Talk:Warning Policy

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Missing Warnings?[edit]

Where are the first warnings for TK-Squared, Jota, and S1Q3T3? --Harry Mason 17:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In this time I did not reference the areas so I forgot some. They have them however where are they?
I know TK-Squared had three warnings however he/she was first banned for only one warning (the policy was still young) and then he acquired at least up to three warnings and was not banned to compensate (see his talk - history if needed). I at least remember it was with someone (maybe S1Q3T3 however I don't rememberer exactly. Do you know?
I put (2:1) on Jota's last warning and I do not think I was wrong. Do you know where the other is? Is there another?
S1Q3T3 was banned for a (3:1) however were are they all? I also don't remember.
If you know any of the areas I am talking about supplying a link would be appreciated.
If you know of an(y) area(s) where warnings have been given and are not referenced here supplying a link would be appreciated.
If you know of an(y) area(s) where people deserve warnings and were not given them supplying a link would be appreciated. --Green Dragon 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Although it is a moot point, I can see the advantage of making sure we try to accurately back-log and keep track for all future purposes. I doubt the user who did it will ever be back, but this edit seems to me to be a warning-level offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but here it is for an admin to decide.
Additionally, I was wondering if we are going to have an enforced warning system that is in effect for Edit Wars? I know that even I have been a part of many, and it is something we should avoid. Just curious.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
As seen in this diff, User:Jota tried to sneak bits of another user's (myself) previous comments, trying to disguise the removal as part of a different edit. Even more poignant, the main section removed was where I quoted Jota from a previous location where he admitted enjoying arguing on this wiki (arguably an act of trolling). Though the edits leading up to it can be deemed a Edit War of which I am equally to blame (though correct in my reasoning), Jota's edit went against all forms of wiki civility and protocol.
This is not the first time Jota has done such. He has even removed or discounted other user's or IP's ratings of his own content when it wasn't to his liking. Being so brunt with other user's talk page postings should be forbidden. At most, altering extremely foul language or helping fix link/formatting should be the only allowable reason to do such a thing (barring of course obvious spam/vandalism). For this reason, I believe a warning is necessary. I leave it to the admin to decide. I understand if I also receive one for the edit war that took place, though in that case Jota should receive two.
Jota did respond on that page that he removed the content to save me from "..direct rudeness, name calling, and belittle comments.." however the main portion of content removed was a quote from Jota, not myself. So that is invalid. The small other portion was not name calling nor do I perceive it as rude - those in managerial positions see things differently than those who are not, irl. Hence the classic phrase "can't see the forest because of all the trees" and all of it's variants.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
So arguing is trolling now? Lolwut? My actions were in keeping with your (Hooper) past actions, as noted on the Biomancer's talk page. If what I did was an offense against Wiki civility, so was what Hooper did. I just see him not getting warned for his actions, so I assume their okay under this wiki's policy, even though I find them questionable in nature. Furthermore, yes I remove ratings from content, not just IP ratings and not just my own material. If the rating is "lulz, overpowered" that does nothing for no one and is better off removed. "Obvious" spam is subjective, and should be left to an admin or bureaucrat, of which Hooper is neither. Personally, I would subscribe to FIFA's approach to warnings. Asking for someone else to be warned is a warn-worthy offense. Admins know the rules. Telling an admin someone needs to be warned is only an attempt to unjustly sway their opinion, and as such should merit a warning. Given ex post facto law, Hooper's previous offense could be ignored, but its just a suggestion. -- Jota 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant. As anyone can see on the policy pages in the help portal, most notable the Behavior Page, and from GD's actions and own statements, we no longer tolerate solicitation or links to competing sites. As noted in the diffs on biomancer, Eiji was soliciting and I removed it per policy. Stop straw manning.
Green Dragon is attempting to be notified because he is the only majorly active admin currently and has way too much to go through, hence it is easy for him to not see all that goes on, sadly.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Obvious is subjective, and therefore not your call to make. You want the power, nominate yourself for adminship. You're just creating more clutter by bringing subjective arguments to the table. Besides, it's not like this wiki is so active one cannot see an entire day's worth of activity on the recent changes page. -- Jota 21:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Everything I need to do here on the wiki doesn't require adminship, nor do I want it. I thought I needed it long ago to help speed up editing but still don't need it today. Some of us have power in real life and realize that adminship is just responsibility, not power.
Besides, I'd be too bad of an admin. I'd just permaban all the transientwiki people who think that continuing to cause circular talks and bog down progress on the site is fun. I'd also permaban anyone making content with the word Naruto in it. So, subjective or not, it's obvious I don't need adminship.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Official Policy[edit]

So I have a few quick questions concerning actual policy.

  • If an Admin gets 3 warnings (and thusly banned for a week), should they be RfA'd to (potentially) remove adminship? It seems reasonable to have some sort of policy in place to that effect. Naturally, we'd all like to think admins are calm, level-headed contributors all the time, but everyone gets upset and says (or does) something stupid every so often.
  • Are all warnings the same? Can a single action provoke 2 attacks of opportunity warnings?
  • Is there a statute of limitations on warnings? We have a message up there asking for any missed warnings. Should we really be going back 4 and 5 months to find warn-able offenses? Some of those offenses took place before the warning policy existed.
  • Are we warning for every violation of civility according to that list? Forgetting to sign your post, and not answering questions both are on that list. Neither seem worth a warning.
  • My last question is a very specific one. Green Dragon, as we all now know, cannot be removed from adminship. Can he still be warned? If he is warned 3 times can he be banned?

Thanks, Badger 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

First off I just recently saw Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption and civility is actually present. As such, do we need this now maybe extraneous policy? I don't know. If so I would prefer we rollback or censor the problem text/post. Thoughts?
Should an admin be RfA'ed. Good question. I think so as it means one has not been upholding the values of an admin.
Warnings have been given based off each post, not an "action". Within the post, although their may be multiple violations, I have been counting it as one post to one warning.
There should not be a statue of limitations on warnings. The problem text is still present and as such something needs to be done regarding it.
Maybe you are referring to how the "etiquette" portion may not be relevant. That could be case. Should this be changed to just civility? --Green Dragon 21:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know. Should this page be a subpage of Help:Behavioral_Policy?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia's policy (as you linked above) is a good one. However, I think that policy almost requires us to keep the warning policy. If, for example, you decide to ban me for "Persistent Gross Incivility", I'd demand a few examples of that. The warning policy, as we have it, keeps a running log of all infractions to present if the banned individual should they ask for evidence. Whether or not we decide to stick with the "3 warns equals 1 week ban" policy is a different question. I think the policy is a solid one (once we more clearly define infractions and consequences). I personally am opposed to "perma-bans" (with the exception of users solely dedicated to causing problems, as defined by disruptions only); I don't know how you feel on the subject, however. To address Hooper's question, I think the final decisions should for sure be a sub-page of Behavioral policy, I don't know that this discussion has made any concrete decisions yet though. --Badger 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vagueishness[edit]

The criteria for warning seem somewhat vague, and, since they link to an offsite page over which we have no control, are subject to unwarned change. If I read this literally, I could be giving out warnings for people who don't sign their posts, which doesn't really seem necessary, or for abusing WP:3RR, which isn't clearly a policy on this site. It's probably time that we broke from WikiP and just created our own pages on civility and etiquette. JazzMan 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This could make sense. Want to give it a go and we can see where we are from there? --Green Dragon 12:29, 4 March 2011 (MST)
I could do it (though I don't have a lot of time right now), but since you do all of the warning, I would think you have a better idea of what's warnable and what's not. JazzMan 19:12, 9 March 2011 (MST)

Hooper[edit]

He got two warnings at the same time. It's not really a "warning" if he doesn't have a chance to learn from it. JazzMan 13:16, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

