Help 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)

Move to Help Namespace[edit]

It took me a bit of effort to re-find this page. I was looking for User:SaltiestMeatBall's warning history, but I realise we still issue warnings that aren't listed here. I'm guessing half the issue is the hidden status of this page, so I can't follow those cases successfully. I think this page also has information that could be useful to users, that aren't quite covered in the Help:Portal already. As such, I'll move it into the Help area in a day or two, if there are no objections. --SgtLion (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2017 (MDT)

You are right, this page belongs in the Help namespace. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2017 (MDT)

Concealed Light[edit]

I'd like to "appeal" the lastest warning for ConcealedLight here: [previous revision of ConcealedLight's talk page] for actions on this page talk page: Talk:Atlantean (5e Race). I don't think CL's comment was the most helpful but it didn't help the conversation. CL did not "force" a user to do anything. And anyone could have asked CL what the comment meant or was implying.
Secondly, if the warning is going to be removed from a talk page, then I believe the warning itself should be reversed. On a similar note, the warning said "second official" but when looking at the warning page, there is no mention of a first warning. Unless someone is willing to find the first warning and document it, I see no reason for The Light Concealer to have any warnings. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2018 (MDT)

Sorry, but it is extremely difficult to understand what you want. Has CL been warned? Where is it, and why is it not on this page? These things need to be correctly documented, or it becomes almost impossible to understand what is supposed to be going on. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2018 (MDT)
This is my point GD. It is almost impossible to understand currently. EDIT- ConcealedLight was warned by GamerAim. It was deleted, I cannot answer why it doesn't exist-END EDIT. The second warning was posted on the CL's talk page but subsequently removed. Though when it was removed the summary did not say it was removed because the warning was withdrawn, it says there's no need to keep it posted. See here: [ConcealedLight revision history].
It leaves the impression a second official warning still exists; but it is not posted on Help:Warning Policy and the warning is no longer visible. I would like an "official" wording that the second warning was reversed, or if it was reversed by deletion of the post, better summaries in the future to clarify this. I'll stop there for now. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2018 (MDT)
So apparently despite being an admin for over a year and issuing multiple warnings, it has never been brought to my attention before that I glossed over this part of the warnings procedure. I'm not sure how this slipped under my radar for so long! I suspect that because most of my warnings were unofficial, I just forgot about it by the time I did issue an official warning, and since they weren't official, no one needed to point this out to me. In any case, BSFM is right and my warnings to CL were not legitimate! Kinda embarrassed here, but I think we're all entitled to a slip up now and then ;) CL, if you wanna officially warn me over this infraction, I understand! XD
So, thanks to BSFM for pointing this out. And apologies to GD, BSFM and CL over the confusion! Glad we got this figured out :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2018 (MDT)
P.S. I'll do a full review of all our site policies and procedures this week and do so regularly to make sure this doesn't happen again.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2018 (MDT)
Great News! Thanks GA for helping with this. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (MDT)
In hindsight, this policy is quite convoluted. If you want to go ahead and make it more approachable while you are reviewing it, that would be great. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2018 (MDT)
Agreed. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2018 (MDT)

2018 Warning Policy Referedum[edit]

Green Dragon, you told a user, which I think GamerAim was implied, to update the policy and you also said the policy is convoluted. Could you elaborate on what is convoluted? In the event no one user is responsible for updating the policy I'd like to assist with this, and your help understanding what you think is convoluted would be very helpful. Currently, offline discussions have occurred and my opinion is the language isn't clear. The guidelines for handling warnings is okay, to me, but keeping record of them isn't communicated the best. If others have opinions on what seems confusing/complicated/convoluted it'd be helpful to hear those concerns. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2018 (MDT)

This bit {{warning|comparedselectedrevisions=<!-difference of the contributors' text removal replaced with [[Template:Warning/Text]]|brokenpolicy=<!-broken policy relating to the warning - see also civility and etiquette->|warningnumber=<!-the users warning number -1,2,3|warningbannumber=the users warning ban number|issuedate=<!-the date issued, if different from the date of the post->|signature=--~~~~}} is so complicated that I doubt anyone will ever seriously use it. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2018 (MDT)
I don't think anyone's ever seriously used it. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:59, 12 August 2018 (MDT)
I've never used the warning template. I don't see any issue with Warning Policy as it stands (though I think some admins warn too quickly with discretion), but making the handy template useable would be handy. -SgtLion (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2018 (MDT)
Agreed Sarg. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2018 (MDT)
I find these posts to be great news. No policy changes just a clean up on the wording/execution of the warning. Whew! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2018 (MDT)

Below is a proposal:

Mediations

The ban length starts with one week at three warnings. If a user is banned again, the ban length is a number of weeks equal to the number of bans.

Warnings are given by admins; an admin should post on a user’s talk page that the user has been warned with a link to the offense. In addition, a brief explanation why the offense is not allowed should be noted in the warning. (example: D&D Wiki does not allow cursing)

If a user's contributions have incurred no additional warnings over six months since their last contribution incurred a warning the warnings will be removed.

Comments with offending text written, at any time, by IPs will be edited like every other warn-able offense, but no warning will be issued.

IPs with warn-able offenses will be blocked and the block reason should say "IP leaving comments in violation of warning policy". This policy is not related to them from this point.

If an administrator is issued three warnings, and a subsequent block, their administrator standing will be put to a vote. After the block is over, they will be RfA'd, and removed from power if they are found to no longer be upholding the values of the community. Bureaucrats are exempt from receiving warnings.

Warnings Issued

Below is a list of warnings that are current. Warnings listed here should be shown as such:

*{{user|username}} (# of warnings:# of blocks) [[User talk:username#Warning|User talk:username]] date

Any discrepancies on a warning's creditability or reason should be brought up on the talk page.

If you know of a page where warnings need to be given please bring that up on the talk page.

I am sure it isn't perfect so please, critique it. Most notable change is the text Green Dragon shared. It has been replaced with warnings being put onto user's talk pages. I have seen warning in summaries before and if we choose to mimic wikipedias practice, warnings are best placed on a user page. Again, just a proposal. I am sure there are many ideas how to handle. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2018 (MDT)

I agree with the proposed changes. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:52, 13 August 2018 (MDT)
For clarity are we grouping warnable offenses on a per-incident basis or on an individual basis. For example, the user ToddIsRlyCool may curse 12 times in his rant about the admins being evil. Are those 12 warnable offenses or just one? Alternatively, if the user DarkAngelShadowElf edits 3 separate pages over a week by increasing their ASI to be +100. Are those 3 offenses and as such a warning on his talk and a ban? For example's sake, if they are banned, and after a week they come back and within 6 months does something similar does that mean another warning or is it straight on to a 2-week ban? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2018 (MDT)
I would say that admins can only ever warn users one time at once - users should be given a chance to correct their behavior. With your last example, in that case I would probably be lenient if the user had gone a decent time without any troublemaking, and anyway the letter of the policy says that warnings go away 6 months after the user's last warning. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 22:41, 13 August 2018 (MDT)
I agree with that idea-warning 1 time for when offenses learned about occur. Regards to users being banned, ban expires and they come back, break another rule-I think another ban, without warnings, is okay? I don't think admins should have to warn a user 3 times again. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2018 (MDT)
This sounds great to me. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2018 (MDT)
Oh, this reads very nicely. I agree that one warning at a time makes sense - To give users a chance to correct their behaviour. My two proposed additions would be: Reword "IPs with warn-able offenses will be blocked " as "IPs who commit warn-able offenses will be immediately blocked without warning". And some line to say that "Admins may occasionally give a shorter or lengthier ban than policy suggests, based on the circumstances." --SgtLion (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2018 (MDT)

