Editing SmashWiki talk:Bad faith
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
You aren't logged in. While it's not a requirement to create an account, doing so makes it a lot easier to keep track of your edits and a lot harder to confuse you with someone else. If you edit without being logged in, your IP address will be recorded in the page's edit history. | |
 Log in
|
Create account
| |
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
#*''"If it is unclear whether or not malicious intent is involved, the first course of action should always be to clearly and politely issue a warning to the user in question on their talk page. If the behaviour in question continues, a more stern warning should be given, and finally should the behaviour show no sign of stopping, an administrator may issue a block for the user, although this can be done at an earlier stage if deemed appropriate."'' I think this section is problematic. In the last few weeks since I've returned, I've seen several users issue highly questionable warnings, either inappropriate in tone, in defiance of the spirit of policy, or regarding edits that were not problematic to begin with. I think the language used here is wrong-- the first action shouldn't be to ''warn'' someone if the edit is genuinely ambiguous; it should be to start a discussion, and warnings in unclear cases are probably better generally left to admins. This is close to conflicting with [[SW:BTALK]]'s guidelines about users not threatening others with bans when they aren't empowered to make those decisions, and I think that logic to an extent applies here. I would be wary of encouraging that type of behaviour further, and I think this section does that. – [[User:Emmett|<span style="color:#000000">Emmett</span>]] 18:13, 13 November 2018 (EST) | #*''"If it is unclear whether or not malicious intent is involved, the first course of action should always be to clearly and politely issue a warning to the user in question on their talk page. If the behaviour in question continues, a more stern warning should be given, and finally should the behaviour show no sign of stopping, an administrator may issue a block for the user, although this can be done at an earlier stage if deemed appropriate."'' I think this section is problematic. In the last few weeks since I've returned, I've seen several users issue highly questionable warnings, either inappropriate in tone, in defiance of the spirit of policy, or regarding edits that were not problematic to begin with. I think the language used here is wrong-- the first action shouldn't be to ''warn'' someone if the edit is genuinely ambiguous; it should be to start a discussion, and warnings in unclear cases are probably better generally left to admins. This is close to conflicting with [[SW:BTALK]]'s guidelines about users not threatening others with bans when they aren't empowered to make those decisions, and I think that logic to an extent applies here. I would be wary of encouraging that type of behaviour further, and I think this section does that. – [[User:Emmett|<span style="color:#000000">Emmett</span>]] 18:13, 13 November 2018 (EST) | ||
#After sleeping on it, I've decided to change my stance here. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|'''Furry Nation''']]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 18:23, 2 December 2018 (EST) | #After sleeping on it, I've decided to change my stance here. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|'''Furry Nation''']]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 18:23, 2 December 2018 (EST) | ||
==Oppose== | ==Oppose== | ||
| Line 21: | Line 19: | ||
#<s>I'm well and truly on the fence about this. While I recognise the need for more transparent policy covering the actions of bad faith users, this also seems a little contradictory to AGF. I'm probably not going to make that my final word though, so check back later to see if I change my mind. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|'''Furry Nation''']]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 17:48, 29 October 2018 (EDT)</s> | #<s>I'm well and truly on the fence about this. While I recognise the need for more transparent policy covering the actions of bad faith users, this also seems a little contradictory to AGF. I'm probably not going to make that my final word though, so check back later to see if I change my mind. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|'''Furry Nation''']]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 17:48, 29 October 2018 (EDT)</s> | ||
#:Regarding AGF, that policy applies only when it is conceivable that the editor did not realize they were violating policy. If it has been made clear to them that what they are doing is wrong, and they knowingly ignore said warnings, then their activity is no longer considered good faith. This is essentially already in practice, it just isn't specifically stated in any policy, which is the purpose of this one. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 17:51, 29 October 2018 (EDT); | #:Regarding AGF, that policy applies only when it is conceivable that the editor did not realize they were violating policy. If it has been made clear to them that what they are doing is wrong, and they knowingly ignore said warnings, then their activity is no longer considered good faith. This is essentially already in practice, it just isn't specifically stated in any policy, which is the purpose of this one. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 17:51, 29 October 2018 (EDT); | ||
#::this should be in part of the AGF policy, not it's own thing. maybe have this in AGF, with the headings downgraded by 1 level. [[File:MarthHeadRedSSBMythfhgghf.png]] [[User:Thomasgamer4000|Thomasgamer4000]] 18:57, 1 February 2019 (EST) | #::this should be in part of the AGF policy, not it's own thing. maybe have this in AGF, with the headings downgraded by 1 level. [[File:MarthHeadRedSSBMythfhgghf.png]] [[User:Thomasgamer4000|Thomasgamer4000]] 18:57, 1 February 2019 (EST) | ||
| Line 31: | Line 30: | ||
I'm bumping this proposal. Frankly it's ridiculous how long this has been up for... ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 15:05, 1 February 2019 (EST) | I'm bumping this proposal. Frankly it's ridiculous how long this has been up for... ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 15:05, 1 February 2019 (EST) | ||