Interestingly, one of those messages was followed by three or four other comments before it was warned. To an outside observer, it might appear as though someone was just looking for a reason to block him for a week and warned him for something that didn't really warrant a warning. I know we've decided that warnable offenses don't have a statute of limitations, but that's a tad silly, IMO. --Badger 13:21, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
I agree that the first one was weak at best; stating that one can't follow another's statements is certainly not a personal attack if it's true, and doesn't really justify a warning. Even if Hooper had said something invoking the hygiene of another's mother, however, he still should have a chance to learn from his mistake before being warned a second time. Otherwise it's not a warning policy, it's a punishment policy. JazzMan 13:36, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
The learning curve is non-existent. If you don't know how to edit, look into D&D Wiki's policies. If that confuses you don't chime into discussions which are so variable. Also, it's that we are intended to warn backwards in time to be fair. Did it happen? Yes. Done. Is there any other way? Not unless you want to disregard wikis (when you edit you edit) entirely for certain users for who knows what reason. There may be more warning problems. I am so tired of pointless discussions I have stopped reading them. If I see more warning problems sometime when I may read them for whatever reason, yes, I will give more warnings. It's the fair way. --Green Dragon 13:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
So answer me this, if someone says three different insults in the same single post, do you count it as one warning or three? If you aren't going to stay on top of the ball, but still want to keep away any statute of limitations, the only "fair" way to do it is to count every one you find at the same time as the same warning. It's all arbitrary, anyway, as I stated above (no work has been done on trying to clarify what is actually warnable), but if we are going to block a good user, it'd be nice to know we have good reason. Also, it's be nice to not be paranoid that I can all-the-sudden be banned for extended periods of time because of something I wrote that I didn't know was offensive, that all got caught all at once. JazzMan 14:29, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
Each time one edits. You can say whatever in one editing time, however multiple times are multiple times. I agree about it being nice, however it would also be nice to look over all the 3.5e Prestige Classes (for example). --Green Dragon 15:12, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
Ok, see, that's not a very good argument, GD. Sure, it'd be nice to look over all the 3.5e Prestige Classes, but it'd be really hard and time consuming to do that. It'd be very easy to do what Jazzman described. For example, I'm sure there are several things on this wiki that I've written that could potentially be considered warnable, but I've never been warned. Would it be fair to quickly find 3 things, and then ban me for a week, without giving me time to change my ways? No. A single warning would say "this sort of thing is unacceptable, cut it out", and I probably would. That'd be nice, reasonable, fair, and everyone would enjoy it more. --Badger 15:18, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
After a unjustified ban, I can attest that the policy should be defined. Additionally, if we're following in Wikipedia's footsteps properly, then we should establish proper ban-reversal procedure. For example, if two admins oppose a third admin's block, the block should be reversed (wikipedia has a similar policy, and if it was already in effect here - then this recent unwarranted block wouldn't of happened). Plus, blocks are meant to prevent or pause problematic editors, not editors who are actively contributing, fighting spam, and working collaboratively.
There should also be a time limit put into effect where admins can not back-warning. This was made obvious recently, as it can lead to abuse.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:27, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
I do know Green Dragon gave Surgo and TK-Squared multiple warnings in February of 2010, for language/rudeness violations committed in March/May of 2009. And considering Surgo stopped posting in September of 2009...well, I can't see what good Green Dragon thought he was doing. Seeing as how he was warning for someone for offenses almost a year old, and five months after the user in question ceased activies on the wiki.

Admin Violations[edit]

The current warning policy does not state that admins are "above the policy" and actually showcases many former admins who have received warnings. However, it also states that only admins may give out warnings. Though I may be just "asking for it," I am intending to request a second administrator's look at recent comments by Green Dragon to see if they are deemed necessary of a warning or warnings. On the discussing recently held on the Main Page's discussion page, GD said "If the grammar is the problem, look up what each word means and then work the sentence out.", "If you care look into it. I'm not going to do something which is so easily done it hurts me to do it. There is an answer to this.", and my personal favorite "...Websites do not edit, therefore they are treated like a normal Wikipedia user (which does not have a Warning Policy). They must fix the problem or get banned." All three of these comments come across as either directly rude or belittling to the people they're referring to, and the last one actually directly interferes with our existing Warning Policy and implies that I was banned for allegedly-uncivil actions off-site. Now, however, the most directly uncivil reply was recently posted to the GNU's talk page. Here, GD amazingly flat out states that he will not follow consensus or collaborative discussion (even though he recently added Consensus to the Meta pages) when he declares that "...I could care less who thinks what about what. I will do as it is done. I'll listen to reasonableness. I don't care if it comes from God or a bacteria.". Could other admins please discuss this, and could Green Dragon please reply and let me know if I have misread his intent or tone, especially with the last quote. I also wish to reiterate that I'm not trying to directly attack, its just that at the time these statements were made I was unable to reply - and after reviewing the numerous moves and reformatting of the licensing discussion, am trying to host a civil discussion on a serious issue on the most appropriate page.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:41, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

Ah, and you've spotted a flaw in the system. As I pointed out just above here, GD is seemingly "above the law". In fact, historically, blocking GD has been grounds for a block in it's own right. In addressing my questions about the finer points of warning policy, GD seemed to gloss over the objection I raised on that front.
Personally, as an admin, I refuse to "warn" anyone (IP, registered user, administrator, or owner) until a complete and fair guide has been written and is visible to all contributors. As Jazzman mentioned, if we don't have clearly defined rules the "warning policy" becomes more of a "punishment policy". --Badger 15:03, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
Yes, I can attest to having no warning at all when I was hit with multiple at once, and still have no clear clue what I said that was wrong.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   15:12, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
I've started working on a new, more clear, warning policy. It can be seen here. Feel free to join the discussion. --Badger 15:55, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
Yes, there are answers to things for the above (looking into it more, reading the block reason, etc). Yes, the world also turns. Is "the world also turns" condescending? Nah. Are you going to make accusations as such? When I get the time I will issue warnings appropriately for the above comment (e.g. accusations) if appropriate. Was that condescending too? Nah. --Green Dragon 21:55, 5 September 2011 (MDT)
Umm, okay? Going past the you-blocked-me thing (whatever, we can both agree we want the best for the future of the site. right?), I'm more interested in your discussion on Badger's rough draft of a warning policy overhaul. Especially on how it may affect admins and bureaucrats.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:59, 5 September 2011 (MDT)

Warnings Issued on 4e Campaign Settings Caliphate Supplement[edit]

Discussion moved from Talk:Caliphate (Patronage Supplement)#Titles. --Green Dragon 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)

Ok point of order here, I'm not going to bother reading this whole discussion because it's long and half of it is hidden in warning text (and ultimately I know what the outcome will be anyway), but some of those "warning texts" are not appropriate. You can't just warn people for saying something you don't like. JazzMan 14:58, 5 December 2011 (MST)

Right. They are related to specific Wikipedia pages. Where are you coming from exactly? --Green Dragon 18:24, 5 December 2011 (MST)
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't know where you are coming from with that one. To be more specific, the following statements are all statements you removed from Wrecan's posts, and warned him about. All of them are, in my opinion, not warnable offenses:
  1. Why are you imposing this policy on my campaign setting? What gives you the right to do this, and to prevent me from restoring what I had originally written?
  2. It's not tied to any language in the Wiki policy you cited and
  3. What admins should not do is invent an unwritten policy and impose them on others without going through the process of adoption.
  4. Your interpretation of the policy is not supported by the language of the policy. If you want this website to consider personal attacks to include any use of epithets considered offensive by "organizations and people... on a large scale" then go through the process of amending this wiki's policies.
  5. There is no violation for giving a fictional character a title of "Caliph", just as there would be no violation for giving a fictional character the title of "Pope" or "Chief Rabbi" of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire"... even if millions of people would be offended by the act. The only behavior banned (of relevance here) is applying a religious term to describe a contributor. That's the Wikipedia (and this site's) policy. If you want this site to have a different policy, you need to go through the process of amended this site's policy.
  6. Did you really think I wouldn't fact-check you, GD?
  7. When you edited the Patronage pages, you weren't acting as administrator; you were acting as a contributor. Administrators don't make substantive contributions to wiki pages in their capacity as administrators
In addition, you edited some of his text for reasons other than warnings, which is explicitly against our editing policy. In addition, as mentioned before (in a discussion I think you moved to this page), it's simply not fair (and makes your behavior look to outsiders who don't know the situation —at best— lazy or —at worst— malevolent, especially when the content you are warning/removing refers to your improper warning/removing of text!) to respond to something multiple times before you hand out a warning for it. JazzMan 13:31, 6 December 2011 (MST)
None of that is improper. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 relate to lying. 3 and 6 are rude to Green Dragon. --Green Dragon 15:04, 6 December 2011 (MST)
The correct grammar is "None of those are improper, and I feel silly for having censored them." --173.245.48.104 20:32, 6 December 2011 (MST)
Not necessarily. I meant that none of the reasons for giving them are improper. You'll see what I mean if you check the reasons. The context is about the warning, ergo the warning is being discussed. --Green Dragon 21:23, 6 December 2011 (MST)
This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.. But it's on record that I disagree and that I think it makes you look very improper. In the future, I would be happy to mediate any dispute between you and another user. There's a Wikipedia policy for that somewhere (and actually I think I've done that once before on WP). Also, I'm reinstating the historical link to the page from which you moved this text, because my comments apply to a historical revision of that page, not the page as it stands now, or whenever in the future some user happens to view it. If that talk page gets archived, the link will no longer work and my comments here will lack context (which is why I commented there, and not here, in the first place). JazzMan 14:21, 7 December 2011 (MST)
[1] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor) (1:1). Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST).
If you are pointing something out then please add the link to your comments. If its a diff archiving will not do anything... Um... You can read the policy to understand the warnings. If someone is saying something is done a wrong way then they are lying. It's pretty straightforward. Also, you earned yourself some warnings above! "Won't ever change your mind" is belittling. I'll warn you sometime. The dispute resolution is not needed here. Everything is straightforward. --Green Dragon 16:35, 7 December 2011 (MST)
If it's a warning please warn me right now. Otherwise I'm not going to count it. (And you know what else is belittling? Telling someone they earned some warnings and then threatening to warn them later). Saying something is done a wrong way is only lying if Wrecan knows it was, in fact, done correctly: it's only lying if he's intending to mislead you. If Wrecan actually believes that you are not following policy even though you are, that is not lying. It's pretty straightforward. Point number 2, by the way, can not, by definition be lying: you can not lie by asking someone a question! "How was your day?" "LIAR!!!"
As for the link: I don't need to refer back to what I am talking about on the other page, because when I said what I said, I said it on the other page. Can you please explain to me what your problem is with adding a more accurate link? If it's a diff archiving will not do anything... which is why I added the diff! We don't want anything to affect where this link points to. If you keep the link how you have it, and then later that talk page is archived, this link will be broken. My link will be correct no matter what you do to the other page (so long as you don't delete it)
1 is a little interesting. I guess I could remove it. I would like some input on the thinking behind it before any action though. I considered that these circular discussions are pointless and waste people's time. The problem with them is that they need to get resolved (as far as I can tell). One cannot have administrative-related discussions left open since that will imply that users are okay to not engage in consensus and that they can just "slam the door on other users" while disregarding them.
It would be fully true that warnings need to be in the time frame of the post if our comments here served the only purpose of taking actions. They, however, do not. Many times I post things without taking any action afterwards (such as after this post) and others do not take actions from my post.
Additionally if I had more time I could do all the things I want to do. If I had more time I would improve areas of D&D Wiki. I don't have the time right now. So, my lack of time is not a problem. I find that a lack of time leading to problems is not constructive. Therefore, warnings are based off the text. Therefore, it is not belittling. --Green Dragon 22:23, 8 December 2011 (MST)

