Forum:Banned from chat template

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Banned from chat template

Banned from chat template

The current Banned from chat needs to be superseded in my opinion.

For starters, it looks unprofessional to me. Wikipedia may have no use for colourful templates, but we are not Wikipedia and require a certain amount of aesthetics. A user with this template posted on their talk page may not take notice, as it is easily missable and by all account, doesn't look like an official wiki template. The wording is also specific to Wikipedia:

"You may contact an admin to remove your ban"

— Template:Bannedfromchat

Wikia implemented the chat moderator user right to administrate the chat, a banned user seeing this might think that only administrators alone can unban users from chat, ignoring the chat moderator with the powers to do.

I propose we supersede Template:Bannedfromchat with something along the lines of User:JPanzerj/Sandbox. This is immediately more noticeable and looks more professional and official. It also allows the banner to add their signature into the template.

I also propose we amend Project:Chat to have a list of chat moderators, so users can see who are the current moderators without going through Special:ListUsers.

Apologies for any lack of clarity, I have just woken up.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 08:11, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the list of moderators, but I'm a bit iffy on the actual template. One thing that comes to mind is that the current template has you sign, which means the user knows which mod or admin banned them. There's also the problem of several bans, which could spam up the talk page, especially for connection problems. I'm indifferent to the decision made for this, but these are my points in this. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 17:25, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

If you had looked at the example I gave at the template, there is a place where you sign

Other then the fact that lag bans could in theory be removed from talk pages once over, since they aren't a hostile ban and it would not be deleting a discussion or perhaps a slim variant for lagbans could be produced. Thank your for your comments Shad.

Example {{Banned|spamming the chat with inappropriate images|five days|~~~~}}

User:JPanzerj/Sandbox

I understand you can put the signature in that template. That's my point. The signature is all you need for the admin/mod problem. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 21:12, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused at why there's a problem with the user knowing who banned them?

User:JPanzerj/Signature 17:28, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

"a banned user seeing this might think that only administrators alone can unban users from chat, ignoring the chat moderator with the powers to do."

— JPanzerj

This is what I'm referring to. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 17:32, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I figure it's time I threw my hat in the ring. I must say, I like the template (did you base it off the one on the CoD wiki? It looks similar, from what I've seen during the times when I've explored the CoD wiki). And as for the problem of clogging up the talkpage, not a problem either, as coincidentally, I myself was working on a simpler template for connection issue bans, which can be found here (the corresponding documentation is here). Also, I don't know if this is the proper place to propose this idea, but I think there should be a rule added to the chat rules (added to the chat page when that list of moderators is added) that connection bans should not be dealt with by kickbans, but rather, placing a banned from chat flag on the user's user rights page.

Also, Panz, I was thinking that, in addition to the chat mods, we should include the admins, since sometimes it's admins that ban users from chat, rather than chat mods. Also, is it ok if I amend your new banned from chat template to use the full wiki name? I figure for something official like that, our full name should be used. One more thing: should your proposed template be used with subst:, like our current one is (supposed to be), or will transclusion be fine? -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 21:22, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable to me Jonny, and yes, I did base it off the CoD Wiki template which has served without any issues with regards to clutter and whatnot. That lagban policy is used on several wikis and doesn't clog up the logs, so I'd certainly support it. In my opinion, transclusion is fine, since there is absolutely no reason to use substition on this sort of template. Full wiki name would seem more professional.

Thank you for your support, Jonny.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 12:08, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

The current plain text template is just fine as is. The new one you propose is over-engineered and cluttered in my opinion. Keep in mind it's a "Talk page" Not a "Post images and art" page. Most people, including me, don't want their talk page cluttered up with images that other people post on it and such. There's a principle of good design that an image should not be used if it doesn't add anything useful to the content. And in this case, I'd have to say it doesn't add anything useful. EquZephyr 22:00, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no need for a bing pink balloon spanning 400 pixels to tell someone they are banned, for how long, and when can they ask for their ban to be removed. –Throwawaytv 10:37, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I like this redesign because it makes the template look "official" (with the wiki logo) and it also simply looks nice. It's more friendly looking than the bland and short-lipped template we have now that although it does its job, could do with some refinement. Right here is that refinement.      23:10, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

That's clutter. Visually:

• Header inside a border. This should never happen.
• Different background color. This should be avoided. Good uses include infoboxes, index galleries, and other elements that are distinct from the rest of the page. Elements that are not distinct (a message on a talk page) should not have their own background color.
• Comment inside border. This should be avoided. Good uses include badges and awards. Bad uses include regular discussion. Ban messages are regular discussion, not badges or awards.

