Forum:Is this a personal attack or what?

__INDEX__

Why?
Why is my summary-line post-message "…still using wikEd" suddenly being blocked by spam filter? Are we now suddenly not allowed to use wikEd, or is encouraging readers of diffs to use wikEd somekind of vandalism? And why was i not approached to discuss usage of this before the block? AFAIK this is a matter of personal preference to add this to summary lines or not, and leaves a taste of bad censorship in my mouth...

I was crippled in my daily duties because of this. First of all reported it on w:c:vstf:Spam_filter_problems. Then searched everywhere i could so far, to find a solution to undo the block or whitelist it myself to no avail...

Please VSTF members, don't force your personal preferences on others with things that are obviously a matter of personal preference See also your rules: What types of spam exist and how do we deal with it? 16:12, December 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to use Special:Contact. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 9:45 AM PST 3 Dec 2010


 * Thanks i just did on here with a link to this topic. 17:41, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous!!! Now they block " " in their filter instead of " ", what kind of morons edit these filters? omgawd! 03:32, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

What's going on...
Seems like the bad apple is found, he/she even violated my personal-space global.js file! See this diff. Where do i submit a formal complaint about these kind of intrusions? 03:57, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, that was removed from your javascript as it is abusive and will not be permitted in edit summaries. As for the edit summary issue in general, please communicate via Special:Contact. -- 03:59, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the Wikia:Terms_of_use#User Conduct, as i am not Harassing anyone in particular/person. Furthermore in this case i prefer an open debate viewable by the whole Internet instead of a back-alley as it concerns everyone... 04:13, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to a rule where it confirms your personal view of this rule you mention?


 * I would glad to do provide insight, however, you have turned this into some sort of campaign and I don't feel like having a "battle" as that would not be appropriate. I've communicated the issue to staff, in turn, you should do the same. -- 04:15, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I understand your hesitation as it has a big impact on Wikia's PR. But i refuse to walk into the alley in this case... 04:21, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not inviting you into anykind of ""battle", in fact im inviting you in a open debate. yes to some extend to disclose bad management and making the whole community aware of things.


 * I do not represent Wikia. I am not employed by them, nor am I paid. I volunteer my time. And looking at your talk page, I see other members of the community have different reasons. For my reasons, if they are not already apparent, perhaps take a look at why we exist here on Wikia. :) -- 04:24, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to try and make things worse but I see a simple solution to this problem. Charitwo, you claim that Trimoon's use of still using wikEd as an edit summary is abusive. Perhaps if you could just explain why you see this as abusive this issue could go away--God (Pray)  04:32, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. There are several reasons, and I am trying to be civilized. I understand that you are very vocal about this, and that you deserve proper explanation. There are several reasons for this:
 * You referenced the terms of use. I don't see why you would think harassment has to do with this (not counting this). You may want to take a look the bit that says "Post, upload, transmit, share, or store unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, solicitations, "spam", or any other type of unauthorized solicitation;"
 * Community complaints, for an example, see your talk page. Which I also agree.
 * I didn't act on my own, another member of the VSTF agreed it was spammy. In your filter report, you even reinforced this by stating it was indeed promotional.
 * I understand that Wikipedia has their own their own guidelines for edit summaries, to include ones used for programs or scripts. Things such as wikEd, AutoWikiBrowser, and HotCat (among others, these are off the top of my head). The latter two may be different in different circumstances, as those have some sort of automation features to them, and gives the community an idea that those edits aren't manual and are being assisted by a program or a script. Wikia isn't Wikipedia. While local guidelines and policies (in addition to the Terms of Use) are the responsibility of the local community. There is nothing that defines the usage of these summaries are required.