Policy Changes[edit]

See also User:Badger/sandbox13
Discussion moved from User talk:Badger/sandbox13#Warning Policy. --Green Dragon 18:44, 5 December 2011 (MST)

Obviously, I wrote all this so I rather like it. However, is there anything that should be added? Anything that should be clarified? Anything that should be removed? Thoughts? --Badger 15:51, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

The following bullet points are JazzMan's comments/issues:
1. Just a suggestion for the warning of block lengths. It should go something like "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially for every 3 warnings received (2 weeks after the 6th warning, 4 weeks after the 9th, 8 weeks after the 12th, etc.)". Also, I wonder if previously banned people should get less leeway? Maybe 3 bans = 1 week, 5 = 2 weeks, then every new warning increases the ban length. Then again, maybe not, because then it would be too tempting to find any one thing to be able to ban someone. But then again, then again, if someone's already got 5 bans, they probably aren't that great of a member anyway. I'm undecided on this one.
2. Civility and harassment are wishy-washy terms, and their wishy-washiness has lead to some questionable bans in the past. I'm not sure it's possible to define them in a way that's usable for our purposes, but perhaps we should have a few examples of what are not uncivil or harassing behavior. Asking for clarification of someone else's post is (usually) not uncivil. Going off-topic or responding to a topic which has been "settled" should also not be a ban-able offense.
3. Ettiquette breaches should, in most cases, not be a ban- or warn-able offense. Going by the letter of the law, you could get a warning for mis-indenting a page or for adding a new comment to the top. This should also probably be defined somewhere. I would love it if we didn't have to link to Wikipedia at all, since we have no control over the content there, and aren't notified if their policies change.
4. I like the separation of IPs from everyone else, because it basically makes no sense to warn IPs.
5. I think that there should be some sort of statute of limitations in effect, or otherwise some way to keep from being banned as Hooper recently was. I'd say any time an administrator issues a warning, all violations at the same time count as the same warning. This means if someone, say, posts rude comments on 5 different talk pages (though see below), they would count as 1 warning, since there's only 1 chance for the user to correct their behavior, not 5. Speaking of warnings, if the whole point of a warning system is corrective and not punitive, I think any user given a warning should, you know, actually be warned, say, on their talk page. The administrator giving out the warning should leave a message on that user's talk page stating exactly why they received a warning; this way the user has an immediate chance to clean up their act or clear up any miscommunications.
6. There should be some sort of exception to the rule for certain types of offenders. As written, we can't perma-block those stupid Russian drug company spammers.
7. The petition section is a little wordy, and is unclear if only the admin who did the banning is allowed to unblock.
8. Admin blocks: GD (and I think BD) are automatically exempt from being de-sysopped, so I wonder if they should be exempt from banning (though not warning) as well? I mean, they can take away the blocking power from anyone who can block them, so if they ever deserved to be blocked, what good would it do?
I mostly support it, but there are a couple of things I think we could change (See section below). I'll change my vote when these items are discussed more. Of my original 8 points below, I am now satisfied with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. I'm not sure I can support a policy that allows unappealable (7) insta-blocks (5), but as those discussions are not settled I haven't changed my vote yet.
This is probably a little nit-picky, but with something as tumultuous and fickle and emotional as banning, I think it's better we have an absolute iron-clad policy now, then have to find all the exceptions later and risk appearing to play favorites. JazzMan 20:31, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
I've numbered them, and will reply to them by number here:
1. I think that sets of 3 warnings to a block is a good system. Suppose Hooper gets another warning in 6 months, and then another 8 months after that. Two warnings in the span of 14 months hardly seems worth a 2 week block. Plus, then every subsequent warning is a longer and longer block. (Sorry to use you as an example, Hooper, but you make such a good one).
2. I think we need some level of "wiggle room" in our terminology. The last thing I want is some trouble-making user leave bad comments and then say "yeah, but technically it's not listed under warnable offenses." I figure since only admins are giving out warnings, we can say "use some logic and reasonableness".
3. Honestly, I don't really like etiquette, but it was included like 4 times in the original system, so I left it in. I can't make a rational argument for or against it. It seems to me that again an admin could say "dude just miscounted colons, I'm not going to warn him for an etiquette violation." but it would catch people intentionally not signing comments that are offensive. (If anyone would be dumb enough to try that, still signed in).
5. I have no idea how to word it, but I want to suggest something like "you can't be warned on comments between warnings", which I know makes no sense. Let me clarify: When you're warned for a comment "c1", and then again for comment "c5". Any comments left between c1 and c5 (c2-4) can be censored to remove offending content, but don't count towards your warning level. I think a system about leaving comments on warned user's talk pages is also a good idea.
6. The way I see it, the warning policy applies almost exclusively to comments left on talk/user pages. Considering we don't warn link spammers, we just delete their pages and perma-ban them I see no need for this policy to concern them. We should probably make it more clear that this policy applies mainly to comments, and not spam/vandalism.
7. I'm not sure how to better word the petition section. I think that only the blocking admin should be allowed to revert the block, though.
8. If they are "above" banning (as it seems they are) they might as well be "above" warnings too. The only punishment for a warning is a block. Unless you mean you'd like to be able to censor offending posts. I guess that makes enough sense.
Right, so, these are my thoughts on the matter. --Badger 21:16, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
Support, if time restraint put on warnings (see comments)
I like what you've got here. It is clear and concise. Even I can tell what I'm guilty of (my tendency to highlight others rudeness and ignore my own). My only thought is that we should consider some time of time limit. Obviously, admins can't see everything right away - especially if one user cusses another out at say midnight on a sunday. Still, there should be some clear line-in-the-sand that says unless you specifically did x (say, actually cussed out a user) you can not be officially warned if the item was not caught within the time limit.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:49, 4 September 2011 (MDT)
1. Fair enough. I actually had a thought that might solve a few of our problems at once. What if the warnings "timed out" after a certain period (probably no less than three but no more than 12 months). After the set time period you remove the last warning. Truly disruptive users will ramp up their warnings quickly, but someone who, say, occasionally posts something harsher than they intended won't be so severely penalized. You could even combine the two: it takes 3 warnings to get a block, then every warning after 3 also gets a block, but you remove a warning every 3 months. Or something along these lines.
2. I agree with wiggle room, I just also worry that "admin discresion" could be used to liberally as well. I don't know, maybe let's keep it how it is currently then update it if there are problems.
3. If (at least) two of us don't like the etiquette part, maybe we should think about removing it altogether from the list of warn-able offenses. I'm not even sure if anyone ever got a warning based off of etiquette before. Or again, we could leave it for now and fix it if we run into problems later.
5. What about a simpler solution: an admin can only hand out one warning at a time to a person, no matter how many offenses the admin finds at the same time. I think this says what we want to say without getting too technical.
6. Fair enough. Maybe we just need a line that says something to the effect of "vandals and spammers will be dealt with immediately, regardless of their current warning status"?
7. How about this: "A user may appeal a block by petitioning the blocking admin via email. The decision to reverse a block is entirely at the discretion of the admin. If the admin does not respond after 48 hours, a blocked user may contact another admin. If this second admin can not contact the original blocking admin, they may decide to reverse the block at their discretion.
Any user who is blocked for a period of greater than 1 month can ask for a formal appeal. The user must email all active admins their appeal, after which the admin may request additional information, or may decide as written. A user must get a 2/3's vote from all currently active admins to appeal their block. If the vote fails, they may appeal again after 6 months."
8. It's probably a moot point, but yeah, censoring was part of it. Really, though, we don't want admins to be at each other's throats, so maybe we shouldn't delve into this too far. I wonder if we should put in a clause that uncivil language directed at an admin can not be warned by that admin. In other words, a warn must always be from a third-party. Pointing out such offenses would obviously be exempt from the "pointing out offenses is an offense" rule, because administrators don't always read conversations if they know another admin is. JazzMan 08:06, 5 September 2011 (MDT)
1. I'm not sure how I feel about warnings going away after a period of time. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough, but the notion of having to go and check on warning expiration dates seems like one more thing to do, with no concrete advantage. I'm all for more work, if it's worth it. I'd also argue "if you are blocked for 3 warnings that span more than a year, you have a strong case for a petition to commute the block".
2/3. How about we keep the "admin discretion" point from comment 2, and remove etiquette from 3? I think that solution would probably do the most good, and the least expense.
5. We currently have a rule that says a single post can't create more than one warning. Want to somehow explain how that would extend to all existing comments?
6. We can (and probably should) add that line in somewhere.
7. I like your suggestion for improving the petition portion. I think we should include a bit about "pestering an admin", unless you object to that notion.
8. So maybe we say "while Bureaucrats cannot be warned, their comments can be censored just like any other post"? I like the third party idea. The only problem with that is suppose someone insults you three times, but no other admins are online for a week (which I don't think has ever happened). You should have the authority and the ability to remove these bad comments and warn the user.