Ffej 123 Warning Appeal[edit]

In light of this user being warned for an offense not mentioned is it possible to reverse the decision? As a personal note, while admins are the only ones who can and may issue warnings, it might be more helpful to a community to let users know what they did wrong without jumping to such measures. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2018 (MDT)

Hasn't Geo told them what they've done wrong on their talk page though? As far as an admin using their best judgment it seems perfectly reasonable to warn a user for plagiarism if you'll recall the case with JayeLovee. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2018 (MDT)
JayeLovee seemed to feel regret about the situation and didn’t understand copyright laws. Both users have shared material that appears to be free. Unless you dig into the websites they post on, you don’t know it is copyrighted material. People simply aren’t as familiar with copyright stuffs as others are. Seems like we could be helping others learn instead of punishing for what could be an honest mistake, if we are to be assuming good faith. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2018 (MDT)
I consider warnings a learning process. I doubt that these users will copy-paste material from other websites onto D&D Wiki again. So, they have learned that they need to ask the authors for permission, and since what they did was wrong they were reprimanded for their actions. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2018 (MDT)
As GD said. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2018 (MDT)
To each their own. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2018 (MDT)

Zavex Capricious[edit]

The warning for Zavex Capricious is not listed here, despite being warned by ConcealedLight over a week ago. Should I take this to assume that the warning is not legitimate, as CL has had plenty of time to add the warning here (being he's been active since that time)? Alternatively, if we deem it legitimate, we should add it to the page. If it's not, I can inform the warned user that his warning has been revoked.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2018 (MDT)

It was not a warning as inferred by the wording, "If you continue to do so you will be officially warned" so there is no need to. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2018 (MDT)
That wording was ambiguous and read to me as if you were informing him that further violation of policy would result in further warnings and subsequent banning. I am glad to hear that the user was not warned :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2018 (MDT)

As Requested[edit]

I am posting this because it simply was requested, not because I wish to attack or headhunt any one user on this site. These examples are a fraction of what takes place. They also don't show the users that email or communicate via Tavern or Discord "private messages" a great discomfort to post on the site because of ConcealedLight. I myself one of these users. I posted a completed April Fool's page all in one day because I didn't want to deal with an onslaught of maintenance templates from ConcealedLight. So, as follows:

The phrase “overall poorly executed” is demeaning to the dozens of users and articles the phrase has been used on.

Sanujae (5e Race) TreyBae24 wasn’t addressing a {{wording}} and CL started issuing strikes in edits summaries without explaining on a user talk page, the article’s talk page, or in the edit summaries. No, TreyBae was being bullied via warnings in edit summaries to fix something until Blobby383b stepped in to help.

Serfrar (5e Race) Good Ol' Critty McFail created a page and CL edited to their liking. ‘’Be Bold’’, I get it. GoodCrittyFail undid part of CL’s edit and the next edit was made by CL with a warning in the edit summary. The talk page was used, and you can see GoodCrittyFail thank another user for constructive feedback vs CLs method of trying to force edits via editing, aka bully.

Talk:Zora (5e Race)# "Armor Class" versus "AC" The conversation alone is an example of another user bringing up what these other examples are about.

User talk:Guy/Archive#Class Damage Guideline Another conversation regarding the topic at hand.

Talk:Concentration Everfliers (5e Subclass) I requested an admin to use the rollback feature, something I didn’t know the term for at the time. CL said they couldn’t do it, and that I was attempting to argue over something trivial. This essentially was demeaning as my request was something beneath them.

Kreen (5e Race) “Read the 5e Race Design Guide and Help:When_to_Italicize_and_Capitalize for help”, I might be nit picking here but it fits within the context that there is an elitist way of doing things being done and that a user has the right to tell others what to do. Normally it is not a big deal, but because the context, telling people to go read guides for help is just rude and demeaning. Only because I’ve seen this as a trend am I using this example.

[warnable offense here based on civility and etiquette of wikipedia policy] fixing people’s typos

User talk:ConcealedLight/Archive 1#Drama This is for reference about a bully mentality that during an RfA. Despite other’s wishes, CL was going to continue with his actions; that was, until Green Dragon said something. More could be said on that, but not the point.

Talk:Faerie Dragon (5e Race) & [[[User talk:ConcealedLight/Archive 1# Faerie Dragon (5e Race)]] Between the two pages, I’d say the user was bullied into following CL’s rampant use of the MM for the time. But it is not just my opinion, the user said they felt bullied.

User talk:ConcealedLight/Archive 1# Removing Templates CL can’t just apologize for accusing someone of something they didn’t intend to do? Which is a point all in itself; does CL apologize when a user is offended, been rude to, or misspoke to them? It coincides with the rest of the behavior of CL disregarding others using this site.

User talk:Zavex Capricious The situation involving Zavex; being bullied to stop otherwise was threatened to be warned if behavior that the admin was doing wasn’t stopped.

User talk:ConcealedLight/Archive 1# Behavioral Issues More conversation, already linked before, pertaining to a lack for others on the site.

User talk:ConcealedLight# Brightmaid History “if you aren't willing to put in a basic level of effort”, this is just not right. I talk like this amongst friends, but to users who are trying to fix or learn things it is just demeaning and highlights previous examples.

User talk:ConcealedLight #Not the hugest fan of being threatened I told the user not to take it as a threat in an attempt to cool the situation but the fact remains, the user felt threatened.

