 (BST)

I would indeed. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:49, 28 April 2008 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Vandal_Banning_page--Karek^maps?! 09:53, 28 April 2008 (BST)

You'll note that it was rejected. I fail to see how it helps any side of the discussion other than mine. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:05, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Read through why.--Karek^maps?! 10:34, 28 April 2008 (BST)

No. The box was voted down, thus it is illegal to be handing out warnings for going against it (technically it shouldn't even be there any more, but I'm not such a dick as to go there - I only have a problem with it being there without having been voted in as long as the possibility exists to be warned under it). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:39, 28 April 2008 (BST)

The box was voted down because people feel more comfortable with it being just a guideline, rather a policy written in stone. You know that very well cyberbob, and if you want to pretend that you don't, i suggest you to read why people voted down that policy. And, since this whole discussion was already discussed, i guess we can call this discussion over... i'm done with this page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:34, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Must be nice, being able to unilaterally declare a discussion closed. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:19, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Isn't it great when you can ignore peoples opinions to argue about peoples opinions? It's magical even, like from some Finnish myth.--Karek^maps?! 13:48, 28 April 2008 (BST)

I'm looking at the parts of their opinion that count - their votes. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:04, 28 April 2008 (BST)

That vote was a disgrace, everyone made their opinion clear and almost all voted contrary too it. Why? Probably because of who it was put forwards by, when he did it and how he phrased it!--Honestmistake 17:39, 28 April 2008 (BST)

*CAHEM* - Nali might have started the discussion, but the policy text was written by me. And are you implying that people like Vista, WanYao and Gnome would've voted against simply to antagonize with Nalikill ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:27, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Isn't it great that you can simply keep discussing a subject when you said you'd drop it if linked to a previous discussion on the subject ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:28, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Said posted discussion turned out to be supportive of my case. Given that warnings are still being threatened, more needs to be done. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:13, 29 April 2008 (BST)

What case, even you aren't supportive of your case, considering you've taken the exact opposite stance on this matter in the past right up until you were the one who got a talking to for doing it. At this point I don't think anything but enforcing a double standard for just you is supportive to your case.--Karek^maps?! 15:06, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Except I'm not. I've stated time and time again that I do not have a problem with comments being moved to the talk page - only with warnings potentially being issued under a "guideline" that has not been voted upon. I believe you'll find I've always been against this box - check the Talk:A/VB archives. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:08, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Yeah, funny thing about that you still have yet to a single instance of abuse since asked in November. You haven't even been able to show that it's not being used in exactly the manner that it should be being used in.--Karek^maps?! 03:00, 30 April 2008 (BST)

The current system is wrong

The problem with the current system is it's "sometimes you'll get away with doing this but sometimes you won't, but there's no way of knowing in advance whether you will or not". That's pish, frankly. Even if a psyop says "I'm warning you, I'm thinking of warning you", does that mean they'll definitely warn you the next time you do it? On this case or any case? Within this week or sometime next year? When they're in a good mood or a bad mood? It should either be a rule or not be a rule, thus ironing out all these wrinkles that exist because it's only a guideline. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:27, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Couldn't have put it better myself ol' Funty boy ;) --xoxo 10:47, 29 April 2008 (BST)

However, it should not be a rule in its current form. There are a couple of issues with it.

• If someone has new, relevant information about the case, but is otherwise unrelated, he can't really post it on the main page.
• Why is the original reporter included in the discussion if he's otherwise completely unrelated?
• Sysops are human beings like the rest of us. They are not really less likely to get into a flamewar on the main page. The reason why there are fewer flamewars than earlier is because fewer people can comment on the main page (without fear of reprisal).

In my opinion, the main page should be reserved strictly for the following;

• a comment from the accused (notice the singular)
• a comment from the "victim", if there was any (likewise singular)
• relevant information from anyone who has it (facts, not opinions)
• the verdict(s)

And all of the discussion should go on the talkpage. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:28, 29 April 2008 (BST)