Lastly, to Hooper's point: I'm not sure how I feel about "Admins didn't catch the edit within X weeks, they can't be warned". While it sounds reasonable, admins have a ton of stuff to do (here, and in the real world). I know I don't read every single update (though I skim most of them). If someone is being uncivil, they should be warned no matter how long it's been. Notice we are granting amnesty to all comments before this system is set into place, though. I think that's reasonable enough. --Badger 13:18, 5 September 2011 (MDT)
I feel that civility should be kept as well. I feel that something along the lines of "Warnings result in predetermined feelings. Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable."
I agree that IPs should not be included. A feature like Special:CheckUser does not exist for them.
Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards.
Warnings should go away after 6 months if the user is in good standing. The reasoning could include something along the lines of "If a registered user remains in good standing for six months after receiving a warning the warning will be removed. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed. Call some friends over and play some D&D– try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received."
I am fine with bureaucrats being above the warning policy. Although this leaves a large hole open for problems, I can say with certainty Blue Dragon and I will not abuse the system.
I disagree with petitions to unblock. If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked. If the reasoning is solid then they should be blocked. I do not think that there should be the possibility for circumvention. --Green Dragon 22:54, 5 September 2011 (MDT)
Look good? --Green Dragon 20:36, 9 September 2011 (MDT)
I've reverted the changes for two reasons. First, all the above comments are based on what was there (and is there again), so changing that much will change how all those comments apply. Secondly, your use of some very key phrases are confusing to me (and presumably other users). For example "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is not a complete sentence, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean. The suggestions you've brought up are, on the whole, good ones, and should be included. However, those monumental changes are not the best way to go about implementing said changes. if you could better explain your meaning, we could work out what changes need to take place. --Badger 21:38, 9 September 2011 (MDT)
This is a sandbox which is a subsection of your userpage. If you want to revert the changes whatever. Keep in mind that one can always look at a older version of the page (based off the dates of the comments) for such a scenario.
I think that "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed." is a complete sentence. "If there are [bears who fish salmon] know that [they do fish salmon]." The adjective is lasting feelings and the verb is passed. However, I am no grammatical expert.
I mean what my comment above mentions. If you would like a better explanation please go through my comment above and let me know where your confusion arises from. --Green Dragon 21:46, 9 September 2011 (MDT)
I'm aware that this is a subpage, and history/comment dates would make it possible to see what exactly everyone means, but it would be easier to just make a large edit once we've resolved all our concerns, and then strike through/comment out the existing discussion.
I'm just going to go through your previous comment one line at a time, pointing out where I would like clarity. "I feel that civility should be kept as well". Got that, clear and concise. "Warnings result in predetermined feelings". I have no idea what that means. What are "pre-determined feelings", in this sense?"Warnings are not blocks. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude. Warnings also are not petty matters." This much I understand, too. Warnings are the sorts of things that are unacceptable, but not worthy of a block. " Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings." Right, not sure what this means. Do you mean "Admins can correct small things, like indentation, and not warn the contributor"? That is what I think you mean by your next sentence "For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable." "Blocks should be done per edit (or edit within minute corrections). This is fair in all regards." is another confusing sentence, for me. Do you mean to suggest that you should be able to issue three warnings for three successive inappropriate posts, and thereby block someone, without giving them time to adjust their behaviors? I think, and others agree, that this mentality turns a warning policy into a punishment policy. I don't think that is a good rule. The rest of your post I think I understand. I'm fine with removing the petition to unblock if warnings go away 6 months after they were issued. That seems like a solid plan, to me.
Back to that one confusing sentence: if that is how you intend for your comment to be interpreted, then it is improperly punctuated; but, that's a minor detail. However, if that is your sentence, then it is a tautology that adds nothing to the policy. "If there are feelings, then there are feelings" doesn't help to describe what these feelings are, or what ramifications these feelings have. Could you better describe what you mean by "predetermined feelings"? --Badger 22:05, 9 September 2011 (MDT)
By "predetermined" I mean that when someone says something they intend a result for someone else. By "Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings" I mean that "You may edit" (just worded for the context).
When I mention that edits should be the base for warnings this is because blocking can be of varying length. Why can they be of varying length? They vary in length because of severity. Making warnings work with edits makes use of severity. Also, it is not fair if someone insults someone multiple times and someone else insults someone a single time and they get the same result.
Oh, everything I added are tautologies. They are there to explain the reasoning. --Green Dragon 22:51, 9 September 2011 (MDT)
The whole point of numbering was to try and keep the different points straight, but I see that's gone down the crapper. I'm going to try to summarize, then hopefully we can stay organized from here on out.
1 (Warning system logistics) It sounds like we are leaning towards an expiring warning system.
I agree with this, and I don't think it takes too much work. Really, all you have to do is check the age of the last warnings before you ban someone. If the oldest warning is less than 6 months old, then none of them have expired yet. Displaying "expired" warnings doesn't have any negative consequences, so nobody needs to rigorously patrol the page for expired warnings.
2/3 (Etiquette and Civility) I think we are going to keep it as is for now.
I agree with Badger, the language suggested by Green Dragon does not make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not sure it's necessary. For one thing, "discretionable" is not a real word. I think what you are getting at is that admins have discretion to define "civility" and "etiquette". While I don't really like this (as it leaves it open to abuse -- especially with no method of appeal), I don't see a better way around it right now.
4 (Blocking IPs) It's agreed that there's no need to block IPs.
5 (How to count blocks) There is no consensus here.
Badger mentioned the "rule" that you can't be warned more than once in one comment. This should be enumerated within the rules for it to be official. Green Dragon, your scenario is fair in one way but unfair in another. Yes, your way three warnings always equals 1 block. But one user got 2 warnings to cease his behavior before he was blocked, and the other got 0. This is unfair. I'll say it again: if the point of the block policy is to change behavior, then you must go off of the number of actual warnings (i.e. how many times the user was told "don't do that or else"). If the purpose of the warning policy is to punish people, then you must go off of the number of offenses (this would even count for multiple offenses within a single post). If we are trying to build a community, I can only support a behavior-changing policy. I also, for the same reason, think there should be a statute of limitations. While admins may be busy, we really should be checking over all edits, especially in discussions that are likely to devolve into uncivil behavior. I don't think a week is too short a time frame; most weeks you can view a week's worth of edits on the recent changes log. If we don't have a statute of limitations, there's nothing stopping an unscrupulous admin from "storing" warnings and unleashing them all when he wants to get rid of a user for a while.
6 (Exception for spammers/vandals) I think there is agreement on this point.
7 (Petitioning) Badger and Jazzman are for, and GD is against.
I really see no reason against allowing an appeal. Admins are humans, and humans make mistakes. You even say yourself, "If the reasoning was not solid, then they should not be blocked." So what if the reasoning wasn't solid, but you blocked anyway? Again, if we are going for a behavior-changing policy, we need the ability to have some leeway here.
8 (Bureaucratic Immunity) It's agreed that Bureaucrats are immune to the warning policy, but not admins. It has been suggested that a third party must intervene if an admin is involved in the uncivil behavior, but not agreed upon the details.
The whole point of rule of law (or rule of rule, in this case) sort of breaks down if you just take the Bureaucrats at their word... but that being said we don't really have any way around it, so I begrudgingly agree that they should just get blanket immunity. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. As for the case where only one admin is around, I think that it's rare enough that we shouldn't have to worry about it. If there is someone who is genuinely disruptive and no other admin responds in, say, 24 hours, the primary admin should be able to block. This is another reason to allow petitioning: if an admin is in an argument with a user, they could find a serious of excuses to block that user for 6 months. Without an appeal process, that user is screwed.
I think this is everything. If I have misrepresented anyone or any idea please let me know. JazzMan 11:29, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
I agree that the tautologies should be added elsewhere, like on the Help pages.
In accordance with number five mentioned above I would like to say that warnings are based off edits. This means that if the edit is older then six months then it (because of the time frame) would not be useable. This, then, removes the abuse of the system you mention above. Severity is also important because one does not learn through such a process. If you want to learn read Meta Pages. Editing is not learning necessarily and merging the two together is a mistake.
I don't disagree with appeals. I just don't feel that the medium is appropriate. If there is a problem they may wait out there time frame (if it is the last edit which is a problem) or if it is an intermediate edit, post on Talk:Warning Policy and discuss the problem. This is in accordance with wiki. We do not want D&D Wiki to function outside of wiki. This would undermine the very idea of wiki. --Green Dragon 12:31, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