I know I've got skeletons, and that CL has been thanked a dozen times for they're work. I still find that the user's Admin's character to reflect what is above. There is a DPL/whatever to track every 5e race in order to make sure CL can modify, critique, or edit to their preference. Some might call this efficiency, I simply see it as an attempt to make sure the site reflects their vision, not a community vision. Certainly other examples exist but this is way more than I even want to present or discuss. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2018 (MDT)

I feel that you need to take this matter more personally. There will always be edits which you simply do not find right. Take your personal initiative, and edit the pages which are not done right. If you can, work with the edits that just are not right as soon as they happen. I will look into this in more detail when I have more time. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
I hear what you are saying, I really do. These are not just edits I do not find right; other users (as seen in the examples) do as well and the edits are a "pattern". Anyhow, I will do more of what you are suggesting I do. Thanks for replying. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2018 (MDT)

Improper usage of a maintenance template[edit]

In my opinion, this could cover:

  • The usage of maintenance templates to enforce metric rating systems, without offering a topic of discussion alongside the maintenance template
  • Templates whose wording is insufficient to address the problems of the page
  • Templates whose wording is used to coerce, demean, harass or belittle
  • Templates that are used to address an issue better addressed by another template (for instance, using needsbalance instead of wording)
  • Adding templates sooner than 24 hours of page creation or the page's last constructive edit

If anyone has suggestions on what else it should cover, please add them! Ideally, we can expand the current definition to codify usage of maintenance templates to prevent future abuse.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2018 (MDT)