 * Again, this is in no way personal, I am just trying to preserve the integrity of the aforementioned guidelines regarding promotional material and the integrity of page history. I would not, for example, use these myself for those reasons.
 * If I may make a recommendation, you can also state on your global userpage template, that you use wikEd (or others if applicable), but to place at the end of each and every edit summary because you want to promote a third-party tool is a bit in excess and pushes the above limits. -- 04:52, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to clear you personally from this censorship i will ask you "Are you responsible for the filtering mentioned in this topic".
 * If not you should help in taking care of the person that caused this all.
 * Wikia is responsible in the end for the behavior of people doing work for them paid or not.
 * People are free to view my talkpage and will notice that, at time of this writing, there is only 1(one) member who made a remark about my summary line, not multiple like you insinuated.
 * You don't sound like the one responsible for this all at moment, but it is weird that the filter(s) are still in effect and that you were lightning fast to remove my summary text from my personal settings.
 * This rule you mention can as easily be applied to all signature's both in discussions and summary lines, if wikED has an exclusive position in this it should be made clear as such.
 * The complaint you mention is IMHO not a complaint but rather a personal opinion of that poster on my use of it.
 * My report stated anything but promotional, it made clear is was meant as educational and helpful to improve user-experience on wikia.
 * And thats exactly my problem here, where is it stated that what i did was forbidden on whole wikia?
 * If it is not obvious yet: "No I'm not happy at moment with this all."
 * I would rather spend my time on things like my normal duties and other things i normally do, without being blocked by a filter. 05:17, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I created the filter. And the only reason I removed the summary from your global JS was it contained a personal attack (not a "using wikEd" summary). You're most welcome to continue in what you do, just please do not promote a third-party editor in your summaries. -- 05:24, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * That change(diff) was a reaction on the original filters, and it didn't contain a personal attack but rather an opinion on a group, there is a difference...
 * Furthermore, may i draw your attention to the fact that you have broken the Wikia:Terms_of_use#User Conduct rule:
 * "Not intentionally block, remove, or otherwise obstruct the proper functioning and view of advertisements, and/or user interface and functionality by other users, including but not limited to changing or adding javascript or CSS changes to the Service that would prevent the proper display or function of advertisements and/or user interface and functionality."
 * , by changing functionality in my personal javascript? please correct asap after this issue is solved. 05:45, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't. What you did was take words out of a clause and piece them together to suit your personal agenda. That clause in question is in regards to the new skin and modifying wiki CSS or JS to interfere with the user experience (such as blocking ads, removing features of the skin, etc) the new skin was designed to create. And I've said all I needed to on this topic, sorry. -- 05:56, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice try to cover-up, but what i did was a direct unaltered quote as still can be seen on the link i gave, i highlighted parts, syntactically correct, to make clear why you broke it. 06:07, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) - this is getting stuipd. There's no need to promote your favorite tool in an edit summary, and it devalues the summary. You may be turning people away from WikEd (people might see it as the source of the edit summary). The only tool tool I can think about that does this is AutoWikiBrowser - but that's intentionally to be automated, and people normally edit using AWB under a bot flag. Can you give another example of a "signature" in a summary line? Most of them are signed on talkpages, as that is much less disruptive when people are looking at RC/reading histories. -- Random Time  10:56, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say that if the edit summary was annoying to the local admins of this wiki (community central), it should have been addressed first by placing a talk page note to the user about this, requesting him to disable the automated edit summary for this wiki. AFAIK, this wasn't done, but the edit summary was blacklisted wikia wide. This behavior understandably causes people to be pissed off and what caused this forum topic to be posted, so I would recommend next time to talk to the user first, and then take actions if necessary or either you are causing unnecesary conflicts. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 11:04, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said, Ciencia. The authoritarian nature of Wikia's actions in this case are disturbing. I also don't understand Charitwo or RandomTime's perspective at all. Its almost as if we now live in Communist East Germany or China or something. If Wikia feels the need to censor non-insulting, non-offensive, and non-vulgar content in edit summaries, why don't they force people to enter edit summaries? Empty edit summaries are far more of a sin than a harmless repeating one.
 * It took me awhile to understand why "...still using WikiEd" would even be filtered in the first place. I'm am even more perplexed by the arguments favoring it. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 9:42 AM PST 4 Dec 2010
 * I have to say i agree with Ciencia and Fandyllic statements. It does appear to be very heavy handed and over the top. I was only aware the Charito is an admin on here as I was told so by staff in response to some question on here. "Sledge hammer to crack nut" springs to mind (miss)using the blacklist. -  21:00, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

bystander opinion
TriMoon, the ToU argument is flawed: either your VSTF summary is content, then the ToU doesn't cover it because it only applies to the interface and advertisements; or it is an advertisement, in which case it is unsolicited by Wikia and constitutes spam.

