Moderation talk:Policy Discussion/Vandal Insults

No, this is a bit too harsh. If someone looses their temper and says that the person vandalising is an idiot then that's understandable, however a better way of putting it is that the vandalism reports should be in NPOV. The main reason for that is because that's where the vandal would be looking rather than individual talk pages ect. - 00:57, 19 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I agree with Gold Blade. The fact that there is a record of everything ever posted and nothing can every be 100% undone on the wiki should be motivation enough for people to think before they post.  It's not a complicated concept.  The wiki exists for the purpose of level-headed learning, so why should concessions be made for drama?  If people are arsehats, and can't control their arsehattedness, it doesn't make excuses for everyone to abandon discussion, start name-calling, and then all be forgiven later because it was 'appropriate at the time.'  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to be adults; mature and respectful users should not be subject to the constant forgiveness and babying of those who constantly take things to an emotional level.-- MaRt ModHaVoC 11:28, 19 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I agree that something needs to be done. But if we are going to say "Don't insult the vandals" we should just say "Don't insult anyone" because today's useful editor could become tomorrows vandal. We all know that it isn't going to work well and that people are just going to get annoyed at the wiki because they can't say what they feel about the vandals. Hence as to limit what people say I suggested that the vandalism reports to be in NPOV. This is because a) Vandals won't check every user page for comments about them, and b) Unless people are really annoyed they won't bother adding a comment on another users talk page insulting the vandal, and in that case this rule probably wouldn't stop them. If you are serious about your zero drama stance (because thats what it sounds like) then you should make a policy to cover that. However the right amount and type of drama can, and usually will lead to a positive change for the wiki so it's detrimental to eliminate it all. - 18:32, 19 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Not insulting anyone as a policy is way too hard. You could say that something is an insult when it's not. Here is an example of why:
 * Crabapple starts saying HURRRRR! everywhere for no apparent reason.
 * Two by Four says, "Dude, you're being an idiot, stop," to CrabApple. That's not an insult, Two By Four's informing CrabApple that he is acting stupid but CrabApple probably didn't notice it
 * Pelican, a noob, might say "Two by Four's insulting CrabApple, I'm taking him to M/VB!"
 * A whole lot of crap spawns from that, I know from experience.


 * But what I was talking about is going on the vandal's user page and attacking them there. I should also mention that this does make VB a NPOV page. Also, if someone cant hold their temper enough to simply not do anything, then they should have to take time off before they edit again. Too much bad comes out of doing stuff in anger. Finally, we want (mentally) mature people here. if they are too immature to refrain from insulting someone, then they really need to learn that it's time to grow up if you're going to be here. -- 11:23, 22 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Well if you are talking about the vandals user page and the VB page then you should specify it, because as it's written this means everywhere. But think about this ok. If this was really able to be put into a policy then why hasn't wikipedia already done so? They left it as a guideline for a reason. - 18:10, 22 October 2006 (PDT)
 * That's because Wikipedia doesn't really have this problem, also that wikipedia doesn't have people so close together, if you understand what I mean by that (Internet claustrophobia) -- 18:14, 22 October 2006 (PDT)
 * I understand what you mean about the close community, but that wouldn't affect how vandals would work, wikipedia *does* have an issue with vandalism and I'm sure that people go and insult the vandals more often then not. If they wrote a guideline for it then I'm sure that if they had the chance to implement it in a feasible manner then they would make a policy about it but they didn't. - 18:27, 22 October 2006 (PDT)
 * But we're not wikipedia, and you forget that a small community functions different from a city. -- 18:37, 22 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Ah, true. However the small community gets it's laws from the court rooms of the big city and has it's own social norms. I just don't think that something like this should be treated the same as blanking pages or rendering them inoperable. Limit the amount of pages this applies to and I'll be happy. - 18:43, 22 October 2006 (PDT)

Ok Jedaz, I limited the pages. Wait a min. Why isn't this page under Policy discussion? -- 13:53, 1 November 2006 (PST)
 * Ah, thats better now, I'm much happier with it. Anyway the reason that this page wasn't under policy discussion is because you didn't place a link to this page there. You'll have to do the same with the other policy you made. - 15:17, 1 November 2006 (PST)
 * I want to finish that one before I put it on that page. Too tired to finish the list. You can help if you want. -- 16:31, 1 November 2006 (PST)
 * You do realize that that's the reason that you put it under discussion? So people can talk about it and help you change it? It's not like you are putting it under voting, people will notice it and tell you what they think should be added and what not. It's easier then trying to find it under recent changes because if people don't talk on the page for a while it'll get lost amongst the wiki. But hey, whatever works for you is good. - 17:50, 1 November 2006 (PST)
 * Oh, oh, ohhhh! i thought you meant put it in voting. Jedaz, do you support the use of 1337 5p33k? -- 17:57, 1 November 2006 (PST)
 * Ah, well I'm glad thats cleared up then =) I don't mind the use of leet speek, however it takes more time to write and read then just using the standard letters so I usually don't bother with it. Why were you wondering? - 18:06, 1 November 2006 (PST)
 * Sheer boredom. -- 09:24, 8 November 2006 (PST)

Common Sense? Sounds good. Pillsy 07:18, 2 November 2006 (PST)
 * Indeed. No need for anyone to sink to their level.--Mr yawn [[Image:Poster 3781.jpg|14px]] 10:01, 7 November 2006 (PST)
 * I say it toughens you up. You know, you are able to take it without crying. -- 15:26, 7 November 2006 (PST)
 * Something you were never any good at... 00:46, 8 November 2006 (PST)
 * Sadly, I have to agree. But that phase of my life is over. -- 09:22, 8 November 2006 (PST)