I really like these. I hadn’t considered a 24 hour wait for templates but it totally fits within my opinion of not biting new users. (Currently, it’s new users creating pages.) but even active users shouldn’t have to experience this. I would be hesistant about “constructive edit” part as this has been subjective, and ignored at times, and too vague to be enforced. Overall they address most of my gripes when it comes to adding templates. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
I agree with Bigshot with regards to the last bullet point. I might also add a point about frivolous placement of a maintenance template, eg, a template that basically amounts to the person that placed it saying "I don't like it," though that may already be covered by the third bullet point above. I'm not sure using one template when another one would be better is necessarily deserving of a warning, as though it's obviously not entirely correct to do so, using the wrong maintenance template in the vast majority of cases is not disruptive to the project (or at least I haven't seen it be so), and the issue is in most cases simply one of semantics. The warning policy should cover behavior which is disruptive to the wiki, and all of the offenses listed currently align with that, as do the proposed additions above besides the fourth bullet point. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 18:21, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
I am concerned with where this path may lead. While I have expressed concern with the way maintenance templates are sometimes phrased and used, I fear enforcing this kind of policy—or even just focusing on it as we are doing with this discussion—could discourage users from reviewing content or speaking up. We will always have a short supply of reasonable review, so I would rather do all we can to encourage it rather than punishing a minority of reviewers for doing so in not quite the right way. That said, if we must take this path, I would at least like the opportunity to guide in a direction I find relatively favorable.
I think the definitions GamerAim put forth are reasonable, concise, and fair, problematic with at least two significant exceptions:
  1. I agree with Geodude that the fourth bullet point could be problematic. While this is something that should be avoided, it can be reasonably ambiguous in some cases. It also seems like something would should be addressed when it occurs, but it seems like a very minor infraction that does barely any harm. Any formal warning seems excessive unless it's committed repeatedly with reckless abandon, or in tandem with other infractions.
  2. I believe the second bullet point is presently too ambiguous. "Insufficient to address the problems of the page" might be better phrased as something like, "Insufficient to address at least one perceivable and problem of the page." Sometimes pages have a plethora of problems, and are worded so vaguely or confusingly that it's difficult to address them all even if you spend an hour or more writing an essay. Why I have spent my free time doing this enough to know from experience? Other times a user might realize the grammar is bad, but not be intuitively aware that being able to deal 2d8 damage with an unarmed strike is pretty overpowered in 5e.
The definitions put forth are decent, but not as precise as would be ideal—but I'm not sure if that ideal can be reached. - Guy 18:58, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
I understand entirely Geo’s concerns of wrongly placed templates. Users could place the wrong template and become scrutinized or warned for a mistake. I would still like and appreciate concern to using them appropriately or some sort of guideline or condoning proper use of them. Improper use of them in this regard has been brought up by multiple users. So it should at least be considered somehow. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
No. This isn't right. I've thought about it more, and I can't condone this at all. I won't sit passively by while this becomes policy. Let me explain more explicitly, breaking it down bullet point by bullet point.
  1. This is the only bullet point I can kind of get behind, but it hasn't been a problem for a while. Thankfully, meters have become somewhat depreciated, and I haven't seen one used as the sole reason for balance in months.
  2. I could almost agree with this if it was phrased differently. "Insufficient to address the problems of the page" might be better phrased as something like, "Insufficient to address at least one perceivable and problem of the page." Sometimes pages have a plethora of problems, and are worded so vaguely or confusingly that it's difficult to address them all even if you spend an hour or more writing an essay. That's assume you're omnisciently aware of all standards, which isn't the case for anyone.
  3. This already breaks another rule anyway, making it pointless on its own.
  4. This should be discouraged, sure, but putting it here implies that one minor infraction if it is worth being a problem that deserves being formally punished. Why does this need to be enforced? Could you imagine giving someone a formal warning because they used {{Wording}} instead of {{Wikify}}?
  5. No. Definitely not. This is unreasonable. It seems rather ridiculous that if someone posts a "Super Extreme Anime Sword 9001 (5e Equipment)," you are forbidden from putting a maintenance template on it for 24 hours. Most content below standard that "slips through" does so because it isn't addressed in the first 24 hours. The surprisingly few contributors who review other content, DPLs or not, will often only address something if it still lingers within Special:RecentChanges—especially if it is a degrading edit to old content, and wouldn't appear in Special:Newpages. This bullet point alone will, over time, degrade the quality of content on this wiki overall. Even more than the average already is. It's also absolutely infuriating to imagine myself keeping dozens of bookmarks just waiting for the precise hour I'm "allowed" to say adding your level to every weapon attack roll is absolutely breaking 5e's concept of Bounded Accuracy; until I am permitted to mark a page with a {{Wikify}}, knowing full well that if I forget to return to it later, it will almost definitely fall into the abyss as yet another uncategorized page that no one lays eyes on for years. Sure, maybe in a magical world of rainbows and angels where everyone puts effort and research and creativity and care and formality into everything they make this would be reasonable—but nothing, not even anything I've created myself, is worthy of that. And yes, the street goes both ways. If I posted thunderfoot rat with a d20 damage die, I would want SirSprinkles to fix it, or point it out, or be critical. I bring the Sir up specifically because he actually DOES review and critique and correct so much content that everyone else ignores, and even if that's almost all I see him do on this wiki it makes him among the best.
But that doesn't address perhaps the biggest problem that is also the most subtle. Imagine a world where administrators who don't actually review content nearly as much as I would like are handing out warnings to contributors who take the time, the care, the effort, and the analysis to at least try to improve the content we all share just because these reviewers didn't quite do it the precisely correct way. That it might "scare off" new users instead of showering their creativity with rainbows and stickers—or, more realistically, answering with nothing but silence.
I still remember the first homebrew content I contributed to this wiki. It got a critical maintenance template, and one which today I still don't even consider to be that valid. I didn't like that. That page was eventually deleted. But I learned from it. I got better. I made tons of content after that. I'm even an administrator now, and even among administrators I contribute and review content to an extent I myself almost find sickening. The content I make now is BETTER because of that rare, slightly painful maintenance template. Of that feedback. Critical. Swift. Precise. But fair.
Just because one or maybe two users often use maintenance templates in a way that is unfavorable, that doesn't mean this needs to become policy. That means we need to address those templates when you see them, and you need to address that user, and if the user still doesn't improve, then you take action against that user. I've addressed them. I've addressed three of those users—one of them a few times. It doesn't mean you start this kind of policy. I will not stand by it. I will do what I can to see this doesn't come to fruition and enforcement—at least not unless it sees considerable revision. - Guy 19:47, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
  1. This is already policy. There's no good reason to remove a policy because "it hasn't been violated in months."
  2. I am fine with rephrasing it. I didn't mean to suggest that a user had to address every issue on a page. The point of this discussion was to hammer out issues like this :)
  3. I like the idea of reiterating it here because some users seem to think that using a IRR template exempts them from the behavioral policy, but leaving it out is fine too.
  4. Users get warnings for minor first-time infractions anyway. As GD said, it's a learning experience :) Though, in fairness, I guess we could say it constitutes inserting false information.
  5. This is already a policy ("these templates should not be placed on a page less than 24 hours after page creation and not when the original author's last edit is fresh"). Users are more than welcome to fix the page within 24 hours if it breaks bounded accuracy, but if they mark a page with a template within 24 hours, it is within my power to issue citations for it if I deem it necessary :)
Honestly, you do have a point: most of these things are already technically against policy; I just want them reprinted for convenience. I'd welcome someone to revise a better policy inspired by mine, as I didn't intend my post to be reproduced verbatim anyway :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I agree with the proposed changes as presented, I'm personally not worried about the specific wording, I think the idea is there: "Don't be a dick with IRR templates", and I agree it seems necessary. Guy makes valid points that I think most of us can get behind; 1 is legit, 2 just needs rephrasing as suggested, 3 falls under other policy, so it doesn't really matter, 4 seems unnecessary, it could perhaps be included into 2 as "addresses a problem not already addressed by another template", and 5 really is necessary, because if you think "Super Extreme Anime Sword 9001 (5e Equipment)" can't be the title of an acceptable page, given five freaking minutes to get going, then you are wrong. (See Tuna_and_sweetcorn_(5e_Race)).
As Guy mentions though, we should avoid reprimanding users who are earnestly trying to help; Aiming only to warn/block users who are being deliberately negligent, rather than simply making honest mistakes. I do think most current admins have that tolerant attitude at least, but it may be worth codifying in some form. --SgtLion (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I do hate it when my intent is miscommunicated or misinterpreted. That name was an example of one of the dozens of overpowered, poorly written, uncategorized, every-problem-I-can-think-of pages that have been given needsbalance and similar templates, usually hours after they're posted and the contributor has started editing other pages, not just 5 minutes. Needless to say regardless of name some pages can be balanced and reasonable with or without an {{April Fools}}, which I feel your accusation implies is something I do not believe. There's a limit to hyperbole: 5 minutes is a far cry from 24 hours, and ignores both context and reasonable reviewing habits.
Let me respond to GamerAim's reply to my criticism of these bullet points:
  1. There's no need to add to it or double down on it.
  2. Great. That would be an improvement, though it's still advocating we give formal warnings for bothering to actually review content.
  3. Whether or not this bullet is here isn't the issue. It's just just an accessory on the machine I'd rather not give any fuel.
  4. My point stands. I will never issue a warning because someone used {{Wikify}} in place of {{Wording}}, and do not want to be part of a team where this is seen as the right course of action.
  5. "This is already policy" implies that copying it onto this page—on a page called "Warning Policy"—wouldn't change anything, which is false. "As a rule of thumb" does not equate to "expect to receive a warning for violation." The latter is the message sent by this being listed explicitly on "Warning Policy." It speaks volumes that maintenance templates have been swiftly put up dozens if not hundreds of times since then, often reasonably so, but there have been no warnings given in regards to this course of action. And—really—as I believe GamerAim is implying, this policy encourages users to "fix" a page. Let me be more candid with what "fix" means in this context. It discourages the most visible form of honest feedback (maintenance templates on the content page—which is important with new users who may not even realize "talk pages" exist), and instead encourages someone to edit the page to their liking with little or no reason given. It replaces a potential discussion and a learning experience with "This is how I want to do it; so deal with that or I will threaten you with a warning for starting an edit war." That isn't an imaginary example; it's something I've seen an administrator do on numerous pages.
