| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Forumheader|The Realm of Sleep|The World that Never was}} | | {{Forumheader|The World that Never was}} |
|
| |
|
| <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ --> | | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ --> |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
|
| |
|
| If there are any objections to this, please state them in this forum thread.}} | | If there are any objections to this, please state them in this forum thread.}} |
| {{Xion4ever|time=20:26, January 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=I don't really have an objection, more like a question. What about regular users? I'm not talking about those who socialize, could be immature, etc. But regular users like myself, ENX, Xiggie, NinjaShiek, SSC, Yer mom, etc. I know I've warned a few users in the past that were later banned, with no objections from the staff members.
| |
|
| |
| Also, what about cases in which a staff member isn't on but a vandal/user needs a warning? I don't think staff members would like thier talkpages cluttered with a list users/anons that need a warning template. To continue, sometimes calmly telling a vandal to stop is not the case, however the message usually "hits home" when they see a warning template on their talk page. My point for this is, why calmly ask a vandal three+ times when a warning template would fit after the second verbal warning?}}
| |
| {{Demonic Kunai|Time=21:38, January 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=Yes, I agree with Xion}}
| |
| {{DTN|time=06:00, January 13, 2010 (UTC)|text=Those warnings that you gave, however, were given before this policy currently being discussed was put into action. Also, a vandal doesn't need to have three warning templates stamped on their talk page to be banned; if it is plainly obvious that they have three or more accounts of vandalism to the wiki, then they are subject to a temporary or permanent ban from the wiki. We have a large and active staff, and if you can't find a staffer around, I can almost guarentee you that there will be an administrator on either this wiki's IRC Channel, or the Final Fantasy Wiki's IRC Channel. In fact, that's how most editors have been notifying administrators of vandals, hence the increase in vandals banned by Hexedmagica. If we could get even more administrators on these channels more often for vandal notification, then that would be even better.
| |
|
| |
| If a decision has to be made conerning regular users being able to deliver official warnings, I would deny them the ability to do so. Xion4ever suggests only having some of the non-staffers able to deliver the warnings. The issue would be that a qualification would have to be made for an editor to meet to use the warning templates. And that qualification would have to be ''constantly'' changing. For example, if it was edit count that was being judged, the number of required edits would have to be increased depending on the wiki's growth, and edit count can be high for an editor from the blogs and user talk pages. Similarly to the recent age policy stint, it would be all or none for regular users, and I think that it would be better to just have none if you won't be using the templates at all versus all editors being able to use them as official warnings.
| |
|
| |
| Or, here's an idea: we could allow the use of the warnings templates to all editors, but only the warnings from staff members count toward a temporary or permanent ban. However, the issue with this is an inappropriate use of the warning templates, as I have seen in the past. Although there are some acceptable reasons for warning templates that seem ridiculous (such as [[KHWiki talk:Sandbox|vandalizing the Sandbox]]), new users and even experiences non-staffers give some crazy warnings sometimes that just show that they shouldn't be able to have the power to contribute to the expulsion of a vandal, when in fact they are using warning templates in cases that are not vandalism.}}
| |
| {{Xion4ever|time=02:48, January 14, 2010 (UTC)|text=Allow me to clear my original post. I mean for all staff members and regular, non-staff users to deliver the warnings.
| |
|
| |
| I like the last idea better, but it does have its loopholes which could cause alot of unnecessary drama (if abused). I'm not really much on the whole "staff only" rules, but it seems to be the best choice. On that same note (for any that object to the staff only rule): there is another wiki that only allows staff members to warn vandals [http://mario.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Warning the Mario Wiki], which seems to work fine.
| |
|
| |
| But I digress, the final verdict is that only staff members can post warnings?}}
| |
| {{NinjaSheik|text=So far of what I've seen, I can agree with all of you. The admin and mods are the only one who don't act out of the vandals, provoking them and such. However, I've notice that not all are here on the wiki until late, which make these a little diffcult to the wiki when a vandal goes crazy, vandalizing the pages at a fast pace. What do do about that...I just don't know.}}
| |
|
| |
| ==Reopening==
| |
| {{Yuanchosaan|time=05:14, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| |text=Once again, I would like to object to this policy, for several reasons:
| |
|
| |
| Firstly, I believe the measure is counter-productive. On a busy wiki, it is never possible to have staff members present at all times. Normal users form an important part of the RC patrol who watch for vandalism. Why purposely reduce your vandal watch force by limiting their abilities? Reverting vandalism and warning the user is constructive in regard to the wiki, and shouldn't be limited. I also question the wisdom of this policy of always running to the staff members for help: shouldn't we try to become self-sufficient (and more effective) in dealing with vandals?
| |
|
| |
| Secondly, remember that a warning is simply that: a warning. It doesn't necessarily lead to a ban. Sometimes a user will be banned without warnings. There is no "count" for the warnings, and thus no need to restrict the use or "meaning" to the template.
| |
|
| |
| Thirdly, I would like to remind everyone that administrators - and by extension, all staff members - are simply normal users with the tools of ban and delete. Their opinions should not have any more weight in debates of policy or the mainspace, nor, in this case, in giving vandals warnings. They are trusted users, yes, but this trust should be because of their actions, not their position. An administrator may have the power to ban a user, but any user with a knowledge of the rules of the wiki should be able to warn a vandal.
