Forum:Protecting forum pages while there's still a discussion going on

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Protecting forum pages while there's still a discussion going on

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4849 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Don't do that, please. Allowing open discussion is a significant part of how this site works. By closing the discussion off you become an authoritarian asshole in the minds of those that are dissatisfied with the outcome - or lack thereof. This is more likely to create drama and resentment then just letting a discussion wind down of its own accord. (Obviously I'm referring this to Admins. If you're not an admin, or you don't do this, feel free to ignore this forum.) After all, Is it ever right to restrict freedom of speech? Pup 01:39 13 Jun '11

Mmmmmm, I have noticed in the past certain forums have been protected by admins, with reasoning "Drama is getting out of hand", when it doesn't take a genius to realise that the admins and other users have been arguing and finally it looks like the users have a case the admins can't rebut, and they go "Lol I can protect it, so we win." -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 01:43, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Puppy. A forum is where you state your opinion. Unless it's turning into a flamewar or a vile slaughtering, then it has no right to be protected. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 03:17, 13 June 2011

Usually it's more so when a forum has lost its point in the ensuing flamewar, with three or four discussions happening between different groups of users simultaneously, and seems unlikely to reach a conclusion. It's not a case of the (largely imagined) admin/user schism and the admins "winning"; it's more so when a discussion passes the event horizon and is rapidly on its way to the black hole of drama. That's not to say the subject can't be brought up again in a more controlled forum, just that the current one has gone to poop. For an extreme example of a discussion where this didn't happen and the forum went on too long, see the Asperger's discussion, which spanned three forums without getting anywhere. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:21 Jun 13, 2011

Isn't it funny how users are usually all "those danged admins," but you never see an admin saying "those danged users?" Yeah. So quit it, ya danged users!

Is there a link to any of the Asperger's discussion forums? -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 03:23, 13 June 2011

One, two, and three. Lots of people getting very angry at lots of other people for no constructive reason. Tell me that shouldn't've been protected a day into it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:28 Jun 13, 2011

Of course it shouldn't have, because those forums are hilarious. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:30, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

LOL FEATURE never before have I seen such works of art. -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 03:31, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

In hindsight, keep in mind. (/me smacks TKF) – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:32 Jun 13, 2011

If that happened today, he would be banned right away. Aah, how great admins we have nowadays. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 03:47, 13 June 2011

Our admins are getting better. I agree with that. DJ Mixerr 18:02, June 16, 2011 (UTC) User:DJ Mixerr/sig

Irony

good job TKF -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 03:21, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not the one to say those danged admins, but there are times where a response is called for that educates or lays down the law politely, rather than just trying to finalise a discussion by preventing it. A simple there is not a community consensus on this topic and there has been no conclusion despite the exchange of views, so at this stage the solution will be to maintain the status quo for the foreseeable future seems to be the most diplomatic way to go. If it continues to spiral then the next step is a warning that the forum will be protected and the step following is to protect it if a dramathon is continuing. Pup 03:33 13 Jun '11

So quit it, you fucking admins

Let the drama begin, I'm outta here before everyone gets banned. -- Frosty dah snowguy contribs GUN PLEB 03:34, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

While that sounds wonderful in writing, in practice that would only serve to prolong drama, as whateveritis forum would branch off into yet another argument as to whether the topic deserves protection or not. When an admin protects a forum, the idea is that they're saying "This isn't going anywhere good right now," (alternatively, that long thing you said in italics) not "My word is law." Again, not saying that the subject can't be approached differently after a few days. Some users have a way of bringing up touchy topics for discussion in a healthy way and moderating the subsequent forum, and others... throw a drama bomb into the Village Dump and disappear, which makes the forum dissolve into the clusterfuck I mentioned before. But yeah. The point I'm trying to make is, the protecting admin isn't trying to make a statement, they're trying to do basically what you just said. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:47 Jun 13, 2011

As I said before in this forum, I like the admins that we have today. A lot of people don't like them because they're good. All the admins are right. Otherwise, they wouldn't be admins. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 03:55, 13 June 2011

Wow, a lollipop sucking on a person.

It's hard to moderate a discussion, though, when there is an inability to communicate. If a discussion is degenerating into drama, fair call, but if it's still just a discussion and an exchange of ideas, it should remain open. Recently I've noticed that people are too quick to say Oh my God - Drama rather than admitting that a controversial statement does not make a drama alone. A lot of the times drama happens when there is a strong feeling towards a particular view, and in which case discussion should be encouraged rather than stomped on and allowed to fester into resentment. I guess, in short, I'd rather see users - admins and non-admins alike - try to resolve an issue than sweep it under the carpet. Pup 05:28 13 Jun '11

I've noticed a recent trend of people are too quick to call an unabashedly retarded idea/discussion "controversial." There is no question, nor is there any discussion to be had, in regards to such a fucking basic tenet as "anyone can edit." I respond in this way because I know this was directly in response to the protection of Lollipop's VFH forum. Which leads me to a more important point: the forum is not the place for passive-aggressive swipes at one or two actions. Take it up directly with the other user on their talkpage where it belongs, not in a place where the community suddenly thinks there's a real issue when there isn't.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 05:42, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and furthermore, if you think that the best way to spur honest, meaningful, neutral discussion is by calling anybody an, and I quote, "authoritarian asshole," then you forfeit all ability to discuss flamewars.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 05:46, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

