Forum:User treatment policy change

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > User treatment policy change
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 22 February 2010 by Calebchiam.

While carefully examining our User treatment policy, I noticed that the section RuneScape:User treatment policy#Edit and Revert wars states that:

"...If the style guide doesn't give a guideline for your disagreement, go back to the article's talk page and create a poll in which users can vote to decide which version is better. Whatever option has more votes by the end of a 3 hour period will be considered the better version..."

From what I've seen on the Wiki, a lot of users agree that polls should not be used for decision-making. Not only does it violate RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY (because whichever side gets more votes gets their way), it is also very easy to manipulate. Any user can make a vote on their account, and logout, and vote again on their IP. They can also create sockpuppets to swing the vote to their favour.

So I propose that we reword the policy here (the entire paragraph should be revised), with reference to RS:CONSENSUS, RS:3RR and perhaps some mention that polls should not be used for such situations. This is what I thought up:

"...If a user is having an edit war with another user, the user should contact the other via that user's talkpage or the article's talk page, and they should make an agreement to stop the war. If the users make more than three reverts to the page, they will have violated RS:3RR, and may receive a block. Revert the page to its original state and refer to the style guide for a solution. If the style guide does not give a guideline for the disagreement, discuss with other users on the article's talkpage and attempt to reach a consensus (compromises should be made if necessary). [[RuneScape:Requests for comment]] may be used if more input from the community is required..."

If there are parts that should be further clarified, or changed, do suggest these changes in the discussion. Thanks. C.ChiamTalk 14:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - as nom. C.ChiamTalk 14:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Seems logical to follow our own policy. Per nominator. ~MuzTalk 14:38, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Surprised no-one ever noticed that. o_O http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 16:51, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Much more logical and clear. --Aburnett(Talk) 18:16, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Lol I wonder how many years we've overlooked that. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  19:57, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nominator. Negaveck 00:10, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Agreed. Ajraddatz Talk 00:12, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Caleb. --LiquidTalk 00:13, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per All. Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 00:19, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - That's really outdated. We don't do that anymore. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 00:29, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone. RS:BB Ryan PM 01:18, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support + req closure - Per all. RS:SNOW Fishing.png NnK Oliver (600613) talk 02:47, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per all. Andrew talk 02:53, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Snow Support - per all. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:09, February 22, 2010 (UTC) 

Support + Comment I don't think the style guide link/sentence is needed, as in most cases disputes can't be resolved by going through it. AMXWQBucket detail.pngrwojy 05:24, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Woah! I am amazed that nobody ever noticed that. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:22, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The proposed changes will be made to the User treatment policy. C.ChiamTalk 11:31, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed too soon - I would have supported, but discussion lasted less than a day (approx. 21 hours).   az talk   16:39, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I admit it was a pretty quick closure. Does it really matter though (since you do support, after all)? C.ChiamTalk 10:32, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what I think, but others should be allowed to express their opinions. By closing too early, the closing admin is denying them opportunity to do so. If a thread (not this in particular) was left open a little longer, the discussion could have developed differently... Any thread, even those classified under RS:SNOW, should be left open for at least a week (or two), as not everyone checks the Yew Grove daily. My tuppence.   az talk   15:10, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
I agree then, what you say makes sense, I'll keep that in mind in the future. C.ChiamTalk 15:13, February 27, 2010 (UTC)