I have noticed that Charitwo likes to handle user conflicts indirectly; this is a rare case where he has agreed to discuss an issue in-depth, but his initial action of using a filter blocklist to raise the issue instead of "talking" to you directly is typical of him. That's just the way he is. I would ask you to also see the threatening warning on your talkpage that is explicit about what he's going to do, but rather less explicit on what he wants you to do or not do in this light. Charitwo is extremely diligent in fighting spam and vandalism all across Wikia, and has proven to be an asset to many wikis where he did so.
 * IMHO, at moment its more like letting a vandal help fight vandalism because the ratio of benefit is (was?) bigger... I'm also very passionate when it comes to spam and vandalism as you might have noticed... I personally use fe. (1) Adblock, (2)NoScripts, (3)Privoxy, (4)OpenDNS, and last but not least my human brains :) 21:35, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

That said, preventing users from promoting open content and tools that neither themselves nor its creators don't profit from in any way is not a popular move for Wikia, and if Charitwo's actions are indeed covered by Wikia policy, it is another action in line with encouraging users to disregard the attribution clause in most open content copyright licenses.

TriMoon, you have to realize that Wikia is not about free speech; Wikia is a business, it sets the rules for how the sites it hosts are run, and tasks its administrators, volunteer or paid, to enforce them, and especially here on Community Central admins (not just Charitwo) routinely remove anything unrelated to Wikia concerns, including personal pictures, blogs, and suchlike. Quoting myself from Forum:Is there a Central wiki for the Wikia community to socialize?:
 * According to Template:i, The Wikia Community Central is a wiki designed to coordinate Wikia's many communities, help users find help with their wikis, and learn about all the latest news. This makes it inappropriate to simply socialize, i.e. share personal facts, favorites etc. It kind of contradicts MediaWiki:Welcome-user-page asking people to tell us about themselves, but personal pictures uploaded always get tagged with Template:i as well.)