I think the main page should just have the report and the ruling. All discussion and multiple rulings from different sysops should be all kept on the talk page, anything that is 100% irrel. can be deleted by a sysy from the talk.--xoxo 12:31, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Having all discussion in the talk page is too much, imho. On the other hand, we now file reports and talk pages in monthly archives, so this could work out. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:44, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Funny, I mooted almost exactly this and for very similar reasons in a conversation with Karek only yesterday. This would get my vote (and shut me up on the issue... for a while anyway :D)--Honestmistake 13:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Yes and the reasons for why it was absurd yesterday are still true today. Oh I know, let's enforce banning the community from anything and remove the bit of trust that comes with being a part of a community, no, we can't believe that some users might have something competent to add.</sarcasm> It's dumb. If you don't want to be part of the community leave, if you don't want to assume competence in the community or the administration leave, if you're here because you want to troll the wiki as a whole leave. But don't, don't, ignore that this is a community, that we need to assume you're all competent enough to actually be contributive to the community and that we, the Administration, are here to make sure that the things that need doing for the community to work get done. What that means in regards to this is simple, drop it, you're bitching because we aren't banning all contribution from the community and sometimes punish users like Nalikill who go to every single report and post comments like this one(by Cyberbob) that exemplifies the kind of crap that users get punished for_{(which has nothing to do with posting on administration pages, it's about harassment through administration pages)}.--Karek^maps?! 14:26, 29 April 2008 (BST)

It wasn't ridiculous yesterday and its not ridiculous now. Why does the A/VB report need anything more than brief factual statements? My answer would be that it doesn't and anything more than a statement of facts will almost certainly be a discussion, or as it's otherwise known "talk" hence it should go on the talk page. Until it does the situation is one in which users can be (and i say have been) warned for ignoring a guideline. Even if you do not agree that anyone has received a real warning you surely cannot deny that people have been threatened with such. You want to trust the community so why not trust us to post on the page if we feel its relevant? Anywhere else a conflict of opinion over edits is a case for Arbies.... challenge a sysop tho and you can find yourself facing a vandalism charge!--Honestmistake 23:40, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Except you aren't punishing them. My case was ruled Not Vandalism. ^_^ --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:28, 29 April 2008 (BST)

I know, I was the one who ruled on it, remember?--Karek^maps?! 16:30, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Trust? The administration doesn't trust the users to know what is or isn't relevant and strongly asks all persons not directly involved to talk on the talk page, while leaving related persons and sysops having flamewars on the mainpage. I don't mind forbidding irrelevant comments and even warning people for making them, but asking everyone else to talk on the talkpage shows severe mistrust of the users. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:39, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Ok, it's time for us to compare this to a RL situation: do you see people talking to the judge or jury during the trial of a criminal ? And if they do, when asked by the judge to stop what is his decision when they fail to comply with it ? He either ask those talking to be removed from court (when he doesnt ask the entire audience to be removed from court) or send him to prison. It shouldn't be different in administration pages... unless you have something relevant to say, you shut your mouth... and if you fail to so and is asked by the administration staff to shush, you can't say you weren't warned that you could be punished for shitting on admin pages. And the same way everyone is innocent unless proved otherwise, the administration staff trust it's community members to do the right thing, and will only punish those who abuse this trust. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:50, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Do you see interrogation? Cross examination? A jury? A single, authoritative judge? This is pretty far from a real life courtroom. The problem is that you don't trust the users to make relevant comments and you pre-emptively warn everyone. In fact, I'd be pretty happy just with the removal of the two words ("strongly" and "directly"), placing a degree of trust in the community, as well as the administration. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:08, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Interrogation is when we talk or when we ask the repoting user to talk with the users involved... it's also when we debate with the reported user on the vandal page. The jury and judge are the administration team... while not annoymous, we work as many and one... and i have no idea what cross examination is (cultural differences suck sometimes). Anyway, as you can see, we are a simpler version of a RL courtroom. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:46, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Now, I'd appreciate it if you answered the parts of my post that were actually important. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:49, 30 April 2008 (BST)

No one gets punished for making irrelevant comments. Never happened. That's not what they get punished for, that has nothing to do with the box. It's a damned reminder. And again, I'll point out, that everyone has their comments moved off the page even SysOps, it happens, usually, after the discussion has stopped being replied to every minute or so or before the discussion can get started_{(Discussion meaning that bit)} That's how it has always worked, that's how it will always work, and that's how it should always work.--Karek^maps?! 16:30, 29 April 2008 (BST)

One of the problems is that it's usually the sysops' comments that get moved after the discussion has died down, and the users' comments that get moved before any discussion gets started. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:47, 29 April 2008 (BST)

I fail to see how that makes sense. How things are moved, or rather what you claim to be a problem, is unfixable due to who is moving the comments. Mountain out of a molehill, or however that saying goes.--Karek^maps?! 03:02, 30 April 2008 (BST)

You say the fact that it's unfixable like it's a good thing. So, you don't think that silencing the users (or at least making sure their comments are seen less) is a problem? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:09, 30 April 2008 (BST)