• If someone protects a dump page that is active, and you disagree with them, you should 1) go talk to them about it on their talkpage/IRC 2) take it up on the dump's talkpage. Pretty simple really. -- The Zombiebaron 05:52, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

  Gotta love forum talk. You gotta. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:59, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Never having been on IRC for a period longer than 5 seconds, I'm not likely to take it up there. And I've never called anyone an authoritarian asshole. If you re-read my statement, I was talking about the perceptions of admins that you were creating by knee-jerk reactions relating to closing off a forum. And as for using dump's talkpage, I thought that was generally frowned upon. (Especially given that there is no easy way to get to a dumps talkpage.) oh, and lastly, I was referring to a number of incidents, not an isolated occasion. I'm asking, politely, to consider the longer term responses to your actions. Honestly that forum you were talking about was all but exhausted, and you may have noticed, I was one of those that mentioned there that this was an anybody can edit issue, which made the argument both moot and stupid. So, in short, Ljlego, you've made an assumption that is predominantly unfounded - all your action did was remind me of a concern I'd had about this for a while. But, by the tone of everyone who has commented on this to date, with one exception, my words are against the perspective of the wider community, so feel free to close this forum. Pup 06:51 13 Jun '11

Saying "I wasn't calling you an authoritarian asshole, I was just saying your actions make it seem like you are one" is a very thin distinction at best. Semantics aside, though, nothing you said addresses a much more important point: the forums are not the place to take issue with this. I don't care if it's several issues. Every time a forum is protected and it bothers you, tell the offending admin. Then if the admin is obstinate/unreceptive (for instance, he bans you or threatens to), bring it to another admin's attention. Then, if doing that still makes you feel like you're being shafted, then I suppose you could bring it to the Dump. You may notice, however, that whenever a forum that brings up a grievance is started, it can get ugly. People start talking about different things under the same umbrella, leading to incidents like my misunderstanding about the intention of this forum. So please, talk pages.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 16:43, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Bad Puppy. Stay. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 07:02, 13 June 2011

I kinda see your point, Puppy. Especially since this has happened with me too, as two (Forum:Look at me, I'm Block'd from Conservapedia, Forum:Erm.... just wanted to bring this up.) forum topics I was involved in were locked by ChiefjusticeDS. The first one was because of a misunderstanding which I didn't really bother to clear up, but why he decided to protect the second one, I still do not know. I would have gone on his talkpage, except that it didn't really concern me that much, but yeah, why did you protect it, Chief? Admins should really try being more transparent in their protection summaries, at the very least. --Scofield & Friends 15:30, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

ASK HIM ON HIS TALK PAGE! NOT ON THE DUMP! If a particular admin is confusing you with his actions, then ASK HIM! As close to one-to-one as is possible on an open wiki. Don't bring it up in a forum topic where everyone rightly thinks they are free to add their two cents, when that isn't really appropriate.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 16:43, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement does not = drama

Just because someone thinks a conversation is not productive, or predicts a conversation may not be more productive in the future is no reason to block a forum. I was appaled the last time that happened. Blocking anyones chance to have input and say something is probably the most productive way an admin can piss off users. Disagreement does NOT equal drama. --ShabiDOO 15:49, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

First of all, excellent job saying exactly what PuppyOnTheRadio has said at least five times during the course of this forum. Second, disagreement doesn't mean drama, but disagreement is always the cause of it. So, the two are also not mutually exclusive. When a topic has degenerated from discussion of disagreement to dramatic fingerpointing that gets us nowhere (STEVE!) is a judgement call. Nothing stops any user from restarting the conversation in a new forum, hopefully in a less inflammatory way.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 17:11, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

You did the very thing you are talking about. I gave my point of view and you replied from the very start in a sarcastic and hostile way. Its like Im tired to say anything because someone will reply back with a smack in the face. Seriously. Okay you are right --ShabiDOO 18:55, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Very true, Ljego. Ironic, isn't it?! DJ Mixerr 18:02, June 16, 2011 (UTC) User:DJ Mixerr/sig

An admin's perspective

For some reason, I feel compelled to share with everyone some of the more common occurrences that set my protection senses a-tingling. You will not change my mind by telling me I'm wrong about these. Now, here they are:

• When there are so many indents that you have to start indenting less in order for a reply to be intelligible, drama is probably starting.
• Relatedly, as a forum gets longer, the likelier it is that drama has peeked its ugly head because it's less and less likely that newcomers to the forum will read the whole thing.
• When somebody completely disregards the entire forum and starts a new heading just to state his/her opinion regarding the first post, that tends to start drama.
• When a vote starts, provided that the forum was not intended to be about a vote in the first place.
• When the ad hominem attacks start.
• When people involved since the beginning start to restate points already made, either by them or by others.