Despite Sannse remarking on that forum that maybe things should change, that's the way they still are. Promoting your favorite tool via edit summaries is not within the purpose of this wiki. -- ◄mendel► 08:04, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I finally read all this and I still disagree. This is still mildly a free speech kind of issue. Not a government one mind you, but one of the spirit of wiki. Perhaps within the unwritten guidelines or policies of Wikia what Charitwo did is justifiable, but it is a total violation of the wiki spirit. Blacklisting is not something to take lightly. I would definitely take offense, if the reason wasn't clear. I'm am completely sympathetic with TriMoon's reaction.
 * As far as advertising goes: Would Trimoon's edit summaries be allowed if they didn't include a link? What if I started putting "probably used Wikipedia for lazy research" and linked to Wikipedia in every edit summary? Is Wikipedia and exception because it shares founders with Wikia? It seems a very slippery slope to me.
 * Lastly, Charitwo may not be paid by Wikia, but Charitwo has powers that almost no other non-Staff user has and doesn't clearly identify his special status in his signature. That bothers me. I don't subscribe to the belief that a user with special powers has no special responsibilities. Wikia should require helpers to have a special sig, if their going to go around blacklisting things Wikia-wide. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 10:03 AM PST 4 Dec 2010
 * I am still uncomfortable with all these links to Wikipedia, while certain concepts, ideals, and philosophies of wikis are universal, constantly linking to their policies and guidelines in regards to what is socially acceptable here at Wikia is rather contrary to what Wikia is not. This guideline in general is completely relevant to everything in this discussion, mind you.
 * Possibly, it would still seem off key though. His reasons also brought to mind the replies to his report. If he wants to encourage use of this editor script among fellow contributors on wikis he is a part of, having wikEd as a part of the Gadgets extension is a better way to do that...that way anyone who wants to use it can simply enable it in their preferences rather than linking to "another website", even if it is Wikipedia.
 * When the program was made, the idea of having a was brought up and subsequently shot down. The reasons for which, I am guessing, goes along with the guidelines of being "…normal everyday users who are volunteers that help out the wider Wikia community during their spare time; …trusted users who have been given sysop-tools across the whole of Wikia in order to clean up and prevent spam and help out with vandalism; …able to successfully track cross-wiki spammers or vandals, block them and dispose of their garbage." While I agree with your sentiment, I have no personal stance on that. If you think this would be beneficial to the team and the wider Wikia community, perhaps you could bring that up to staff and they might rethink their decision on that. -- 21:33, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a brief reply. Are wikipedia links advertising or not? If they aren't, why aren't they?
 * As for helper/vstf users identifying themselves, I made a forum post to discuss that exact issue. I've brought many issues up with "staff" and it doesn't seem to be very productive without community backing. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:44 PM PST 4 Dec 2010
 * I suppose that is largely a grey area, considering two wikis have compatible licenses. My issue with it was constantly linking to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If say you linked to this page on an article about George Washington, that isn't advertising at all. Promoting a third party editor on Wikipedia, well that's why this forum exists. All-in-all, getting a scope of what the community at large thinks is a good thing.
 * As for Wikia Helpers, they have for signatures (see here). While we more or less have the same privileges, the two main differences is that most helpers are paid contractors and we are purely volunteers...the other being the two have very very different roles. -- 02:40, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem relevant to me linking to his report to sustain your blacklist to the edit summary, since it was blacklisted before requesting an explanation to the user.
 * Also, Project:What Wikia is not says Wikia is to be used for community editing, not just to put up links to another website . And he isn't just putting links to another website, but actually community editing. As I said before, if local guidelines doesn't allow this, tell the user to not use that edit summary here and unblacklist the edit summary, letting him to use this edit summary on other wikis if the community on the other wikis accepts it. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 10:09, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually worse, because at moment i'm not even allowed to use it on the wiki i administer. See: his/her answer to my question in Forum:Non-Wikia_staff_with_Wikia_staff-like_powers. 00:58, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

VDA
Since edit summaries saying that the edit was made with wikEd are not permitted (still, ToU are very vague about that), "VDA" edit summaries should be blacklisted as well, as it's promoting another tool which can even harm wikis if used by vandals to mass-revert. If not, the wikEd sumary blacklisted should be deleted. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 10:46, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify, what's VDA? -- Random Time  10:58, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * w:c:vda. It has a script to do a semi-automated revert, useful for people not having rollback rights, and places in the edit summary the text "(VDA)". --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 11:09, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaah, interesting. I'd contend that this summary was much shorter than the "still using" one - and came up more infrequently (not every edit, but every revert). -- Random Time  11:18, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't see it as a ToU issue, more of as a "not on this wiki issue" because I missed that the block was indeed Wikia-wide. I guess I was wrong. -- ◄mendel► 11:55, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Charitwo keeps vandalizing
This loose chicken is still free to vandalize and abuse powers, even after using Special:Contact about him/her on 2010-12-04.