GD, I'm not sure you know what tautologies are. They are "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity". There is absolutely no reason to intentionally include a tautology in our policies. If I understand you correctly, the statute of limitations on warnings should be 6 months, starting the day the comment was posted, rather than the day it was found. I'm not sure I like that. I'd support a month for the SoL, but have warnings expire 6 months after they are issued, not after the original comment is left. I think the goal of this policy should be learning, not punishment. We can't honestly expect every contributor to read the entirety of the Meta Pages before posting. I don't think I got around to reading them all until after I became admin (and I'm not even sure I've read them all, they are hard to find sometimes). I think "learning by doing" is the best approach to this situation, and that means we should combine editing with teaching. Finally, your last point is dead wrong. I pulled the notion of appeals directly from Wikipedia policy (making small alterations, to better suit it to our wiki). That section of their policy can be found here. --Badger 12:53, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
As tautologies explain the same thing (just give some backing to the reasoning for clarification) they should be moved elsewhere, like on the Help pages, as I mentioned above.
The goal of the policy should not be learning. If we do not have varying severity people will use D&D Wiki contributors as vents. There is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have varying severity punishments. Saying that removing this is better then having this present is something which is wrong. If you kill someone and someone else crosses the street illegally a slap on the wrist for both instances is not acceptable. Most people (since they must interact with respect for various reasons) already know how to interact so the learning curve is pretty much non-existent anyway.
What is wrong with the reasoning for clarification of "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed."? --Green Dragon 13:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
For one thing, it isn't clear - negating its ability to clarify. Its obtuse almost. We need clear and concise language.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:21, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
Feeling not feelings is a minor grammatical mistake above. If you want to improve the language, of course, go for it.
Also, I agree that non-wiki arbitration is good to have. I created http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration for non-wiki arbitration. Thoughts? --Green Dragon 13:45, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
Ok, where is this "severity of punishments" thing coming from? We have exactly one punishment -- banning -- and its severity is determined by the quantity, not quality, of your offenses. I simply can not, and will not, ever be in favor of a punitive system of warnings. It's not conducive to a collective-editing environment, it's harsh on new users and therefore insulating to a community that's already way to small to begin with, and it's just plain unnecessary when you consider the types of offenses we are actually dealing with here. Nobody is going to be deterred from offending by a threatening system, they will be deterred from editing. If you don't agree with this then we will have to agree to disagree because you won't convince me otherwise. JazzMan 15:10, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
Edit to add: that whole lasting feelings statement doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you trying to say "let bygones be bygones"? If so, why do we need that in a warning policy anyway? What's the point of that arbitration thing? Is that to be used with the appeals process you think is unnecessary? JazzMan 15:12, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
A few points:
Tautologies don't really explain things. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you instead mean "definition" or "explanation".
While the goal of most policy should not be learning, most of us feel that the goal of the warning policy should be for learning. We want to use the warning policy as a system to teach right from wrong, not just punish those who are doing wrong. If someone is persistently upsetting the community and not contributing in any way, I'm likely to just block them for a week, despite the warning policy. It is my opinion that the warning policy should be for making sure conversations stay civil, and censoring the occasional bad post from a generally good contributor.
No one is suggesting that we remove institutionalized punishments that fit the crime. To continue your metaphor, there is a reason that most systems of criminal conduct throughout the world have an appeals system. If someone is given 20 years in prison for jaywalking, they should be able to appeal to have their sentence commuted. The idea of appeals isn't to let the guilty walk free, but rather to help the unjustly punished.
I've joined that group you've created. I'm not sure if it's the best method, but I suppose it'll do for now. You should check that users are who they say they are (based on the email they use to join). In joining, I just got to choose a random username, and I could have picked "Badger" just as easily as I could have picked "Blue Dragon" or "JazzMan831".
I really want to figure out what you mean by "If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed.". Do you mean to say "If you are still upset about a mean thing someone has said, know that they said it 6 months ago and they may no longer feel that way."? If that's not what you mean, can you try to rephrase it another way, because I am totally confused.
Given that you've created this off-wiki method for arbitration, I suppose it's safe to assume that an appeals system is something you now like?--Badger 15:22, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
I wonder if a off-site group is the right way to go for one major reason: anonymity. Yes, I am not that fond of it myself - and I may be willing to use my real name everywhere, but not everyone is. Should we force a user who doesn't wish to connect his online profile with others or his real name into signing up to a group - especially one like google where it is so easy for personal information to leak through (trust me, I'm a debt collector. Google and facebook are awesome for us when it comes to tracking)? Again, personally, I'm anti-anonymity, but I understand that others seek it out. I mean, I doubt Badger wants us to know that he may be "James T. Badger from Badgerville" (just an example) or such. Maybe this is making sense, but I feel like I'm just blabering on. Basically: TL;DR = love and feel the need for a appeals process, but is off-site the right channel? Do we have the ability to program a few pages to allow even blocked users to edit, like their own talk page or a central Admin Noticeboard?
Also, what do we do in cases like this?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:47, 10 September 2011 (MDT)
If we were to remove severity and consider an aspect of learning as the base does this include everyone? If someone insults me multiple times will that annoy me more? If someone gets the same punishment as another user for a lesser offense will they even learn (I think this has been proven to be a learning barrier by the way)? If someone insults anyone multiple times will that annoy the admin more (more dealing with this learning base of work)? Why should everything relate to the abuser and not the abused? Why should those who "do their homework" (for lack of a better term) not be better off? Is that not part of learning? I just don't understand how removing severity and considering an aspect of learning as the base can be fair. If its not fair then we will have a problem with users considering the administration as biased and not compatible.
Yes, "bygones be bygones". Don't worry about all that– it will be used in the help pages.
I attempted to infer that yes, I do agree with an arbitration method. For the arbitration to have an effect (in its current state), yes, one must verify the user (email for a message or something). If we do not want to deal with this level of anonymity then does anyone know of a fitting extension for the above suggestions? --Green Dragon 13:02, 13 September 2011 (MDT)
Ok, so one thing to point out, we're all in favor of keeping the scaling block lengths. If someone repetitively insults users, they will not have a good case for arbitration. Arbitration, and commuted block lengths, will only occur when something has legitimately gone wrong. Apparently a patch to the MediaWiki software continues to prevent a blocked user from editing a wiki, but allows users to still edit their talk page. I'm not sure if we have that capability, but if we do, that'd be the best way to go about this. Users could post on their talk page, and admins could leave their opinions. --Badger 15:17, 13 September 2011 (MDT)
I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The problem with a correlation there is that in some cases multiple things have legitimately gone wrong with only one result. Which extension MediaWiki.org were you referring to above? --Green Dragon 21:08, 13 September 2011 (MDT)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand where your problem is. Can you give a hypothetical situation where your problem would arise? That would be immensely helpful. This extension (not actually an extension, but existing code) allows blocked users to edit their talk page. --Badger 22:34, 13 September 2011 (MDT)
For example if I edit a page and do not treat another use with civility I have completed an edit. This edit would (in your method) go into a pool until the user gets warned. The pool could have thousands of edits which are not done with civility. The admin would only see the pool and remove the pool as a single occurrence with a single warning relating to the commuted block length. I don't mean commuted block lengths to have anything to do with edits though. The commuted block length should be based of occurrences so this pool problem does not exist.