Basically, these are just ways of telling when people have gotten exasperated and unproductive. It's not an exhaustive list, and presence of these things doesn't mean I'll protect a forum. Just trying to be helpful.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 17:54, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

I cannot deny that anything you said is true. Its all true. But it is a rediculous exageration to say that all this "drama" is such a big deal. It only seems to become a really big deal when specific people are on the recieving side of "flame". Its funny how in all other parts of the wiki, NO ONE CARES about just about anything, and people are always making jokes and insulting each other, yet, when on the forum, people are colourfully expressing their opinions, or bringing it up a level or two bordering on flame, and certain people are on the recieving side of it, this "drama" becomes unnaceptable and the whole thing needs to be shut down. What the hell is that? Where did the "no one cares" part of it all go. How can some people not see the sweating bleeding hipocriseeeeeeeeeee? I looked at all these forums and I could not find one single quote from the last few months where there was any line of "drama" that was so bad it was detrimental to the wiki, if not super helarious. These colourful moments are more funny and engaging then something that has to be blocked. And saying that you should take your problems to an admins talk page is so silly I want to vomit my mornings soup and then feel it to my cat. The last two times Ive done that I was told to shut up and go away. Which, interestinly as well "no one cared". Which in the end I also found funny and would never label as drama. Cause, as Ive said, in any other way NO ONE CARES! Except the person who shuts it down. --ShabiDOO 18:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel as if you've been unfairly treated by admins. But the reason drama is such a big deal is because it precludes progress. And progress is what we need. Nobody cares is not a policy, it's a joke. Everybody cares a little bit. We spend too much of our free time here not to care. Dr. Skullthumper tirelessly codes cool new shit so we can better manage our site. Admins do maintenance work. We all vote on VFD. Our quality authors devote a lot of creative energy to making good articles and sometimes making bad articles better. Everybody cares, because if they didn't then no "colorful" forums would ever happen. This is a humor wiki, but that doesn't mean that everything is a joke (though Nobody cares is...probably why it's in the mainspace). If we can't get serious sometimes then we are destined for failure, and I've given too much of my time to this place (let alone people like Chief and MadMax and almost everyone else) to allow that to happen. That's why drama is such a big deal. I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 19:00, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me that drama can be a big deal. I just don't see the balance yet when one labels something either disagreement/drama, or labels taking things seriously/no one cares. From all users or admins on all pages and forums. And well, the decisions made (especially shutting conversations down) appear rather arbitrary sometimes or lopsided...and hey, guess which side wins, the person who makes the decisions no? Pretty logical. --ShabiDOO 19:52, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

But, as Dr. Skullthumper so eloquently stated in his admin mythbusters forum, admins are not some hivemind. In one way or another, we disagree approximately all the time. If you feel an admin has been arbitrary, then tell someone. Tell five people. Eventually your tenacity will be rewarded, specifically with an explanation of the reasoning and perhaps even a reversal if it was truly arbitrary. If you aren't willing to accept those explanations because you disagree with them, then you have a problem with the concept of authority figures and the decision-making that comes with moderated discussion, in which case you'll never be satisfied. I don't think that's the case with you, but it needed to be said. But, again, the forum isn't the place for inter-user tiffs. Imagine if I decided that Romartus was being a dick on VFH (I promise I don't), then I made a forum about it. It'd be absurd. But it works both ways. I think it will be a byproduct of our improving that you will be able to bring an issue to an admin's attention without being shit on.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 21:28, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I have had really great interactions with most admins. I don't even know who some of them are. In particular I have found Lyrithya really great to deal with after a little blow up, heck even with SPIKE (not an admin but with many blow ups) we resolved our heated debate heatedly, but it was resolved. And my little squibble with SkullThumper was resolved quickly and painlessly. Even when Killer Froggy banned me cause he thought I asked him to, which I found funny, it was resolved in a second and we both went, haha. I have no problem with authority. I have a problem with a discussion being shut down because someone who doesn't like where the conversation is going calls it drama and doesn't let the conversation play itself out. When two people disagree vehemently, for some reason this conflict for some reason must be stomped out. One line of flame means no more forum. Annoyances are not settled and people reamin bitter and irritated. This is rediculous. But I am repeating myself once again and I don't think we really disagree with each other that much. --ShabiDOO 17:58, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

My two cents

Puppy, of course it's right to restrict freedom of speech sometimes. Like in times of war and stuff. Don't be such a fucking ignorant asshole motherfucker and think that freedom of speech isn't restricted in times of war.

Glad I didn't pay more than two cents. Pup 10:16 13 Jun '11

Vote: Am I right or Am I right?

Score: +3

• For. Also, I presume it's been said before but I haven't read the forum yet, but talk pages! Talk pages! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:41, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
• For. You are always right. Your loathing of these talk page conversations are legendary and entertaining. It even makes me laugh sometimes (seriously). I have total confidence in your ability to know just the precise moment when people shouldnt give their opinion anymore (some what seriously). Opinions are for chumps. This should also be a vote for uncyclopedias new slogan "The anti-drama-opedia: Where forums are lame and where discussions should be stopped" (dead serious). --ShabiDOO 00:17, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. I can't deny it. DJ Mixerr 18:03, June 16, 2011 (UTC) User:DJ Mixerr/sig