See: (no signature due to vandalism of personal signature by Charitwo) And pay special attention to the reason for deletion and purpose of the page in question (including its subpage "/pref")

This is becoming "harassment" by said user... And no this is not an attack, but rather stating facts that are happening in the sense of "Journalism" &lArr;&uArr;©TriMoon™  Talk  HandyWikiLinks   @ 21:16, December 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see it, apparently you're not allowed to have personal pages on the VSTF wiki. So he simply followed the rules? It's quite obvious you're trying to look for anything to blame Charitwo here just because you didn't get acknowledged before. -- Light Daxter -  Talk  21:26, December 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * So the VSTF wiki is a private wiki and completely separate, in terms of ToU, of wikia wiki's, who's main motto is "a wiki that anyone can edit"? I thought wikia didn't allow private wiki's? And yes im doing my best to find ways to get rid of Charitwo's privileges, within the rules, because (s)he still has not acknowledged and rectified his/her damage to me, and continues to do so. Not because im "buthurt", like Randomtime calls it below here, but because i want to fight the injustice that is done to me and keeps going on. But maybe its a "lost cause" because like someone said back in history: "A community get's what it deserves" or "A community doesn't deserve its freedom, if it isn't willing to fight for it." and many more like that... &lArr;&uArr;©TriMoon™  Talk  HandyWikiLinks   @ 00:48, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite obvious that TriMoon is in love with Charitwo and just wants his attention --Bleachmasta 21:38, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * : P - in all seriousness though, this is just getting stuipd. Please drop it, you're not being persecuted, and it's not journalism. You're just buthurt that your personal edit summary has been banned, and it's getting annoying. -- <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  21:48, December 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll remember that when your time comes around, and you seek backup from us all. I'll respond to you then like "well it doesn't concern me personally at moment, so drop it. It's getting annoying." &lArr;&uArr;<span style="border: 2px solid black; border-top-left-radius:1ex; border-bottom-left-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius-topleft:1ex; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:1ex;"><span style="padding-left:2px; color:black; background-color:white; border-top-left-radius:1ex; border-bottom-left-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius-topleft:1ex; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:1ex;">©TriMoon™ <span style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px; background-color:black; border-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius:1ex;"> Talk <span style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px; background-color:black; border-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius:1ex;"> HandyWikiLinks   @ 00:48, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Truly, its just annoying. Charitwo has done nothing wrong and you are just turning this into a personal vendetta. I checked out your site and you ban everyone because they do not leave an edit summary, I think you are just not right in the head--Bleachmasta 21:55, December 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you checked our wiki, then you should have noticed i act according to our local policy that is not in violation of wikia ToU. I don't ban everyone randomly, only a very specific group of anonymous editors that does not follow our policy. If you think that makes me "not right in the head", then you're not fit to be an admin. (you are not are you?) &lArr;&uArr;<span style="border: 2px solid black; border-top-left-radius:1ex; border-bottom-left-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius-topleft:1ex; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:1ex;"><span style="padding-left:2px; color:black; background-color:white; border-top-left-radius:1ex; border-bottom-left-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius-topleft:1ex; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:1ex;">©TriMoon™ <span style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px; background-color:black; border-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius:1ex;"> Talk <span style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px; background-color:black; border-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius:1ex;"> HandyWikiLinks   @ 00:48, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't quite say Charitwo has done nothing wrong, but what was done was likely without malice. However, if one is annoyed about reading or following what TriMoon has to say, one has the easy and simple option of just not reading or following the thread. Promoting censorship because you don't have self-control doesn't make any sense either. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 4:23 PM PST 5 Dec 2010