Conceptually: slapping a big fat ban message on a user's talk page. –Throwawaytv 11:20, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Why should any of that be avoided? 'Because Wikipedia doesn't do it' is not a valid reason.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 12:08, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Because it is not normal for a message to user (admin`s post in this case) to start not with a heading but with a border. It is a decent Wikia and Wikipedia practice to put a heading before the message. Teyandee (Talk) 14:19, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia is not Wikipedia and what is common practice on Wikia doesn't make it bad. Each wiki is left to create it's own policies and standards of what is normal. Galleries are normal here, but on let's say the Fallout wiki. Not normal isn't bad. Can you give a reason that is not "uncommon policy" or "not normal"?

User:JPanzerj/Signature 15:00, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not something is considered "decent" is irrelevant. We should be able to do something if it's good regardless of whether or not it is "decent" by these Wikia standards that may or may not exist. And the heading does go before the message, the border surrounds the heading so it combines the heading and message into one module.      15:19, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there should never be something that looks good to mean something that is bad. It just puts a big "Look what I did" on their talk page, which could be bad for users of good faith, and good for "feeding the trolls". Not everything needs to be intricate and big. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 17:17, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Too many ideas get shot down for "feeding the trolls". If we really don't want to feed the trolls, we should never even bother banning them, considering it gets put on a public log. My mind is also failing to relate the size of a template to how much it apparently "feeds the trolls". Feeding the trolls is when you decide to go and leave a personal message on their page expressing your upset. A ban message never constitutes "feeding the trolls", especially innocent ones like the one proposed. The one we have now is really lippy and seems rather hostile compared to this one.

Wikis with DFTT policies (1 2) even have public tables (1 2) listing bans from chat and their expiry, and the name of the chatmod who banned them. This is not a matter of feeding the trolls. This is a matter of making the template more friendly, more informative, and better looking.      18:16, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Please explain to me how this new proposal is anymore feeding the trolls than the template we have now. I mean, from my experience with trolls, they don't care how it's formatted; they care about the information contained within. When they see banned from chat, it's banned from chat, and they're happy about that; they don't care whether or not it looks pretty or not. And with this beautification, it makes the wiki look more professional as a whole, even if it is one small step towards that. I mean, when a wiki is first getting started, sure it's smart to be like Applejack, and keep it simple and practical, but I truly do feel we're at the stage where we can incorporate some stylistic elements that are more visually appealing, a la Rarity.-- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 01:40, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm indifferent to the decision made. I barely give any bans anyway, unless I absolutely have to. These are just my points.

The reason it's feeding the trolls is because of how intricate it is. As I said, it's just a big "Look what I did" on the talk page. It might be why the callofduty wiki gets spammed constantly. But again, I'm indifferent to the decision made. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 02:08, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about it feeding the trolls. And fair enough that you're indifferent about the outcome. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 02:24, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘

Ban messages are required and hence not feeding the trolls, just like terse automatic messages are automatic and are not feeding the trolls. However, a big pink balloon for a ban message is simply bad formatting, outlined above: header inside border, different background color for conversation, comment inside border. Imagine my comment formatted like so:

A message from Throwawaytv Ban messages are required and hence not feeding the trolls, just like terse automatic messages are automatic and are not feeding the trolls. However, a big pink balloon for a ban message is simply bad formatting, outlined above (header inside border, different background color for conversation, comment inside border. Imagine my comment formatted like so: Click on the "edit" link to see why this is a bad idea.

Click on the "edit" link to see why this is a bad idea. Why is it separate from the rest of the discussion? Why is the header inside a border? Where is the user supposed to reply, inside the border, outside the border? In a balloon of their own?

As for "other communities do it", well, other communities' bureaucrats also meatpuppet for their banned friends and run bots without community approval, so I don't think you ought to trump their policies as consistent or appropriate. Examples of other habits that are common on Wikia wikis but nevertheless bad:

• Spreading a conversation over multiple talk pages and not signing comments. Practically all Wikia wiki communities do this. These are bad practices, obviously bad practices, yet they are popular and widespread. That doesn't mean they should be.
• Capitalizing Words because They Are Important.
• Using threatening language when blocking users.
• Admins using profanity on the front page of the wiki.
• Cluttering the front page with lists, polls, news, and whatnot so that new visitors are overwhelmed.
• Having wiki discussion off-wiki so it's not documented.
• Cross-wiki raids.

And many more. "But [other popular Wikia wiki] does it" doesn't mean we should do it.