No, you're twisting what I said to have a meaning it doesn't. Users aren't "being silenced" that's complete and utter bullshit that none of you can back up with any evidence and you have still failed to do so. Because the SysOps are usually the ones who end up moving the comments the involved sysops that are commenting incorrectly on the page have their comments removed later, that's not something that can be changed because the sysop making the comments probably isn't going to move their own comment, so it requires another sysop to do it, there's no point in complaining about something like that unless you want a pointless reason to complain about a small inconsequential thing as that's all it is, inconsequential. It's like complaining every time a SysOp votes keep on an SD request or deletes it before you are active to vote keep.--Karek^maps?! 05:45, 1 May 2008 (BST)

BULLSHIT! You are saying that its OK for a sysop to post incorrectly on the page and that its ok for said sysop to move others comments that he considers inconsequential? At best thats Hypocritical. Any sysop so strongly against pointless/off-topic comments being posted on the main page should at least have the decency to follow his own rule (some do by the way, AHLG springs immediatly to mind but is not alone) As for your Hyperbolic comparison... Its more like when folk complain that the sysop spam removal power is used to end suggestion votes that are showing popular support (or stikes invalid keeps but not kill/spam) but that doesn't happen either does it?--Honestmistake 09:33, 1 May 2008 (BST)

I'm not saying that and you know it. --Karek^maps?! 09:37, 1 May 2008 (BST)

You are saying it though. If a sysop moves anothers comment but leaves his own "requiring" another sysop to move it and does so for no better reason than he can, then that is exactly what he is doing. Spam is Spam, if it is knowingly off topic how is it any less inappropriate for a sysop to be posting it on an admin page than me or J3D or anyone else? "bad Faith" assumptions aside you are suggesting its perfectly natural and acceptable for a sysop to leave his own comments while moving others (that he probably disagree's with) --Honestmistake 09:45, 1 May 2008 (BST)

No, I'm saying it's impossible to be neutral in regards to yourself and that Midianian's "complaint" would require exactly that, understanding that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I've never said anything about commenting on the page being bad faith, I've actually said, countless numerous times that seem to be being ignored, that it is pretty much never bad faith, ignorance is not bad faith, foolishness is not bad faith, irrelevance is not bad faith. And all of that is why your claims that the notice is being abused are bullshit until you can prove otherwise, which you still haven't done, it's a notice of something that is in place everywhere else, it's not basis for a warning, it's not basis for a punishment. What is basis for a punishment is going around trolling A/VB reports, posting everyone on the page ruling on it when you've been asked countless numerous times to stop, or starting fights with users reported for vandalism because you can.--Karek^maps?! 10:59, 1 May 2008 (BST)

Let me say again that I agree totally with each of your valid reasons for punishment but say again that the guide does not make any such distinction. Hovever I must disagree that its impossible to be neutral in regards yourself, if you can't maintain a neutral attitude you should not be a sysop, I would like to think that those who rule on A/VB cases have enough judgement to know when their comment should be on the talk page (I am obviously being niave or overoptimistic though) At the end of the day my main complaint is that the guideline has been used to threaten (directly or indirectly) and would not be needed in the first place if all talk was restricted to the talk page rather than just some talk.--Honestmistake 11:13, 1 May 2008 (BST)

You're an invested party, you're no longer neutral, because you're invested in the outcome, if you don't have the sense of mind to make the comment off the page you're obviously not going to have the sense of mind to move it off of the page unless you're moving the whole discussion chain off the page at the same time. I am humored that someone who is basing an argument for moving comments off the talk page on trust in the Sysop's judgement is, in the same block of text, arguing that sysop's can't be trusted to warn people while there's a little red box asking them to only add relevant information to A/VB cases. As for the third thing, proof, please be of the givings of it because, what you are describing is Misconduct, you have again ignored my request for it, which will be repeated every single time you make a claim like that without proof, it's a line where your word is not good enough, it's naught but a baseless acusation.--Karek^maps?! 11:41, 1 May 2008 (BST)

How many times do I have to present this quote to you? "Those boxes are not policies, you are correct. But they are a request from the administration staff, to make our life easier to deal with vandalism and to avoid creating drama when a user is reported. Going against these requests, knowing that they were made, is a sign of bad faith towards the maintenance of this page." Hagnats words, are you really saying that you don't see how they can be taken as a warning that disregarding that box is a sign of bad faith? How much clearer can they get than an outright statement? Tell you what I will bold the most important bit for you.... Going against these requests, knowing that they were made, is a sign of bad faith towards the maintenance of this page As for the rest of your text above, I can barely understand it but I think you are saying you find it funny that I am asking for Sysops to have enough judgement to know when their own comments should be placed on the talk page. If they can't judge when their own comments are relevant why the hell should anyone trust them to judge theirs?--Honestmistake 15:14, 1 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, i said that could work out, but i still think it's overkill... i still believe that the input of the community is as welcome in vandal reports as is the input of the sysops, but only if this input has any relation to the case. Harassment shouldn't have room in the main page, for example, and is what this guideline is aimed against. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:17, 29 April 2008 (BST)

O RIRRY? Quoted from Talk:A/VB:

Hagnat said:

Please, comment on the talk page as any other uninvolved user should.

