Forum:Enforcing some policies
Enforcing some policies
After seeing Cruser's talk page and Christine's subpage (lots of evidence of Cruser violating RS:GTS), I just found out that RS:GTS exists. I read through it and found it to be a rather good policy, I don't see why this shouldn't be enforced as a policy (it's a guideline atm). If you went to see Cruser's talk page, you would have noticed that Azaz blocked him for 2 weeks for violating RS:GTS a lot (he edited "Cheats and scams" more than 50 times and another page for not so many times). GTS is not a policy yet, and thus I would like to get community consensus to enforce it.
Also, after looking through some proposed policies, I would also like to bring up RS:DSA. I'm sure that many editors are already familiar with this proposed policy, in spite of the fact that it has not been enforced yet. It's even mentioned on the RuneScape:Style guide which many new users refer to. Basically, I find that this policy makes sense and there is no reason not to enforce it, thus I would like to get community consensus to enforce this too. Thanks. C.ChiamTalk 10:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it should be enforced as a policy. There is no reason anyone would do anything like what Cruser234 did unless they were up to no good. But so few people have done it or we haven't caught the people doing it it hasn't been an issue up until now. Now, I do believe it should be put into play as a policy that if broken, can lead to blocking. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to say Support or what not, but I do support Celabchiam's proposal. Jedi Talk 11:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
We have always enforced DSA so there is no reason not to implement that immediately. As for GTS, I agree that fits the style and needs of this wiki (hell, any wiki) and we should make that official also. --Degenret01 11:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, before we go all "let's start enforcing all these policies rigidly and block anyone who violates them in the slighest", we must remember to consider cases where a given person, while maybe violating a bit of policy, that they are actually trying to help. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we must assume good faith. Butterman62 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Support on both counts, I remember this is not the first time we've enforced GTS and I unfortunately doubt it will be the last. In summation, this policy is meant to catch those editors who are not directly violating policy, but are manipulating the hell out of the system (in this case RfA). The first time I saw this used as a block rationale would probably be when Earthere was repeatedly trying to down grade all editors are equal without community discussion and trying to manipulate RfA's rules repeatedly-(bottom of the page).
- As for DSA, we've always enforced that as policy any. Also, Butterman please note the user hasn't even attempted to deny any of this.-- 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, I would like to bring up RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls which is also a guideline atm, but should be enforced. Vandals may be vandals but they're still human, it is related to RS:UTP. Also, I wonder if this could be placed on sitenotice or something? It's not much of a consensus if only 5/6 people support. We need more people to discuss this. C.ChiamTalk 13:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - I support the immediate induction to policy for these two mentioned guidelines.
15:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - Doesn't seem anything controversial to me Armcie 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - What Cruser did was definitely not done in good faith, but I do agree that if another user starts something similar to it, we will have to watch him closely.12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support both items on the table. Aside from new users who are still getting used to the Wiki, or mistaking an article from a talk page (which could easily happen with the saltiest of Editors), there is no excuse for it. And GTS can rarely be mistaken for good faith, especially in the forms that Cruser took. I'm a little iffy for going crazy over a couple of the other forms of GTS on the essay, such as using one policy to loophole another; some people may do that in misinterperation, and I don't think we need to maul people for mistakes. But other than that, I think it's good to go. --14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support making RS:TROLL policy as well - I do know editors who have lashed out at trolls and vandals before. Now, I don't know how many of the trolls and vandals have returned, but I can see why they might after be mocked at; it's not uncommon for people for people wanting to resume a scrap, even online; heck, even I have jumped back into the fray in a heated discussion, both here and on other sites after having a few licks taken at me. Perhaps if people feel that they CAN'T do this, we might be able to rein in some of the problems that we have had with tempers, vendettas, and all-around flaming in general. -- 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - For RS:DSA, RS:UTP, and RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls hands down, no questions asked. I also support RS:GTS with the caveat that this rule should be applied at the same time as assuming good faith. What I mean is, you can't enforce this just based on suspicions. Good judgement needs to be used and only deliberate (not unintended) GTS should be punished. Of course unintended GTS should be addressed by working with the user. I would hope that most users (good faith) would work with you to resolve the issue. 03:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I also think we should implement the Scope proposal, as it is also already being implemented.
13:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment/undecided RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls - I love the idea but have no idea how to practically enforce it. Does this mean editing out any references to "famous trolls of the past", and other stuff? What stuff? Mamabear47 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - I know I'm a complete minority on this, but I just don't understand Do we define it at a certain number of edits (e.g. 50, so 49 would be ok? Or 10, so 5 would be alright?), or do we just take an easier route and say "several edits" or "many edits"? I think it works best as a guideline that when broken to extremes blocks should be issued. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 03:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- We won't be defining it by a number. We will be dealing with it on a case-by-case basis. We will see what the edits have contributed/removed. Like a "," changed to a "." and adding "[[ ]]" would be very minor changes and if are done consecutively several times, it would be counted as violating the policy (we will check the "offender" beforehand to see if he/she has any explanations for his/her actions though). Hope that answers your question. C.ChiamTalk 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I think we can tell most of the time if someone is acting in good faith or not, and that I think shall most of the time determine the verdict. Violating RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls and RS:GTS can't be done in good faith, while I imagine that a new player could in their first days start signing articler and violate RS:DSA (in which case, a warning would suffice). 08:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - Actually, in the past I have tried enforcing RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls as a real wiki policy, only to find out by the admins that it's just an essay... I can't see why this should not be implemented as policy, if it leads to fewer trolls returning from bans to vandalize again. RS:DSA is already enforced and should continue to be so, naturally. RS:GTS is sound and should I think be enforced as well. 08:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)