Finally, the actual way mods specify the reason and duration for the ban is not important. They can use {{bannedfromchat}} or they can leave a personal message. The important thing is specifying the reason and duration for the ban. Regardless of this, regular conversation on talk pages (yes, specifying a reason and duration for someone's ban is regular conversation) should not have a different-colored background. And even more regardless, headers should never be inside a border. They are headers, they delimit the section, they cannot start after the section has started, both conceptually and technically. –Throwawaytv 12:36, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I particularly enjoyed your attempt to compare a simple template change to "using threatening language when blocking users" or "cross-wiki raids". None of them are even comparable to a template change. I suppose I'll just be using this template redesign as the "personal message" you speak of, then.      13:36, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I imagine I'll be doing the same, CoD. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 22:51, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I did not compare them. You said "well they do it", so I said "that's not a valid reason", and gave other examples of stuff that they do. Finally, do not consistently and repeatedly break the formatting on user's talk pages. –Throwawaytv 07:30, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the whole new design for the ban from chat template so I'm supporting it. - -KingLazy93 06:34, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Use subst:

I would like to remind the people who gave out these bans that you must use the subst: keyword for the template to be used properly. –Throwawaytv 10:41, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Why? The permanent copying of a template such as this is not required. Transclusion is perfectly acceptable for a banned from chat template and doing this is another unnecessary step moderators and administrators have to take.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 12:08, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, it's a discussion, not an article. Whenever possible, discussions should not use transcluded templates. Regardless, the template does not work properly when not transcluded. –Throwawaytv 12:11, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I've never used subst: with it and it works properly for me. Subst: should only be used for templates which change regularly but do not need to change on the page it is used on.      14:07, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

It does not work properly. Click on the "edit" link and find out how it doesn't work properly. –Throwawaytv 12:11, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's what happens when you click on the edit section link of a unsubst'd template... it's supposed to do that.      13:31, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

But see, you are having a discussion on a discussion page, not editing a template. It's not "supposed to do that", you're supposed to use subst:. –Throwawaytv 07:30, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Quick Vote

Since the forum has gone one day without any comments, I propose a quick vote to given an idea of consensus.

• Implementation of the new banned from chat templates.
• Addition of a list of chat moderators to the chat page.
• SUBST will not be mandatory for use on banned from chat templates.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 00:29, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Not using subst breaks the formatting. You can't vote on breaking formatting much like you can't vote on using bad grammar. Wikis aren't run by votes, they are run by discussion. If someone says "we should use bad spelling", no matter how many votes they get, bad spelling should not be used unless there's a valid argument behind it. This is because the weight of the argument is more important that how many people support it. Sorry, you just can't break the formatting of users' talk pages repeatedly and deliberately because you feel like it, no matter how many people feel like it. That is abuse of power. –Throwawaytv 07:30, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support

Strongly support - As nominator. Not only do I believe this will improve the professional look of the wiki, but users Alongside the incorporation of the new banned from chat template will also be the addition of a list of chat moderators to Chat page and the non-mandatory use of SUBST. User:JPanzerj/Signature 00:29, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Using a header inside a border is not professional, it breaks the formatting of the page. –Throwawaytv 07:33, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - Agree that it will improve the professional look of the wiki, and users will be more likely to take notice of it, and improve. Agree with the list of chat moderators (and admins, since chat moderator is included in admin, so any admin has the power to unban from chat) being added to the chat page. Slightly agree with the SUBST point, as I always used it, though I know a lot of people didn't, and it doesn't seem all that necessary. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 00:47, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Not using the subst keyword breaks the formatting of the page. –Throwawaytv 07:33, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Template:Bannedfromchat/sandbox - Here are the 2 examples of using the template. Top one created with SUBST, the other one is not.

The reason, why the second one is incorrect, is when I click the 2nd "edit" link I get the template edit page. A user should not see that page as it will not help him or her and it is protected.

The problem with the first one is when I try to edit this section I see The duration of your ban is {{#ifeq:indefinite| indefinite | indefinite. | indefinite. You may contact an admin to remove your ban after this duration. }}. Should not the ban length have been transcluded into a text?

Teyandee (Talk) 13:22, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Voting does not address any of the issues

This discussion has not been a discussion at all. There are five issues being "discussed" here:

1. Putting a header inside a border
2. Not using the subst: keyword for the {{bannedfromchat}} template.
3. Putting a message inside a border
4. Putting a message over a color background
5. Using a different template to notify a chat user they've been banned.

First issue:

Click on the "edit" link to see that this formatting is broken Click on the "edit" link to see that this formatting is broken.