Now, I don't have an issue with you moving comments - but this is too big of a turnaround (trying to become more palatable, Haggy?) for me to ignore. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:11, 29 April 2008 (BST)

That was only because you were already warned to butt out of A/VB... on my point of view, you were just trying my patience by commenting on the case. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:01, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Thats the problem right there."your point of view" You are not the community, you might be right this time but it should not be a matter of points of view it should be a matter of facts. Those inconvenient things that often get ignored. --Honestmistake 23:40, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Like i said before... if anyone thinks a sysop is abusing his powers by moving comments to the talk page, misconduct him! Grim clearly set precedent for misconducting sysops for frivolous stuff... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:47, 29 April 2008 (BST)

I have not needed to use misconduct, when Grim moved one of my comments and I made it clear that I felt it was entirely appropriate that it be in the middle of the ongoing discussion he (grudgingly) moved it back and not long after the whole discussion was moved to the talk page. God knows I often disagreed with Grim but at least he was willing to see my point about how making a comment on the talk page would have added nothing and been out of context... under a strict reading of the guideline tho my input could have earned me a warning and like Nali I would not have let that lie and would have continued making my position known in the place where I felt it was best put. At best this would have led to the whole thing being moved to the talk page at worse it would have ended with me copping a pointless ban and Grim (or other sysops) ending in a pointless misconduct case. I support keeping the main page clean and as drama free as possible but not at the cost of stifling community input!--Honestmistake 08:30, 30 April 2008 (BST)

If you could see me right now I'm doing a facepalm. There is not "strict interpretation" that would require it to be a rule, a policy, something enforced through vandal escalations. Which this isn't. Moving comments from the main page is a matter of relevance, not vandalism, I'm assuming you showed relevance and Grim undid his move. Users don't get punished for making irrelevant comments, they won't, that would require assuming bad faith.--Karek^maps?! 09:56, 30 April 2008 (BST)

yes Grim accepted that there could be relevance, He didn't see it but he accepted that others might. I have been here for ages and was not intimidated by the move, other (newer) users might well have been. As for assuminh Bad Faith, once again I point you to the statement that sparked my involvement in this latest bout of complaints.--Honestmistake 11:07, 30 April 2008 (BST)

NO ONE was ever officially warned for posting anything on the vandal main page without a sysop first asking the user to stop, and if anyone ever be, it will be misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:53, 30 April 2008 (BST)

What happens if the user refuses to stop because they believe their input is valid and constructive and the sysop does not? surely that is an edit conflict and falls under the remit of arbies? It doesn't though because following the guideline and your logic, refusing to stop posting is bad faith and therefore vandalism! It may well be but it could just as easily be a clash of opinion and if both parties are stubborn it will lead to nothing good... --Honestmistake 20:20, 30 April 2008 (BST)

.... i'm done with you... you are way smarter than this honest, or atleast that was the impression i had from you. If te sysop ask a user to stop posting on the vandal page, and the user don't agree with this, he can ask the opinion of another sysop, he can file an arbitration case (where no warning should be issued by that sysop until an arby ruling is found), yada yada yada.... as you can se, there is plenty of ways for one to legally remain able to post on the vandal main page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:00, 1 May 2008 (BST)

New Suggestion

Since it's getting ignored in the mess above, I'll say it again here: Keep the box, but remove the words "directly" and "strongly" from it. The reason for this, as I said above, is that it places trust in the community as well as the administration.

Now, before you ride in to defend the box, ask yourself; does this change have a negative effect on things? Irresponsible users are still going to post on the page and responsible users are still going to consider before saying anything. On the positive side, it's going to diminish the impression that you could easily get warned for making any kind of comment on the main page if you're not one of the people mentioned in the box. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:07, 1 May 2008 (BST)

Maybe the guideline should not be about the people commenting, but more about the comments themselves. Stuff like "don't insult people" etc. --Toejam 23:26, 8 May 2008 (BST)