| |
|
| |
| Indeed, what would be the difference between me warning a vandal for three acts of purposeful page blanking, as compared to an administrator? The fact remains that that user vandalised, and thus should be banned. If we both left similar messages, the warning should have the exact same effect.
| |
|
| |
| The maintenance templates as a whole exist to provide a consistent, unified set of templates which all users could use to flag issues. Having a mix of official templates and prose warnings for the same purpose (here I differentiate between a friendly heads up and a warning for vandalism) makes little sense in this context.
| |
|
| |
| Finally, I repeat my message from previous forums, which I feel should be stressed more here: '''''assume good faith'''''. On the many wikis I've been to before, the userbase was trusted as a whole to use the warnings with discretion. If the problem is unprofessional warnings and multiple warnings for the same infringement, the solution should not be to revoke everyone's powers, but, instead, to educate people on how to use the wiki properly.
| |
| ----
| |
| Are some of the mistakes users make caused by a misinterpretation of what the warning template is? It's a warning, it's for obvious vandalism or repeated incivility/disruptive behaviour, it shouldn't be given for acts that might be in good faith.}}
| |
| {{JFHavoc|time=05:30, January 30, 2010 (UTC)|text=I agree! Limiting the number of users capable of using the template to such a small number can only be bad.}}
| |
| {{Malevolence Crystalised|happy=Yuan has a Point. I Agree!}}
| |
| {{LevL|time=09:37, January 30, 2010 (UTC)|text=Yuan is right. Staff members shouldn't be the only users that are allowed to use the warning template.}}
| |
|
| |
| {{Demonic Kunai|time=17:43, January 30, 2010 (UTC)|text=yep}}
| |
|
| |
| {{KKD|time=18:04, January 30, 2010 (UTC)|sora=Yuan always has a point. totally right.}}
| |
| {{TNE|time=03:47, January 31, 2010 (UTC)|happytext=''Je suis d'accord !'' ^_^
| |
|
| |
| But I'd like to add one more point : it is advised to use the warning templates after you've taken reasonable steps to tell the user about his or her bad acts on the wiki. Like, say, one talk bubble message, two, followed by a warning. Don't slap it immediately. And also do take the initiative to undo edits - we'll be working with you on this one.}}
| |
| {{Azul|time=04:19, January 31, 2010 (UTC)|text=I really should participate in wiki-discussions more ofter >> Yes, Yuan and TNE are right. This limit to only staff member should be removed. Assume good faith, an immediate slap of a warning template for something that wasn't really vandalism is the wrong way to go, ya dig?}}
| |
| {{Dan da Man36|time=12:21, January 31, 2010 (UTC)|happy2=I agree completely, anyone should be allowed to use them, but only after posting a few messages on their talk page first.}}
| |
| {{NinjaSheik|text=I agree. To be honest, we shouldn't have to go easy on users like [[User:RAWR LUXORD RAWR]]. I saw what he did on Marluxia's page. This is a wiki, not a place where you can fool around with you please. Really, why makes people think they can do stuff like that. It's common sense, and they did on purpose, knowing they shouldn't be doing in the first place.}}
| |
| {{TNE|time=01:09, February 1, 2010 (UTC)|text=I have a feeling that I'll have to remodel the category pages for Administrative and Maintenance Templates... ^_^}}
| |
| {{KKD|time=01:58, February 1, 2010 (UTC)|sora=NinjaSheik has a good point as well. If the user is obviously messing pages up purposely, then they should be approached differently than a user who may have had good intentions, but messed up the article. But the thing is, where do we draw the line between good intentions and intentional messing up of the page? I say it should be at profanities. If the user (or anon) is implementing so-called "bad words" in his edit, a warning should be placed sooner than if a new editor simply wrote a section devoid of anything but spoilers. Also, the seniority of the User/Anon should be monitored. if the editor is fairly new, go easy on them! but if they have been around long enough to have a grasp of the rules, then they should be treated accordingly.}}
| |
| {{NinjaSheik|text=Thanks for agreeing with me.}}
| |
| {{Yuanchosaan|time=04:25, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| |text=Interested parties may like to read the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Assuming Good Faith] which is related to the issue KKD brought up. In a nutshell, one should always assume the best intentions if it isn't obvious that the intention is negative.}}
| |
| {{LapisScarab|time=22:22, April 9, 2010 (UTC)|text=I'd really like for the users who supported the decision to limit it to staff members (specifically the staff members that supported it) to read this again and really reopen the discussion. I'd also like to bring to attention [http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:216.248.238.2 this editor], who seems to have several other accounts, both registered and unregistered, and is clearly not going to stop his vandalism. With a vandal like this, limiting the users that can give warnings to just the staff will, like Yuan said, be counter-productive. So, discussion?}}
| |
| {{Xion4ever|time=12:49, April 10, 2010 (UTC)|text=The past discussion allows all users to use warnings. However, a gentle warning should be given then followed by a warning template (if need be). Could a staff member remove the "it is preferred that only staff members use warning templates" part from all three warning template?
| |
|
| |
| *[[Template:Warning|Warning 1]]
| |
| *[[Template:Warning2|Warning 2]]
| |
| *[[Template:Warning3|Warning 3]]}}
| |
| {{TNE|time=13:09, April 10, 2010 (UTC)|text=I'm on it.}}
| |