 * Ugh, VSTF wiki is a wiki set up by Wikia in order for VSTF members to more easily combat spam and vandalism, so "anyone can edit" doesn't apply there. I don't appreciate the "your time comes around" comment, but hardly edit on here at all, so eh. Regarding your uncharted - blocking anons permanently (when IPs change) isn't really a good call, without at least giving them a message on their talk page explaining why. "see policy" is not a valid reason, and if you can't be bothered to look through other's edits, and would rather they read a (very small) notice, then I'll go with bleach, you're not right in the head. They probably wouldn't "take away considerable time from normal duties by forcing to check every edit they make" - if you allowed some of them to edit and they became editors there, who would then check other edits, it's self defeating. -- <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  07:04, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets not go further off-topic here pls... But the way i'm blocking is forcing them to register an account. (i don't block the IP from account creation) The reason for that, is so i can address the user in question when he does something wrong. It's hard enough already to setup a wiki with a workable structure from almost scratch in a month. So yes i can't be bothered by anonymous vandals in mean time. At this stage someone who edits, anonymously, without leaving a summary has a super-high chance of doing wrong things, more as the normal users because they don't even follow the smallest instruction given at present... And that notice is present on multiple spots: Below the editbox is the most obvious one to catch their attention... I've had major spots on the wiki vandalized already by anonymous users, the mainpage was one of them... So yea im crazy uhhu &lArr;&uArr;<span style="border: 2px solid black; border-top-left-radius:1ex; border-bottom-left-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius-topleft:1ex; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:1ex;"><span style="padding-left:2px; color:black; background-color:white; border-top-left-radius:1ex; border-bottom-left-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius-topleft:1ex; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:1ex;">©TriMoon™ <span style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px; background-color:black; border-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius:1ex;"> Talk <span style="padding-left:5px; padding-right:5px; background-color:black; border-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius:1ex;"> HandyWikiLinks   @ 08:21, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

You can do what you want, really - I don't think it's a good idea at all, feel free to disagree. The only way new users learn is by doing, I'd perfer I had 3 new editors who I could teach how to help, than none at all. This isn't really helping the current discussion, so I'm going to drop it. -- <font color="Orange">Random <font color="Black">Time  18:19, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree on this one, TriMoon, don't ban someone unless they are doing something wrong. If you ban an anonymous user for no reason, they are not going to register an account. They will get pissed at you and not come back. Undoing vandalism takes no time at all. I do a ton of work on several different wikis and the first thing I do when I log on is check out the recent edits for vandalism. If its vandalism or wrong in any way, I undo it. Going about my normal editing the only time I leave an edit summary is when I need to make it clear what I have done. If someone does not leave an edit summary its not because they are vandalizing, it is because they just did not leave one. Furthermore, Charitwo is right in this situation. You were advertising and its in wikia's policies that you cannot advertise--<font color="#660066" face="Verdana">God <font color="#660066" face="Verdana">(Pray)  18:32, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why is this forbidden?
Just curious what your problem is with this addition, why are you so eager to prevent caching by search engines? 01:38, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is strange, alright. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 7:17 PM PST 5 Dec 2010
 * Forum pages are already indexed, therefore the indexing tag is redundant. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:42, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

If on the otherhand redundancy is a criteria for removing things, then maybe 80% of most submissions on the entire wiki-farm would apply for deletion. (think about it) 01:31, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason i put it there, is to make sure it stays indexed and thus cached by search-engines, even when indexing is disabled by some error-edit elsewhere.


 * Even if the index code was redundant, it wouldn't be worth removing, unless someone did it as a message. There was definitely intention behind that change beyond wiki efficiency. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 10:14 PM PST 7 Dec 2010

Clarifying roles
I just want to clarify after some of the comments above. The VSTF are similar to admins, users who have extra rights from the norm. They are not Wikia staff, and have those extra rights only to remove spam and obvious vandalism from around the site. As VSTF, they do not have a role in social issues, they are asked to leave those to admins on indivudual wikis, or pass to staff as necessary.

In this case, the summary seemed spammy, so was blocked. The user complained via Special:Contact and staff reviewed the decision and removed the block.

Charitwo is also a Central admin, as a separate role. This edit is one I think any admin would have made in a similar situation on any wiki. However, I've asked Charitwo to leave anything relating to this forum alone, and to pass it to another admin here (or to staff). TriMoon, perhaps you can also move on from this dispute, it really seems unnecessary. Thanks -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 18:58, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how Charitwo isn't even slightly adjusted in powers, nor has publicly apologized for anything, nor has undone "its" damage to my settings, and even plans on doing it again, and has placed an open threat to block my account(see summary text). I don't see any reason to stay a potential victim, nor why my community should be. Furthermore this edit is pure censorship as it is purely my personal opinion on this matter. (note that the main subject of that line are the noobs of that group) It would be same if i had put "...still pissing on terrorists" (no pun intended) Sure anyone who feels to be personally part of a terroristic organization, would be offended by that line, but it would still not be forbidden by those who know the true meaning of Freedom of speech That said, i honestly feel sorry for this community... 23:01, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh im moving on alright...