As I already implied, I don't think more warnable offenses needs to be added regarding this subject. This discussion has made it clear to me that this area deserves fewer warnable offenses, if anything. - Guy 07:30, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
The thing I find most strange is that you fear the theoretical (and in my opinion, pretty unlikely with almost all admins) situation of us upsetting people earnestly trying to place IRR templates with rule #2, but you don't fear us upsetting people (in a way that has clearly happened like, a bazillion times I could point out in the past year) and driving them away by placing {{delete|~~~~~|fluff is terrible and mechanics not thought out and unbalanced and unplayable and terrible idea that could never work}} on a page because a user is in the middle of actually writing their article (sometimes over the course of 1-2 days), then they get their work mercilessly and needlessly ripped to shreds and they understandably want to have nothing to do with us anymore. This constantly happening is the reason for that rule.
Whereas the downside to just waiting a bit to put an IRR template, is, what? The article is delete a fraction of a day later than it otherwise would've been?--SgtLion (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
You said I "don't fear" that, which is not true. That is very much a problem, and one I have challenged several times before I was an administrator and before I could enforce policy. (I shouldn't NEED to be an administrator to have my criticism of behavior respected, but context suggests that may be necessary for some users.) What is true, is that I believe adding more reasons to warn people is the wrong way to resolve it.
As I implied before, one user is the source of these problems. That user has been addressed repeatedly now by several different users—including myself on at least two occasions, and including several administrators—and has even been given at least one warning under the current warning policy. If that isn't enough, then further action needs to be taken regarding that user's behavior, not the medium they are using for this behavior. I feel like that user's actions are the only reason for what I see as a crackdown on all maintenance templates on all content, as opposed to just 5e races posted by one user who almost everyone seems to agree is doing things in the wrong way. To be metaphorical, it is punishing the entire class by saying "no food or drink in the classroom!" just because one student threw his apple juice onto the teacher's papers.
Roughly half of the problems involved here result not from maintenance templates, but from rewriting the page or starting an edit war and then threatening action if the other side continues the edit war—which are all in my mind even bigger problems that this policy won't resolve. Forbidding or discouraging as much use of MTs will guide problematic contributions towards these avenues—if taken at face value, cracking down on this one part will in all likelihood make the bigger problem worse. - Guy 09:49, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
You are wrong if the think the issue being addressed by #5 was being done by *one* admin, the source of the problem was a multitude of users repeatedly engaging in this behaviour. Some users continue to do this in total defiance of the 'rule of thumb', continuing to cause disruption, and so it makes sense to make it a punishable offence, so that we can enforceable stop the issue.
As I said earlier, I don't believe warnings are an appropriate 'first response' (despite whatever has been declared), and TBH I think most admins agree; Either way, this is not going to discourage the average user from using IRR templates. These proposed rules do not punish or restrict anyone editing in good faith - Like many rules, they will be utterly irrelevant to most of our users - they just help us prevent bad-faith edits.
Edit warring is already against policy, but bad-faithed maintenance templates are an issue that needs to be formally enforceable if we want to prevent these kind of recent events from happening again. I don't know what "bigger problem" you speak of, but I sure don't see it as "users are afraid to place maintenance templates". --SgtLion (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
Just like you [Guy] don't appreciate being misunderstood or misinterpreted, I don't really enjoy my efforts for better treatment of users being equated to "showering their creativity with rainbows and stickers". It isn't expecting a switch from one extreme to another. Users can review articles without such harshness, even if you and others can handle the harshness it shouldn't be the norm. "scare off" users does happen here, so the need for quotes isn't understood. The proposals being mentioned, which need fine tuning, are an attempt to harbor better practices for reviewing articles. For being the number one homebrew site, I cannot for the life of me figure out why there is such little user activity.
I can imagine a user being warned for using the wrong template because it just happened because after multiple conversations no change took place. And as you [Guy] said in this discussion here, "That means we need to address those templates when you see them, and you need to address that user, and if the user still doesn't improve, then you take action against that user". So action was taken yet it is condemned. Unless you have other actions in mind, there aren't many tools to take action when users continue to not improve. It seems you [Guy] would rather change nothing and let bygones be bygones. I will not be silent while something wrong is occurring; I might as well be part of the problem if that happens. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I'm not sure why you think [Guy] would rather change nothing, and I disagree with that accusation. Action was taken and is being taken against the problematic behavior; the discussion of multiple warnings is literally ongoing. As I've reiterated several times action is being taken and is worth taking—but again the path we're discussing on under this header is one with which I disagree. If literally every other avenue to uproot the problem has failed or would fail, which does not seem the case to me, then something like this would become much more reasonable.
Perhaps my hyperbole was excessive, but I feel my points are valid. My passion gets the best of me sometimes. It would have been better to say criticism shouldn't be actively discouraged, and that is at least my own perspective of what this policy will actually accomplish in practice.
To respond directly to SgtLion: the "bigger problem" was referencing what I (perhaps mistakenly) thought you were referencing: scaring away new users by "being a dick." A lot of behavior outside of maintenance templates causes that. MTs are just one medium for it, and I believe enacting policy like this won't mitigate that behavior much if it all.
Regarding #5 specifically, yes, several users "engage in that behavior." I do. I know I've put up many maintenance templates after 2 to 24 hours of no edits, especially on small pages that seem very unlikely to cause Edit Conflicts. I know several users who do this, though it has become less common since that "rule of thumb" was added. I don't see or understand why this in of itself is a problem unless one is "being a dick" about it. This is something done by many admins and many users who routinely review content, and the majority of us endeavor to do so reasonably.
But #5 isn't the problem I accused of only one admin of causing. The problem I thought we were addressing, again, is behavior of "being a dick" and scaring away new users unnecessarily—doing so again and again with little change, even after being addressed about it directly several times by several different users practicing good faith. Maybe we disagree about what actions and words actually constitute "being a dick." - Guy 11:03, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
The downside to waiting is exactly what Guy stated - see his comment above about content "slipping through the cracks." I can agree with the sentiment behind wanting to impose these rules, that being not wanting people biting the newcomers, but Guy has swayed me. As someone who has placed maintenance templates on pages shortly after they've been created, and even speedily deleted things a few times under Wikipedia's snowball clause, I have done so because of fear of content slipping through the cracks and being forgotten about until someone on reddit or GitP finds it and complains that their player wanted to use this terrible content. Maybe this bullet point can be amended to cover only placing templates on pages that are still works in progress, as defined by {{WIP}} or {{stub}}? Would that help things any? I personally feel that if content is presented as complete, it should be fair game for having (constructive) templates placed on it, regardless of whether that page was posted 10 minutes ago or 10 years ago. The preload for every page (as far as I'm aware) contains a stub template that says "incomplete" and a comment tag that says "remove this when complete" so I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. (I wrote this just after SgtLion's first comment here. There was an edit conflict with Guy's post and I didn't notice, so I'm adding it now.) — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:47, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I surely agree that if someone has removed the {{stub}} from a newly created page it should be fair game. If it is still there, or a {{WIP}} is there, then I don't see a reason to rush templates on it. I understand the cause, preventing things from slipping through the cracks into the abyss, I just don't find it conducive to building a community. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I know - rightly or wrongly - I and many new users remove stub as a first thing when creating articles, and 99% of users will not be aware of the WIP template. If we would rather scare off a large percentage of our user base by screwing with their articles before they've even been given a chance to make progress, then by all means let's not include #5. But I personally feel that a few extra incomplete articles 'slipping through the cracks', to practically nobody's detriment (because who uses or even complains about an article that's not even close to complete?), is worth the retention and friendly atmosphere of giving people breathing room to make something wonderful. I'm still failing to see a meaningful upside to plastering incomplete work with 'is bad' templates, in any normal circumstance.
And Guy, we obviously disagree, but I honestly appreciate your input and your tone on this matter (and sorry for any large amounts of misinterpreting I keep doing, I'm genuinely a dullard who sometimes needs things spelled out in black and white) - Thank you <3
In regards to current events - yes, action is being taken now, but if these things were implemented as warnable offenses, we may well have squashed the problem before 400+ pages got plastered with poor templates (by my last count)--SgtLion (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I know {{WIP}} is something that a decent chunk of people don't know about, but {{stub}} is in every preload. The comment alongside stub in the preloads says "remove this when complete." If users are removing that while the page is still a work in progress, then they shouldn't be doing that, and re-placement of the incomplete tag and/or placement of other maintenance templates are warranted.
I don't want to see #5 implemented in its current state, but I'm open to implementation of an amended version. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:35, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
As a reminder, #5 is already in effect. It has been in effect for months, if not years. There was a discussion about it months ago. Are you proposing that we change that part of policy? That's fine, but I just want to be clear that it is currently in effect as of this writing (albeit, it's sort of a guideline, but that's all any of our policies are).--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
Really? I knew that was a thing, but I didn't think that was a hard rule, just a guideline (as is implied by the phrase "as a rule of thumb" on Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates). — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:05, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I'm starting to realize that all of our policies are rules of thumb, yes.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2018 (MDT)