That extension is an option. I am not a fan of it. When a user is blocked they are blocked. They did something wrong, so why should they be given lieniency? I would rather do something which does not relate to wiki D&D Wiki (or a mailing list from the email user preferences). Is there an extension for such a thing? --Green Dragon 12:35, 14 September 2011 (MDT)
Well, here's the thing. The "pool" would only exist if admins aren't vigilant in their duties. The idea is that admins should stay on top of these things. Secondly, think about this: Suppose you are a user who is leaving comments. You don't think there is anything wrong with your comments. Suddenly an admin comes online and warns you three times in two minutes. Suddenly you're blocked, and you had no idea you were doing anything wrong. Does that seem fair?
I'm not sure moving things off-wiki is necessarily the best decision. We've always been adamant that we should keep everything on-site, and I don't get why this would be any different. --Badger 14:08, 14 September 2011 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Actually, I forgot about that extension. I think it's a good idea -- but only if it's also possible to additionally block a user from using their talk page. Everyone has the right to appeal, but not to spam the recent changes out of spite.
As for "abuser" vs. "abused", since we have agreed on a system where only an admin can hand out warnings, and pointing out offenses of others can itself be warn-able, then obviously this is biased towards the "abuser" method. And really we have good reason. If, for example, user A is in an argument with user B, he shouldn't be given the option to pick three different times in the past where he felt "abused" by user B in order to get him blocked for a week. Additionally, admins should not have to be put in a position where they have to say "well actually I don't feel that you are actually being abused, even though that's how you feel". JazzMan 17:46, 14 September 2011 (MDT)
How does the fairness of block lengths make its way into this system?
The fairness of block lengths is present if the duty relies solely on the timing of admins. Why should everything be about the timing? Do the improving, reviewing, and removing article templates make it so the timing can be used to the fullest? Why should we change the warning system to be worse then such a method?
The above example does seem fair to me. If I could not control my words I need to learn and a system which explains to me which words were appropriate, treats me the same as other people, and treats the person I was rude to the same as everyone else who was mistreated works best.
I am against something here being onsite since IP's are only posting spam on their talk pages and being blocked means one is blocked.
I don't agree with admins being the only one's able to deal with warnings. See also Warning Policy#Warnings Issued. --Green Dragon 22:50, 14 September 2011 (MDT)
I don't think it's fair to punish someone because, as an admin, I'm slacking on my job. If you make three potentially offensive edits in the span of twenty minutes, you should be given a fair chance to change your behavior. Suppose someone swears in a comment. They don't swear at anyone, they just say something like "Fighters should have the best damn BAB possible". They may not know that comments like that are a violation of policy (Hell, I'm not even sure if they are against policy). Do you think it's fair to ban someone because they leave three comments like that? On my Hooker talk page, I, an active user, ask what our policy on swearing is. You can't expect a new user to know if users (and admins) as active as Jazzman and I are don't know. Expecting every contributor to spend thirty minutes reading policy before posting is idealistic and naive. Any policy that could block someone for comments like that is completely asinine, and I can't support it. --Badger 23:12, 14 September 2011 (MDT)
Should we just do as Wikipedia does? We are basically only talking about a "level of harassment" (Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility) which is a block (the word may not can). What I am mentioning above is more kind then what Wikipedia uses and making it kinder again is a mistake. Wikipedia knows how to handle users. --Green Dragon 22:15, 15 September 2011 (MDT)
GD: which of my 8 points above do you agree with (be explicit, as in, using the actual numbers). Since we are all almost in agreement about those things, can we add them to the real policy page? It'd be nice to have some defined rules around here. JazzMan 14:59, 5 December 2011 (MST)
The idea of integrity. It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system. Warnings should be applicable until a warning is given then the expiration of the warning can begin to happen. If this does not happen then we lose integrity. --Green Dragon 18:20, 5 December 2011 (MST)
First of all, why did you move this? The running vote, and, most importantly, the thing we are discussing in the first place are not on this page. Secondly, I have no idea what you mean. Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? You do disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? Since the current vote is unanimous on several portions of the proposed policy, can we make any of it official? I will respond to your point after I get the answer to these questions, so as not to get distracted. JazzMan 13:37, 6 December 2011 (MST)
The votes were placed where they should be. The same is for this discussion (what it is discussing should be its main page). Voting is not done. See also Meta Pages#Policies "As Supermajority (and many others) failed Wikipedia:Consensus is only used under the rules of D&D, under editing, and in other special instances." --Green Dragon 15:52, 6 December 2011 (MST)
When is voting done, then? And I'm glad you brought up that line; I hadn't noticed it before in Meta Pages. I also am not sure what it's supposed to mean (there's a critical comma or something missing in there). Also, I ask again, as these important questions have yet to be answered: Do you disagree with every single one of my points above? Do you disagree with every single word of Badger's proposed policy? And since voting is apparently not finished (though no one's added a vote in months now) I'll add another: when is voting finished, and what is the procedure for changing this policy? (Do we even *have* a procedure?) JazzMan 14:27, 7 December 2011 (MST)
As per the above "It's not a number above but it relates to the time frame of the system." I think I have mentioned what I agree and disagree with above multiple times to refine this... The quote here is my problem with it. And, consensus is done– voting is not done (special means things like aesthetics, etc). --Green Dragon 16:41, 7 December 2011 (MST)
Hey guys, sorry I've been missing these past few weeks, I've been swamped with stuff. What have I missed? It seems like we're talking about implementing my new version of the warning policy. Sweet! Let's see, where are we... Right, well, it appears that we're going to use consensus (my favorite thing) to talk about implementation. Judging by what I've read the only thing standing between us and consensus is the notion of a statute of limitations on warnings. Is that right? Awesome! From what I can tell, there are two sides here. Some of us feel that warning people multiple times before given the chance to change their ways is wrong. Others feel if we don't warn people for every offense, we lose integrity in the system. Let me be the first to state that I am in the former camp. Official pardons, states of limitations, and other "secondary laws" have been in effect in America since our inception. I don't think that it can be fairly argued that the American legal system lacks "integrity" because of this. Would someone like to give an example where the integrity of D&D-Wiki would be put in danger because of the proposed policy changes? --Badger 19:50, 7 December 2011 (MST)
If you replied to it without giving a warning, it should not be given a warning later. If it's acceptable to you then, you shouldn't get to change your mind. I can understand if you just now entered the discussion--and even then, the warning should be one along with a statement to straighten up. That discussion went for many, many pages before Green Dragon decided Wrecan wasn't kosher. What made him change his mind? That Wrecan's tone had gotten snippy? Then that should be a warning for when Wrecan's tone and behavior became unacceptable and that post only, not for what was said two weeks ago and replied to a dozen times. Furthermore, multiple warnings in one swoop aren't good. They aren't good at all. I can't imagine the acrobatics required to decide it's acceptable exercise of power, to discuss something for weeks and then block the other side of the discussion for posts weeks old. --173.245.56.215 13:33, 8 December 2011 (MST)
I can't agree with the IP more. What happened to Wrecan should never have happened -- either he should have been blocked days before, or he should not have been blocked at all. To respond to something multiple times is to give consent to it. You can not then go back and block. It makes the blocker look bad, and it makes the site look bad, end of story. It also doesn't help when YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO WARN SOMEONE LATER and then not do it! It just makes you look like a tyrant (and GD, I'm not calling you a tyrant; I'm pointing out that someone new to this site who saw something like that would likely consider the behavior tyrannical).
Note, also, that GD has decided it's ok to tell users they have done something warn-worthy without actually warning them. [2].
Lastly: when will voting be done? JazzMan 14:37, 8 December 2011 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