The formatting is broken and must not be used.

Second issue: Template:Bannedfromchat

Click "edit" to reply to the message above; you will be taken to the template page instead of the talk page, because the subst keyword had not been used. The formatting of the page is broken.

Third issue: Separating a message means that it is not part of regular discussion, but ban messages are part of regular discussion and should not be separated. They are part of regular discussion because they should be replied to. Examples of messages that should not be replied to are awards and badges.

Fourth issue: This ties to the second issue. If your message is part of regular discussion, it should not be stylistically distinct.

Fifth issue: As long as the user is notified of the reason and duration of their ban, the ban is valid.

Summary: You cannot vote for the use of technically wrong formatting on the wiki repeatedly and deliberately because you feel like it, no matter how many people feel like it. That is abuse of power.

• The use of a header inside a border clearly breaks formatting.
• Not using subst: breaks formatting.

You are plainly saying "break the formatting of users' talk pages, I want a border around my message and I don't want to use the subst: keyword." Abuse of power, plain and simple. –Throwawaytv 07:48, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of power by taking the initiative on a sensitive issue? How? The formatting is not wrong, SUBST is not needed and I'm power abusing by not accepting your interpretation of what this wiki should be do?

User:JPanzerj/Signature 17:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly and deliberately breaking the formatting on a talk page is abuse of power. You don't acknowledge that not using subst breaks the formatting, but it plainly does. I can't even imagine how you come to the conclusion that it doesn't, or that users aren't supposed to reply to sections on their own talk pages. –Throwawaytv 13:58, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

The formatting is not broken - it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do - load the editing screen with anything up to the next h2 heading. The template you have used below is unsubst'd and as such does not include the h2 heading markup on the page, and therefore, the section edit link ignores it and loads that and everything else past it.      11:48, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing two things, the header-inside-border and the not-using-subst-breaks-the-page. Here it is, again, exaggerated for your benefit:

Header

Can you see the broken formatting when you click "edit" now? In case you can't, for your viewing pleasure:

http://i.imgur.com/q0pUg.png

See those trailing |}? That's broken formatting, and that's because you put a header inside a table.

Now for not using subst:

Template:Bannedfromchat

Can you see how that's broken now? –Throwawaytv 13:58, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's not.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 17:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. This is notification of a ban.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 17:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

It's not regular discussion. It's notification of a ban. We do not have set policies for guidelines for what is or is classified as a discussion. Besides, this is a notification for a ban. Further discussion of the ban is typically done in a new heading on the banners user talk or another moderator's talk page.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 17:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

"I'm going to put a message on your talk page and you better not reply to it" is abuse of power. "I'm going to break the formatting of your talk page as a matter of policy" (see above; I'm tired of reading "it's not broken") is abuse of power. –Throwawaytv 14:05, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

We are aware of that.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 17:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

How many times are you going to say "the formatting is not broken"? The non-subst formatting is broken because clicking the edit link does not let you edit the section you clicked on. Broken. The header-inside-a-border formatting is broken because the section actually begins before the header, and there is trailing formatting left because what's before the header is not part of the section. Broken.

• Clicking "edit" on the header of a section on a discussion page must lead to editing that section. Otherwise it's broken. The "edit" link does not suggest that a banned user should edit the bannedfromchat template. Not using the subst: keyword then breaks the formatting of the page.
• Starting the formatting of a section before the header (like putting a border) breaks the formatting.

Lastly, don't break up other people's comments. –Throwawaytv 13:51, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to each point individually. Your fault for spreading it out like that. Also, it is not broken. That is how it works!

"I'm going to put a message on your talk page and you better not reply to it" is abuse of power." You do reply to it! How does it being in a template make it non-replyable? You're not understanding this at all. It doesn't break the page formatting either.

User:JPanzerj/Signature 17:26, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Better think twice before you say "it's your fault that I broke your comment." –Throwawaytv 12:47, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Are we seriously going to need arbitration here? I can summarize both of the deal-breaker issues in one sentence each.

1. Placing a header inside a table is broken formatting because the formatting starts before the section and is not properly part of the section.
2. Not using subst: for {{bannedfromchat}} makes it so that clicking the edit link does not lead the user to edit the section, instead it leads the user to edit a template they cannot edit and did not mean to edit when they clicked "edit".

That's why both of these formattings are broken and that's why they cannot be used. Everyone who is not using subst or putting headers inside borders for ban notices, do not do this. You are deliberately breaking the formatting of users' talk pages. –Throwawaytv 12:46, March 27, 2012 (UTC)