Ditto. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2018 (MDT)

{{stub}} is not in every preload. And plenty people don't care to have it there by default. I fail to see what amendment to #5 could provide a decent compromise. I don't feel a shorter time period would be appropriate, and I see no meaningfully common circumstances that would avoid it being a good rule to have. I'd suggest we could at least move ahead in the meantime with rephrased rules 1-4, but it sounds like Guy would take issue with literally any addition to circumstances in which warning was appropriate because he doesn't approve of 'the machine' he just became a part of.--SgtLion (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
I honestly also do not see why a warning should even be part of the maintenance templates. Warnings are for curbing bad behavior, without blocking the user. Policies on the other hand, spelled out how they may be, are raw tools at the admins disposal. Trying to nail down all maintenance templates into the petty warning system which I wrote specifically to give users breaking harder wikipedia policies a slightly easier time has nothing to do with adding a penal system to reviewing content. If anything, we need to develop a policy and not create a penal system for this. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2018 (MDT)
As has been pointed out, all this already is policy. The issue is when users defy policy to the detriment of the wiki, and that culminates in bad chains of events and upset people, as demonstrated. I don't see another meaningful method of preventing this kind of bad behaviour in the future when users actively defy policy and don't change in response to being told to stop it a gajillion times. --SgtLion (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2018 (MDT)
"As a general rule of thumb" does not equate to "breaking this rule once or twice constitutes a warning." That remains true no matter how many times anyone says it is "already policy," and thereby appear to imply this wouldn't change anything.
SgtLion, whether it was your intent or not, you just pointed out to me what seems like a better solution. "The issue is when users defy policy to the detriment of the wiki." While I don't believe not always following "rules of thumb" in of itself should constitute warnings, disobeying several admins who ask you to stop breaking a certain policy should constitute a warning for breaking policy repeatedly in inappropriate ways. I say "several admins" specifically, as this caveat would hopefully prevent someone with more extreme opinions like me being the sole arbiter on a matter that may not explicitly be a warnable offense. - Guy 06:11, 21 September 2018 (MDT)
Why should misusing a maintenance template be "warnable"? If multiple admins tell a user to correct their actions, and they don't, they should get blocked. I really see no reason why we should be issuing warnings relating to something which we are trying to control. I created the warning policy as a way to lessen some of the harder policies on Wikipedia for us. A real policy, where we change the "rule of thumb" to something serious, is much better than using warnings. This harder policy will grant no play room regarding maintenance templates. The user can correct their actions after their informed of the problem, and when multiple admins agree that its a continued problem, a block would be appropriate.
I don't think that we should try to shoehorn a maintenance template application onto this policy. Warnings are too tailored to user behavior, degradation of policy power, and a sole arbitor. I would prefer to see our "rule of thumb" fleshed out into a usable policy, with multiple admins making a decision about blocking a user which has broken our policy about the maintenance templates. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2018 (MDT)
Well, I supported the inclusion of these things into the warning policy pretty much solely because I was under the impression that warning users was necessary if we wanted to block them. But, if it as you say, that "if multiple admins tell a user to correct their actions, and they don't, they should get blocked", then there are a couple of active users we should've straight up blocked, at least once, long ago, and we coulda saved ourselves an awful lot of hassle.
I just didn't believe that was a thing we were allowed to do, nor does it really feel as constructive as 'official' warnings, but hey, if it is, then I see no reason to add to this policy. --SgtLion (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2018 (MDT)
It also occurs to me you're simply suggesting that the rules should be this way. If so; As implied, that multiple admins can agree to a ban is an agreeable alternative. Whether such a rule in force now, or could be in force tomorrow, by all means have it so. --SgtLion (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2018 (MDT)

Some people seem confused, but I posted on this talk page because it's the a help page where improper use of maintenance templates is mentioned as being bad in some capacity. I don't care where whatever rules or policy or guidelines or whatever are posted. That, too, can be discussed.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2018 (MDT)

I propose that we list out what options we still want to discuss about the usage of maintenance templates. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
To reframe this proposal, instead of having my list be a list of reasons to issue warnings, I think it could be a list of lawful reasons to dispute or undo maintenance templates placed on an article:
Maintenance templates should not be:
  • Added to an article sooner than 24 hours after the page's last edit.
  • Placed without addressing at least one current, specific issue with the article inside the template itself or on the article's talk page.
  • Used to address an issue better represented by another maintenance template (for instance, using needsbalance instead of wording when wording is more appropriate).
  • Used to enforce metric rating systems without offering a topic of discussion alongside the maintenance template.
No one would be sanctioned for improper usage of maintenance templates (why did it deserve a warning for enforcing metrics in the first place?) unless they did it multiple times and disrupted the Wiki, but it would be a set of guidelines for placing maintenance templates. IRR templates placed in violation of these guidelines could be removed by an editor of the article, including the original editor. Again, everything here is existing policy or guidelines. I just want to place it together somewhere more visible. Unless there are any considerable objections to why I should not do this, I will put them up soon, as again this is our current policy/guidelines.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
I still disagree with the time limit. If a page is being presented as complete, there shouldn't be a reason to not place maintenance templates on it if there are issues with the page. Most preloads come with some form of an "incomplete" tag as the default, so there's really no reason a WIP wouldn't be marked as such, unless the editor is bad at reading.
I agree that templates which don't address any issue with a page (WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an "issue") should be removed.
If the wrong template is used, that template should be changed to the correct one, instead of the template being removed altogether. Doing stuff like this just because somebody used {{wording}} instead of {{wikify}} or whatever is just asinine. (to clarify, I'm referring to the action taken, not the editor who performed that action)
This last bullet point is already policy and I see no need to discuss it at length since it seems everyone's in agreement. ANY meter to judge the power level of a race etc is a tool that should be used to help interpret how balanced or not a page is. With ANY meter, it's important to use your own judgment alongside the meter. I have no objections to this and it seems to be the unanimous opinion anyway. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:34, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
On this matter, I think my thoughts mirror Geodude's. If preloads include something along the lines of {{stub}} by default (as several already do and more probably should), the 24-hour limit does not seem to serve any functional purpose, but is instead a detriment to page quality. Several of us disagree with not formally enforcing it for several stated reasons.
The remaining three bullet points are already good guidelines to follow, and everyone appears to agree that's how things should be done. If they aren't already part of Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates, then they should be. Infractions of these guidelines are worth addressing when they occur, but the guidelines don't need to be added to our warning policy anymore than every other guideline in the help portal. - Guy 09:58, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
As do mine Guy. I agree with Geo on those points. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
Since I've already explained why this small time limit is a courtesy (remember, these most recent suggestions are for guidelines, not policies), how about we agree on no placing deletion templates on pages less than 24 hours after the last edit? Except in the case of spam or the like, which would fall under Speedy Deletion, not Candidates for Deletion. I'm pretty sure that was the template at issue. However you slice it, I still don't think users should be sanctioned for removing an IRR template placed while they are actively editing an article. After all, if you place one on an article currently being worked on (as gauged by the short 24 hour courtesy period), that's your fault for interrupting a work in progress to place a template that might not apply in 1 hour. Of course, if you feel so compelled, you can always add in the stub or wip templates :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
I can agree with the 24-hour minimum applying only to {{delete}}. That is almost exactly what I recently wrote in my proposed deletion policy, after all.
I can also agree with not taking any administrative action against a user who removed maintenance templates which were placed on the page within 24 hours of the page's creation or a major edit. I think it's in bad form to remove them even then, but innocent enough that no one needs to address it unless warranted templates are again replaced-and-removed on the page well after that. - Guy 11:16, 29 September 2018 (MDT)