The American Legal System is not in the same situation. When a judge makes a decision he makes the decision. There are no court cases that people don't listen to and then later the judge listens to them.
Some comments are not necessarily acceptable to anyone anytime. Policy relating to acceptable behavior comes from the Wikipedia pages. No one is changing their mind– they are just later having the time to deal with the situation.
I warned Wrecan before the time when he received multiple blocks. The time I have to issue warnings (it does take time– reading everything so critically while constantly referencing Wikipedia and then the formatting that is related, etc) is when I will issue them. Mentioning comments as being warning-worthy is because I have not had the time the process (mentioned above) requires yet. Is this what is being mentioned above? Seems like it is the same thing. Is it antagonizing? I think it may be a fine line.
Voting is not done. See above. --Green Dragon 22:30, 8 December 2011 (MST)
Ok, GD, let me just say "No". Your reason for delaying a warning isn't acceptable. At all. If you have the time to reply to comments, you have the time to warn someone. End of Discussion. You gave 8 warnings in a single edit. If anything, it should have been a single warning. What you have done is wholly unacceptable. None other administrator would have done what you did. That should have been a clue that something wasn't quite right.
Jazzman, as a point of order, what do you mean by "When will voting be done"?
  • Under what circumstances should we vote on something?
  • When will discussion come to a close on this issue?
I feel like that might change the discussion. Are you using the word "voting" to mean "discussion and debate" instead of actual "voting"?
Finally, I think you've misunderstood my metaphor about the American legal system. Rather than try to explain it to you, I'm just going to ask that you ignore it.--Badger 21:58, 9 December 2011 (MST)
Let me verify this please– you're telling me how to spend my time? You understand how my time is organized then?
Since this is consensus the point I will make follows. Read the policy. If you don't know what you're doing read the policy. If you don't know how to interact with other humans, read the policy (it may help you). We are not going to organize time in any manner– that's not right. We'll assume people who care will care and if you do not care then you will suffer the consequences. --Green Dragon 15:18, 10 December 2011 (MST)
The point of this discussion is none of us like the policy, and we'd like to change it. I would suggest that if maybe you don't know how to interact with other humans, you should let others write policy. It may help the the website, in the long run. --Badger 17:13, 10 December 2011 (MST)
Luckily that's a theoretical comment above and then later not direct. I agree that if you don't know how to interact with humans you should let others write policy.
I am talking about a successful model used throughout the world. Again, if you don't know how to interact (making a new model for example that is an experiment (perform the experiment elsewhere okay)) how about you let others write the policy.
The clarification of my above comment is that I am talking about people who receive warnings. If you get a warning you have a problem interacting with humans (do you just go up to someone and belittle them?). I am saying that if they do not read the policy and or understand it then they should learn through the process anyway. Does this simple comment finally make sense? I can't understand how this is not understandable to others. You go to school. You learn. If you don't do your homework you get a bad grade. It's the same thing. The level of used throughout the world is large, so why oh why are the comments I am getting back just not getting this?
Have you ever ruined a class by making the curriculum based off your understanding? The structure of classes is not like this. You sign up for a class. You learn the material that is presented on the syllabus the first day. It doesn't matter if you get it or not– your grade reflects that. --Green Dragon 17:27, 10 December 2011 (MST)
We all agree that if you are belittled you should be warned. That isn't the issue being debated here. What we're saying is that 8 warnings at once is an issue. Teachers don't give you a test, and then later count it as eight tests. --Badger 18:10, 10 December 2011 (MST)
Obviously. They do, however, mark you down for eight questions when you missed eight questions. Giving a Pass/Fail on understanding the test is not what they do. Any questions this time around? --Green Dragon 18:35, 10 December 2011 (MST)
GD, do you agree that the Warning policy should be designed to get users to change their ways by showing them what is not ok, and giving them a chance to change? --Badger 14:36, 11 December 2011 (MST)
Partly. Learning fairly by repercussions and through reading. I don't agree with unfair learning. --Green Dragon 16:24, 11 December 2011 (MST)
And tell me, did you give Wrecan time to change his ways between the 2nd and 3rd edits? Or the 3rd and 4th? If the point was to get him to change is ways, shouldn't you have given him a chance to change before banning him for 6 weeks? After reading the conversation, I know I wouldn't have warned him for what he said. Those warnings would have come as a shock to me, and I'm an admin. Don't you think that a single warning would have been more acceptable? --Badger 19:18, 11 December 2011 (MST)
Did Wrecan read the policy? There is more then one person involved in any discussion. By this I mean that others are also reading it and also care about how a person says things. --Green Dragon 11:34, 12 December 2011 (MST)
You did not answer the question. If you were offended, were you offended the first time you read it? Were you offended the second time you read it? Were you offended the third time you read it? Notwithstanding that I still don't believe his comments were inappropriate, how is it that you were ok with them the first seven times you read them, and then all the sudden you realized they were offensive?
To use your test metaphor, this is like giving someone 100% on 7 one-question pop quizzes, and then when they get the answer wrong on the 8th, retroactively changing his grade on the other 7. It's one thing if you honestly never saw those posts, say, if the discussion were taking place elsewhere and you were not an active participant. I still don't believe these should be back-warned, but I'll let it slide if it's the deciding factor. But this was not the case here. You were involved in the conversation and by replying — multiple times, mind you — you gave the impression, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that what Wrecan was saying was ok by policy. Let's face it, the policy is, at worst, vague and confusing or, at best, open to wide interpretation. As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site. As such, they should be able to look up to us to know how to act. If I reply to someone's comments with anything other than "you are hereby warned about X", they can be confident that I am satisfied with their manner of posting. I just don't think the same thing applies when GD replies to someone's post, and I believe that makes for a difficult work environment.
To answer your question from a while ago, Badger, what I was trying to ferret out (heh, rodent pun) was this: if voting is "not yet finished" according to GD, what is the criteria for it being finished? Do we need to wait a certain amount of time? Do we need a certain amount of votes? Do we need to wait until GD votes? Do we need to wait until there is a majority against (we already have a majority for? I don't know the criteria, is all. JazzMan 17:12, 12 December 2011 (MST)
I was offended the entire time that this user was telling me such things. I just didn't have the time (or initiative) to warn Wrecan (just like I didn't have the time (or initiative) to fix the indentation here until now).
It's actually like being able to read the book on an open-book test and then getting the answer wrong. When it gets graded, you already know the outcome (or you will learn through it).
I agree with "As administrators, I believe it is our duty (again, not really defined anywhere) to help other users understand the rules of the site." Users learn through repercussions, unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization).
Voting is not done. Consensus is done. The relevant Wikipedia pages, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Supermajority may interest you. --Green Dragon 17:40, 12 December 2011 (MST)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Green Dragon, stop saying "Voting is not done". We all know that. We get it, we're using consensus. Stop linking to their pages. We know the links. We've read the pages.
If you were offended the entire time, why didn't you say something? After reading your comments, I don't recall you saying in one of your comments something to the effect of "Wrecan, what you are posting is considered a warnable offense. If you don't stop, I will be forced to warn you". Don't say "He should have read the policy and known". Yes, he should have known, but you still could have told him. It would have been the nice thing to do.
Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong.
I have no idea what "unless they are unfair (this will be conductive to optimization)." means. What do you think it means? I think being banned for 6 weeks because all your mistakes get caught at once counts as unfair. --Badger 19:57, 12 December 2011 (MST)
This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   07:44, 13 December 2011 (MST)
[3] (direct rudeness: belittling) (1:2). Issued on 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST).
Please stop asking when voting will be done.
I am offended reading this discussion. I feel that people are just testing admin positions through this discussion and wasting time because they maybe 1) do not know what to say and 2) do not know how to approach the situation.
"Users don't have to learn through repercussions. Our users are smarter than dogs. They can learn what is right without being punished for doing wrong.". — Have you ever trained a dog? If they do five bad things in a day and you don't give them lunch for 5 days they will have no idea what's going on. The system that I am not proposing is treating users like dogs. Like the model throughout the ENTIRE WORLD I am talking about people are not treated like dogs.
People will optimize systems. They will be rude and then "oops! No idea sorry!!" although they really knew and they just wanted to be jerks.
Since this discussion has now turned circular, it is over. No one has had anything constructive to say except for undermining what they are proposing (through the dog example). Since this is the case consensus is done, and so is this discussion. The policy will be changed soon. If there are any problems with it please bring it up in a truly analytical manner. --Green Dragon 16:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)
You are basing your policy under the assumption that users are going to game the system. Isn't one of they key policies of Wikipedia "Assume good faith"?
You unilaterally declaring a discussion "over" isn't constructive in the least. If you feel you've reached consensus, you do not have a solid grasp of the definition of consensus.
How would you like me to analytically bring up my objections to the policy as it stands? --Badger 20:31, 13 December 2011 (MST)
How am I assuming that they will game the system? It's in the same reasoning that the people that people are being jerks to deserve to be impartially dealt with. I mentioned that to get the point across.
You are the one who made the system that is there now (the wording is a little corrected), but go for it. Bring up the problems on a quote by quote basis. --Green Dragon 21:52, 13 December 2011 (MST)
"People will optimize systems. They will be rude and then 'oops! No idea sorry!!' although they really knew and they just wanted to be jerks."
From your previous post, Green Dragon. The truth is, that is an assumption, even if its a common one or one that would meet little rejection in public. The assumption describes, even if unknowingly, something that is gaming the system, and it should be fairly obvious. In fact, its a policy of wikipedia, detailed at WP:GAME. Seeing as you seemed to be using that reasoning as a justification for your reaction to Wrecan, I think Badger is well-justified in his statement. My thoughts on that situation are aligned with his.
I'd also like to say that I find myself entirely in favor of the overhaul of policy, to the term with Badger's draft and later amendments. That said, I am concerned with its implementation, which can only succeed if all those utilizing warnings and blocks (I.E. Administrators) can agree to a specific interpretation of those rules, and that agreement can be enforced in the future. This means that any who wield the power to warn and ban must be subject to the review and judgement of their administrative peers, even if in the most common case it would not be necessary. I bring this up because of the contention obviously present in this topic before now, showing a difference in interpretations, and the fact that one of our most prolific administrators in the punitive regard is Green Dragon, who has in the past not been subject to the review and judgement of other administrators due to his control of the wiki. That is an observation, by the way, and I believe it should be considered, as it can lead to further contention without continuing to carefully reach an even more defined consensus.
For that reason, I'd like to further address the situation with Wrecan, not as it was in the old policy, but in the proposed new policy, if the draft has been altered to consider all new amendments. The old policy not withstanding, would what occurred there still be applicable if the new policy had been in effect? If not, do you recognize that, Green Dragon, from your position?
Again, I must restate that the contention observed indicates that there are clear differences in opinion and therefore interpretation. It serves us all the more to remove those differences. Otherwise, it is reasonable to suggest that the new policy will be enforced according to varying interpretations, some of which beyond reproach, which historically causes great schisms and even further contention.
Also, I'm back. Hi. Jwguy 09:12, 15 December 2011 (MST)

