Forum:Idea : Runescape High Court

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Idea : Runescape High Court
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 25 November 2008 by C Teng.

i was thinking, maybe we can use a court system with juries judges and so on to discuss bans and related things. then we can legally discuss and decide the fates of users. if users have their talks neglected and/or have it linked to their userpage. then we can use this court system to help. and advoid flaming by legally deciding the fates.

i know this belongs to wikiguild, but it hasn't been visited by users. Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 14:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The wiki is not a Democracy. There is no legality. We do not need to hold trials or have the community involved in bans. There is already a policy in place if you feel you were wrongfully banned. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the user he created the high court about: Users who attempt to evade their ban are blocked from editing the wiki. The user, Blankothe3rd has evaded blocks, and is harassing users intentionally. This is what I was refering to in a sense that the community does not need to be involved. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I decided I am going to stay out of the Blanko issue. If somebody has such a petty and pathetic life that they have to jump around on proxies to harass people online, they don't deserve my attention. I still however, oppose the idea of a court. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to add that our policy states that "A user must be banned with community consensus or Wikia staff approval."   az talk   14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming that this page would be located in the RuneScape: namespace, which banned users cannot edit. If we are going to hold trials, we will have to unblock some notorious vandals, which I don't agree to. I don't think many vandals on our Wiki would actually appeal their blocks, most of them are come-and-go, and our sysops will always have legitimate cause to issue a block. Most of these discussions are held on user talk pages anyway, and having a court for such a small(ish) Wiki is superfluous, considering we already have the CVU and Request for comment. Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 15:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been involved with setting up an arbitration forum on other wiki projects, and all I can say here is good luck on the attempt. Seriously. By the time something significant comes up with a user that is generally a pretty good contributor but ruffles the feathers of several major long-time users every once in awhile, you have animosities and hard feelings one way or another that can deadlock the whole process and will more than likely consume nearly all of the attention of the major "players" on the wiki. A very large wiki like Wikipedia has enough users that fit this sort of description that a formal arbitration board has been established, but for good or ill even that one was imposed from above by Jimbo Wales and wasn't really a user-created board... at least initially.
I have a bunch of arrows in my back from trying to get this sort of arbitration to happen in a situation where it was really needed, and frankly it burned me out as I ended up having to fight well over half of the other administrators on the wiki as a result. The other half that backed me up for awhile made the process go forward until some of the younger set that tend to have no patience ended up hijacking the process and essentially kicked me off the wiki for just trying to be an impartial observer. I still am less than impressed with what finally happened, although I should note that the user who was creating problems is still a contributor on that wiki and seems to have made peace with the admins who were ready to lynch the poor guy.
I still think the arbitration process I tried to initiate there was something ultimately useful, as it gave opportunities for the members of the wiki to offer a point/counter-point discussion of the real issues at hand and allowed the overall community and even those from outside of the community to help come to a consensus about both what happened and what the potential remedies ought to be.
We are not talking here about how to deal with blatant vandals, but those who may be slightly disruptive and fall into the grey area between good editors and those who aggressively engage in edit wars. Unfortunately there are some people who like to push rules, any rules or guidelines, right to the edge and see just what a community can tolerate. At best what we can do is try to convince these folks to back off from the edge and be a little more reasonable in what they are doing. If not, it is necessary for the community to act and try to protect the project itself from further damage.
BTW, setting up something like this for a specific user is where you are going to really get yourself into trouble. Avoid doing that if possible. --Robert Horning 07:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
this thread is already deleted, robert, what's the point of fishing it out again?

Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 11:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)