Blocking/Banning Policy[edit]

After reading our Blocking Policy, what ideas do we want to see? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2018 (MDT)

I don't think I want to see any changes to how blocks are handled. I like the idea of bans. I exercised one myself informally on the site, and I think it would be okay to say one for GA and CL could be done given CL's message on their talk page. How to draft that up if it was entertained by others, I 'unno. Just use Wikipedia's version? But I think the blocks have been good. My takeaway is that they are for disruptive behavior and I've seen them used for that purpose. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
I think it would be beneficial to implement Wikipedia's ban policy in the form of an interaction ban between GamerAim and ConcealedLight, to prevent further conflict. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 07:28, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
I agree that a ban between the two users to interact on talk apages, and to prevent collaborative edits is rather in order (except in matters regarding policy changes). I think that we have reached a concensus. BSFM, will you do the honors? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
Sure thing. Requesting patience as I will be on the road and quite busy tonight. If you don't mind, I don't mind, any help accomplishing this. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
I'm just gonna be honest here, BSFM and GD: this idea is entirely unwarranted. Banning two admins from interacting with each other? And why, because we disagreed on policy once or twice? If CL has decided we're not friends anymore, I will respect his boundaries and not joke with him anymore. But all I have done - barring one joke before I found out we weren't friends anymore - is exercise my rights as a user in a fair and impartial manner. No amount of bastardizing D&D Wiki with hodge-podge overkill Wikipedia policies will change that. On that note, I think that we should simplify D&D Wiki policy and not defer to Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia has too many policies that we don't need, but which an admin could technically apply with "justification" (not that admins need to follow policy). It is also unintuitive for D&D Wiki users, IMO. If we need a Wikipedia policy, we should adapt it to D&D Wiki, but I don't think that we should transclude their policies as a rule anymore. Binding ourselves to third-party rules that we have no control over does not sound like a good idea to me.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
Our impressions, over multiple discussions and multiple days, has given me the idea that it will cool the situation down if you two do not interact. I have gotten emails about problems with both of your interactions, so I agree that our policy needs to be implemented. On the note of policy, we do have control over our policies. If a policy does not fit, we state how and why it does not, and if we don't want to use a policy, or want to change it, we can do that on our end. Using Wikipedia's policies is useful since they are fit for a wiki, comprehensive, and have a history of successful implementations both on Wikipedia and on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
I just want to add what I said on Discord, this does not mean you are not friends as no one has said such. Just that friends sometimes need to take a break. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2018 (MDT)

How does this look for specific implementation of the banning policy? My thinking is that this could be inserted into the bottom of the warning policy page, just above the footer.

Sanctions Imposed[edit]

This section lists editors currently subject to editing restrictions (also called personal sanctions), which includes bans and other types of restrictions, as defined by Wikipedia's WP:Banning policy. Violation of these sanctions may result in further disciplinary action being taken, including extension of the relevant sanction, implementation of the warning policy, and/or a block.

List of Active Sanctions
User(s) Type Sanction Notes Start date Expiration
GamerAim Interaction ban GamerAim is banned from interacting with ConcealedLight as defined by Wikipedia's banning policy, both on the wiki proper and in related external channels such as the Tavern chatroom, Discord, and reddit. This includes implementation of the warning policy, but does not include discussions of policy changes on the relevant policy pages, narrowly construed. This also does not include cases where ConcealedLight is the one initiating discussion with GamerAim, narrowly construed. Implemented as a result of this discussion (more specifically [4]) ~~~~~ 1 week

The specifics of the impending ban, including wording and duration, are of course up for discussion, I'm just thinking more the general implementation of it. Another thing I asked about in Discord, but really should have asked here, is whether the ban should be one or two-way. The thinking here is that CL has pretty much just reacted and never really initiated a conflict with GA. I don't think it matters too much in this specific instance since CL already professed a desire to not interact with GA, but it does need clarifying for official purposes. I used the wording of a one-way ban because that's what I'm personally in favor of, but it can be easily changed. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 17:01, 24 September 2018 (MDT)