Problems with the Warning Policy[edit]

1. Warnings result in predetermined feelings.

What does that mean?

2. Blocks are offenses of a different magnitude.

Blocks are not offenses at all.

3. Warnings also are not petty matters.

What do you mean by "petty matters"?

4. Petty matters may be corrected and may result in discretionable feelings.

How do you correct petty matters? What are discretionable feelings?

5. For example correcting indentations may result in discretionable feelings while being referenced as a contributor of low importance is a feeling which is predetermined; not discretionable.

What is a contributor of low importance?
What is a feeling which is predetermined?
How does a predetermined feeling differ from a discretionable one?

6. If there are any lasting feelings of receiving a predetermined feelings know that six months passed

If six months have passed I should be ok with someone using a racial slur? This sentence doesn't make any sense.

7. Call some friends over and play some D&D– try to keep your mind off the predetermined feeling(s) which w/as(ere) received.

Still not sure about predetermined feelings. Are you suggesting that users should just stop caring if they were insulted?

8. IPs with warn-able offenses will be automatically blocked and the block reason should say "IP leaving comments in violation of warning policy"

How long will they be banned? A day? A week? A year? Forever?

9. Warnings have been removed after 6 months.

This is unacceptable. The text is still offensive. Text that has been censored should remain censored. After six months, you can move the warning to a new list of "expired warnings". However, you should, under no circumstances un-censor a post that has been censored. You need to go through and re-censor all the posts that have been uncensored since you implemented these changes.

These are my problems with the current system, and they need to be addressed before I'm willing to accept it. I'd also like to see amnesty granted to all posts made before today, as they were made before the system was clear. I'd also like to see a system to address blocks, and consider commuting blocks. --Badger 22:29, 13 December 2011 (MST)

  1. I am not entirely certain how to explain what a warning is. The best I could come up with is that someone else is telling you how to feel/approach/etc a situation. Therefore they are determining your feelings/approach to the situation.
  2. Blocks are offenses. You are a sex offender, and offended the law in that regard. I thought I would just continue this wording.
  3. Petty matters are things like "If you are arguing, take a break. If you are mediating, recommend a break Wikipedia:Etiquette" for example. I wanted to mention that we will not be totally nitpicky here– admins are reasonable too.
  4. Correcting a petty matter can also be just correcting the indentation of a discussion.
  5. "What is a contributor of low importance?" would occur when someone is belittling the contributor. A predetermined feeling has also been explained above. I am get annoyed with people not signing posts, but it is different then being belittled.
  6. "If six months have passed I should be ok with someone using a racial slur?" Well the discussion will be amended anyway. Are you still okay with someone using a racial slur? Who knows, but since six months is the systems cut line I put that there.
  7. Same as above.
  8. How long are IPs banned for anyway? It's part of the block system and becomes related thereby. I'll improve this point.
  9. I kept the text censored of course (see revision histories). It is inappropriate text.
The system works so well together that there is no need for amnesty. If you want to make a system for blocks feel free to propose one. --Green Dragon 22:42, 13 December 2011 (MST)
1. Blocks are not offenses. Blocks are punishments for offenses.
2. If petty things don't have anything to do with warnings, they shouldn't be included in the warning policy.
3. Again, if correcting something doesn't require a warning, it shouldn't be part of the policy
4. You calling someone "of low importance" is belittling in its own right. Rework that title.
5. In my opinion, if someone is warned for something, I will never be ok with it. Even after 6 months. That should be removed from the warning policy.
7. I'd still like to know how long they should be banned for. That should be part of the policy.
8. You didn't in every instance. (See here)
The system does not work well together at all. If you are depending on admins to use their discretion, you need to set more guidelines, or allow them to appeal judgments. --Badger 20:37, 14 December 2011 (MST)
If you have other problems please bring them up on a new list. I fixed the ones above.
The length of the ban is still mentioned. "The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially from the sixth warning (2 weeks) for each three warnings received."
One can see how well the systems work together since the new warnings system has already been implemented. --Green Dragon 18:57, 15 December 2011 (MST)
Sorry about the delay; for some odd reason I haven't been feeling very motivated to edit lately. Anyway I have a new proposed policy that might strike a happy medium between Badger, (Hooper?), and my ideas for amnesty with Green Dragon's idea for All Offenses Must Be Punished: We already have a provision that all warnings are removed after 6 months, what if we made it 6 months from the offense, instead of 6 months from the warning? That way, you can still warn someone 9 times for the discussion you've been having with them for the last couple days, but nobody has to worry about being warned about something they did a year or more ago. Note that I'm not actually happy with this solution, but I'm happier with it than I am with the current policy, and it's the only thing I can think of that we might honestly be able to compromise on.
Secondly, I think we need some sort of appeals process. It doesn't need to be for every block, but as it stands now, I can warn user X 30 times in one post, thereby blocking them for 512 weeks (42 years, 8 months) if I did the math correctly, and there's NOTHING this user can do about it. As written, I can even tell the user that I'm only warning him because I hate his guts (which would earn me 1 warning) and that I don't think the blocks are justified. This is too much power, and therefore we must have some sort of appeals process. I propose that you can appeal ONLY in one of two scenarios: (a) when you have received a warning for 4 weeks or longer, or (b) you have been banned within 1 week of your last ban lifting, if both bans were made by the same Admin. I don't think we need any official process here, and it doesn't need to be done in public. Just something so that if one user feels his ban is inappropriate it can be looked at by another admin and they can discuss it. Note that, technically, we are told to follow WP:DR, as referenced on RFA. JazzMan 17:24, 26 December 2011 (MST)
I am okay with a six month warning removal from the time of the user's warned edit.
My solution for an off-wiki appeals is http://groups.google.com/group/dd-wiki-non-wiki-arbitration . We could mention the use of the process on Meta Pages as the a) and b) you mentioned above as well as c) your ban is unjust. --Green Dragon 19:12, 26 December 2011 (MST)
Well it would be hard to make an unjust ban a prerequisite for entering the process for determining if your ban was unjust, but otherwise I'm glad you agree. JazzMan 09:06, 2 January 2012 (MST)
I feel it's better so people who feel that they apply (if they feel like they do there is a good chance somehow it will matter) will not feel disregarded. I added it. --Green Dragon 21:34, 8 January 2012 (MST)
I changed the warning ban time-frame since it was excessive (year long bans). --Green Dragon 11:07, 9 January 2012 (MST)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors