Template talk:Violation
Edit
Punishment should depend on the severity of the action, like you wouldn't block a guy just for abusing the talk pages. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit it as you feel it should be. If it is agreed on, it will stay, if not, there will continuing edits.
UP/T/O 03:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we remove the part saying they'll get a second warning; if they continue to violate the same policy after one warning, the assumtion is that they have read it and ignored it, and I trust the sysops will use personal discretion on whether or not the offense is bannable. --Shadowcrest 03:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
My first idea on this subject was to create warnings based on certain types of violations, but I realized that that would require lots of templates. This template idea necessary, as the only warning template we have (mainspace vandalism) wouldn't be appropriate if a user continuously PA's other users. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)- Yeah forget what I said, SC hit the nail on the head, but we need to figure out which actions qualify for blocks, and how long those blocks are. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would advise against setting in stone "violations of policy X are bannable, violations of policy Y are depending on circumstances, violations of policy Z..." as a way to determine whether or not a user's actions are unacceptable. Sysop discretion is very important; since policy cannot possibly cover every eventuality, binding administrative action to a policy is not a wise move. In general, sysops are promoted under the premises that they can reason and will not misuse their powers; assuming that premise is true, sysops will typically not make spectacularly poor decisions regarding bans etc., so there is no reason to constrain their usage of sysop tools. --Shadowcrest 03:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be '"laws," if you will, but rather guidelines. This mostly falls under common sense (massive vandalism = ban), but these guidelines would dispel some thoughts of "OMG teh admins are mean and they haet me!" Then again, the regular whiners would do that anyway. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you sort-of answered why we don't need such a guideline. Sysops are promoted because they're intelligent and can think (or if not, because there aren't enough sysops to manage vandalism and even then the sysops are still trusted not to abuse powers); if such a guideline is written, I predict it will be mostly ignored by the sysops, because they don't need a page to tell them how to do what they've already been doing. If people think that the admins are being mean specifically to them, then, well... they're doin it rong, and nothing such a page can say will change that. --Shadowcrest 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that the recent issue with Kperfekt and his perma-ban is a perfect example of this. CH saw his error and corrected it. If we truly believe in our administration, no guidelines would be necessary. The complainers will complain, the helpful will help. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 06:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you sort-of answered why we don't need such a guideline. Sysops are promoted because they're intelligent and can think (or if not, because there aren't enough sysops to manage vandalism and even then the sysops are still trusted not to abuse powers); if such a guideline is written, I predict it will be mostly ignored by the sysops, because they don't need a page to tell them how to do what they've already been doing. If people think that the admins are being mean specifically to them, then, well... they're doin it rong, and nothing such a page can say will change that. --Shadowcrest 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be '"laws," if you will, but rather guidelines. This mostly falls under common sense (massive vandalism = ban), but these guidelines would dispel some thoughts of "OMG teh admins are mean and they haet me!" Then again, the regular whiners would do that anyway. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would advise against setting in stone "violations of policy X are bannable, violations of policy Y are depending on circumstances, violations of policy Z..." as a way to determine whether or not a user's actions are unacceptable. Sysop discretion is very important; since policy cannot possibly cover every eventuality, binding administrative action to a policy is not a wise move. In general, sysops are promoted under the premises that they can reason and will not misuse their powers; assuming that premise is true, sysops will typically not make spectacularly poor decisions regarding bans etc., so there is no reason to constrain their usage of sysop tools. --Shadowcrest 03:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we remove the part saying they'll get a second warning; if they continue to violate the same policy after one warning, the assumtion is that they have read it and ignored it, and I trust the sysops will use personal discretion on whether or not the offense is bannable. --Shadowcrest 03:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Visuals
Meh, it's not really doing it for me as it is. Better layout would do nicely. Also, the warning template has a feature where the "warner" can post an additional note. I can't tell if it's on here or not. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 07:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- It does.Smoreking 2009 is coming! 00:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Move to Violation
Shadowcrest suggested that this be moved to Template:Violation. Apparently nouns are better. Objections?Smoreking 2009 is coming! 17:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. It sounds more professional :^). Friedbeef1 Ho ho ho! 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Time allotted
How long would such a template last on one person's page? Many would not like a template that says "violation" on their talk page, so how would this work? Friedbeef1 Ho ho ho! 01:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say forever. I got a warning template and I kept it. Or until they fix their attitude, then they can ask an admin to remove it.Smoreking 2009 is coming! 01:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Block vs. Ban
I believe that the official wiki term is block, not ban. Should I change it? --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