 * Sannse, thanks for the clarification. Can you make sure some of this info gets placed somewhere more permanent? Maybe on the w:c:vstf:Report:Spam/w:c:vstf:Report:Vandalism pages and maybe a new Community Central:Vandalism Spam Task Force (VSTF) page? -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:00 PM PST 6 Dec 2010
 * We were talking yesterday about better clarifying this, and we'll talk again (need to make sure it's as clear as possible). We're looking to get that done soon. - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) 16:31, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's "Volunteer" not "Vandalism". 16:34, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I though it meant Vandalism, because not all the team members appear to be volunteers. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 10:01 AM PST 7 Dec 2010
 * A local project page? What does Help:SOAP not cover that needs to be covered separately in a separate page? -- 21:11, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the distinction between helpers and VSTF is not quite as clear as I'd like it to be. Some helpers are not volunteers, but some helpers are also considered VSTF. Maybe it's that the VSTF who are also helpers are always volunteer helpers.
 * I guess what I'd like to see on Help:SOAP is a clarification on VSTF members' other roles. Like, I didn't know Charitwo was a Community Central admin, but I guess it's because it happened earlier this year and it doesn't say anything on your Community user page. A user can only be expected to look so many places for info. I don't want to make this all about you Charitwo, but your action kind of precipitated this whole discussion and could have arguably not happened if you had assumed a little more good faith by contacting TriMoon either before or soon after you did what you did.
 * This whole situation would probably be better served by a one-on-one between TriMoon and Charitwo with apologies on both sides. I am not without sin in these kind of matters so, I will stop here. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 3:31 PM PST 7 Dec 2010

Regardless
Regardless of how it all began, by adding the line "still pissing on the vstf noobs!", you preemptively pulled a mental trigger in other brains, allowing us to not care. Why would you want to "piss" on a group of volunteers who just want to stop vandalism? Maybe in the future users should realize that even if they're "in the right" they can easily destroy their own credibility. 02:46, December 7, 2010 (UTC) Ah well might as well put it here again: I don't "piss" on the group as a whole, just the noobs in that group. Which in this case seems to have triggered the main individual, Charitwo, of that group. FYI: I don't know who the leader is etc, it don't matter anyway as it wasn't meant for the group as a whole entity... I'm not responsible for reading deficiencies of readers... 23:15, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comparison on used line just above this section...
 * But you are responsible for how you are perceived, and your actions will always result in perceptions. Your above answer actually makes you look worse, from a professional standpoint. 23:38, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sure all actions result in perceptions by others, but none can be held responsible for the way others interpret things they read, when they have done the best they can to put it as correct as can be. So tbh, i don't "get it" why my answer you mention would make me look worse... Unless you imply that it's my responsibility to write things in a way that even people who have no knowledge of languages at all can understand things. In that case, yes i admit: "I'm not on Internet to give reading classes, to improve comprehension." :p 01:11, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, It's my responsibility to correct how I'm perceived when needed, thats why i felt a need to respond to your comment.


 * Honestly? I'd say that counts as harassment, which is a terms of use violation whoever it's aimed at. This isn't first grade - take your ire elsewhere. As for WikiEd, it's a neat tool, but I get annoyed seeing messages that waste people's time (and database space) as well. It should be a gadget, and perhaps taking steps towards making it one while removing the advertisement would be a reasonable solution. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:01, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * tbh your comment didn't even qualify for a response, but it interfered with my reply-edit above, so here ya go. 01:11, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * GreenReaper, go back on vacation. Why don't you find a forum post where you can help someone. Your comments add nothing but an obvious attempt to stir the pot. You're wasting people's time too. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 10:18 PM PST 7 Dec 2010