thanks for helping create this. I am undoubtedly terrible with tables. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
It's folly to think this kind of 'interaction ban' response will solve anything - This is addressing symptoms, not a cause. And I find it silly that we just randomly bring in some rule that's never been talked about in the history of dandwiki, instantly assuming there is consensus because three admins thought a thing presumably actually plotted on Discord, and concluding direct, almost radical action in under 4 hours without inviting any meaningful discussion. That's not collaboration nor effective administration in any sense.
This is an utterly stupid course of action that should be aborted, in no uncertain terms.
Just stop everything about this right now, please. I'll live with the terrible adminning if that's how we avoid community car crashes like this. --SgtLion (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
What do you see as being the cause here? Is there another avenue we could take that you see as being better? — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 17:22, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
Figure out why this conflict you say happens between me and CL is happening and work from there?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
After receiving emails about interactions between both of you, joining in policy discussions with both of your actions, seeing your reactions spill over to each other, I say that this is by no means a quick decision by anyone involved. This is the result of our mutual feelings, and in no way has been discussed anywhere before this discussion. Using our admin powers is a good way to see where the conflict is coming from, so I don't think that this is in any way a "community car crash." As an admin it is our responsibility to prevent disruptive actions, and normally when two people very strongly disagree with one another its best to let both of their interactions normalize so that they do not take irrational or dangerous actions. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
You're right SgtLion! This does not fix any cause and I don't believe it to be meant to do so. Rather, it is something to cool off parties involved so that a conversation about issues can be discussed in a level headed manner. I also assure you the first time I brought up the idea was in this conversation, not any plotting on the Discord took place. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
Would you like to share these emails with us, Green Dragon? Because so far I haven't seen anything to justify implementing this ban. Just vague references to "conflict" between me and ConcealedLight, but nothing to back up those claims. I did warn CL for violating policy, yes. Is that grounds for a ban now? Should we implement bans between all admins and the users they warned? No, that'd be silly :P The way I see it, there's two possibilities: a) there's no conflict between me and CL [the truth], or b) there's a conflict between us stemming from a fundamental issue that isn't going to magically disappear in 3 weeks. Either way, there is no grounds for a ban, because it won't effectively end any real or imagined conflict. As such, I have undone the warnings issued in light of the lack of consensus.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
Please stop spreading disinformation, Geodude671, even if it is not your intention to do so. Specifically regarding the belief "that CL has pretty much just reacted and never really initiated a conflict with GA." I never initiated conflict with CL. CL and I have had conflicting viewpoints regarding appropriate use of adminship permissions and D&D Wiki policy, but I wouldn't say we've been involved in a conflict against each other. If you'd care to show your evidence, I'd be glad to disprove it for the benefit of you and other users :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
Yes, like you mentioned above, the ban needs to be two-way.
I think that a time frame of 3 weeks is more appropriate, since this has been going on for longer than that time frame anyway.
How do we want to include the external channels like Discord and Reddit? If they are found to be breaking this ban, then we will consider it a breach? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2018 (MDT)
I like 2-way bans so there is no sense of bias or favoritism. I thought a week would have been good; I do believe much dust has settled. An issue still exists, I think, but 3 weeks seems long. Geo suggested 2, I thought 1, Lion says none :p, and GD says 3. As the one appointed to do it, I'll put two weeks down. Kind of hits that middle ground.
Currently external things and the wiki don't have bearing on one another. I am in favor of that. I know GA is bringing the spirit of the Discord closer to the wiki way of things but it being an extension of this site doesn't quite fit. Same for Facebook, or Reddit, etc. Admins would need to be on all facets of wiki related areas and I know they don't want to. Each platform having their methods I think is best. It isn't perfect as we saw with the Discord issues we had, but maybe after a few months/years the kinks will work out. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
External channels should be counted if they are related to the wiki, broadly construed. If GA and CL get into a flame war with one another over Discord, all this policy will have done is move the venue of the argument. If they happen to run into one another in a reddit thread about cat pictures or whatever, that's fine, but in matters specifically related to the wiki I feel this policy should apply. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:31, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
The bans do not belong on this page, since they are their own thing. We actually at this point in time, don't even need a page for them since they are rather rare. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
So, what, if interaction happens on Discord you're going to implement a ban? How does that stop disruptive behaviour on the wiki? Sorry, I do understand the motivations of wanting to stop the conflict, but I just find this whole thing ridiculous. As GamerAim points out, I'd also love to see any evidence of bad conflict happening on the Wiki that could even pose a hypothetical justification for this. --SgtLion (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
Technically, as per Discord server policy, all sanctions on D&D Wiki apply to the Discord server. However, breaking the "ban" on Discord would not result in additional sanction on the Wiki itself because sanctions implemented in the server as a result of actions in the server do not transfer back over.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
That's the general rule, yes, but the proposal above was meant as a specific exception to that rule. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:54, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
An excellent point as always, GD :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
It was a user expression to not have to deal with another user. 3 users agreed it would be a good idea. (4 users supporting an "interaction" ban) 2 users requesting evidence. 4-2. 66%. Consensus is not democracy as I've sorely seen numerous times. Green Dragon is the only (?) bureaucrat and decides on such matters. Therefore, [when GD tells a user to whip up a ban, based on consensus], I am not sure what grounds there are to refute undo edits. A USER DOES NOT WANT TO INTERACT. And there is an argument to be allowed to do so? An argument that putting users in separate corners is ridiculous. Aye, along with the rest of it-but here we are. How about I start interacting with User:Varkarrus. I respectfully followed their wishes. It was asked should I be warned, but it slid because it was known I was frustrated and commented out of that frustration. So, again, when users request to be left alone, does the wiki ignore these things or try to adhere to it?
@SgtLion, do you prefer warning a user if they interact with another user after its been said "I do not wish to deal with you"? (paraphrased-no need to be warned over misquoting). As above, what do you propose for users wanting reprieve from others? I find bans to be "perfect" in the sense you really don't want to warn users for something but their present actions can't continue the way they are.
Apologies for placing something in the wrong place. Not having a page seems appropriate, for now. If bans are used, and placed on a user page, "users can remove content from their talk page as they wish". So yeah, bans be disappearing yo!
Good points on policy enforcement across wiki extensions.
BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
Consensus includes some amount of democratic will, what is and isn't is rather arbitrary, but should not be declared 4 hours after an idea is first proposed (or after first revealed to the public, anyway).
Nobody is forcing ConcealedLight to interact with GamerAim. But GamerAim has a full right to participate in this community unhindered as long as they follow policy. A very important fact to note is that I can't see GamerAim even having attempted to actively interact with ConcealedLight since it was even minorly hinted to them that they didn't want any interaction - And we should commend that as a respectful, kind and reasonable response, so GamerAim, good job! This is just an unnecessary act that helps nobody and comes across as a solely punitive measure.
If you want reprieve from a user, don't interact with them. If they're harassing you, they're breaking policy and need to be warned. If they're interacting with you and they stop when asked, then there is literally no problem.
Though, to be honest, if they're interacting with you for legitimate reasons even after you've said you don't want to, well, welcome to being part of a collaborative community. As you say, people are entirely free to remove discussion from their own talk page, so you can totally choose not to have that interaction. Otherwise, I can just get an interaction ban between me and every admin on the wiki "because I don't like them", right?
You are fixing something that isn't a problem. You are seemingly punishing a user for being totally reasonable, and within policy. What also really gets my goat is you are still conspiring in private as a bloody clique to make policy decisions and then declaring yourselves instantly correct without discussion. Gahhhh. --SgtLion (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
As SgtLion said, I already accepted that CL doesn't want to talk to me, and I will do my best to accommodate him. I said this a couple times, but I understand if you missed that. I am not arguing that I be allowed to harass CL, but I agree with SgtLion that putting a ban in place is unnecessary at best and counterproductive at worst. I will respect CL's wish to not interact with me unless it is necessary. Simple enough. Now is this matter settled?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
After thinking on this a bit, SgtLion and GamerAim have swayed me, and I now agree with them that implementing this is probably a tad excessive. If things deteriorate from their current point we can revisit this, but there's probably not a huge need for this at present as long as people are respectful and assume good faith of one another. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:22, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
Aye, I'm glad I was able to get that across! I hope there's no hard feelings, my compatriots? We all just want to do what we think is best for D&D Wiki and I'm glad that our discussion seems to have bore fruit :) It's always important to remember that miscommunication is just a hurdle, not a stopping point, and we shouldn't let that interfere with our shared love of this great website.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
This may be some of the greatest tom-foolery I've been a part of and boy do I feel like a monkey's uncle. I won't be entertaining something like this again. Cheers. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
Poliy quote: "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to impose a topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction (which may include a time-limited or indefinite block) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute."
So, technically GA does not have rights to concensus about himself being banned. If Geodude671 does not agree with this ban (through changing his mind), then we will not impose these bans for the time being. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
Except you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that I wasn't disruptive or involved in a "dispute." Unless you consider all warnings issued as disputes, which I personally would not. Under the imagined circumstances you guys keep saying, maybe I would deserve a ban. But the interpretation of events that you, Geodude and BSFM keep alluding to did not occur.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2018 (MDT)
BigShotFancyMan and Geodude671 both seem to have now realised the lack of disruption and I took those comments as implying they have reasonably disavowed any support for the ban. So there is no consensus in any sense anymore, But 'course, they should probably clarify their true intentions if I've interpreted that wrongly. --SgtLion (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2018 (MDT)
I don't think I mentioned disruption-that would constitute a warning and there is nothing to realize. I still, firmly, support a ban. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2018 (MDT)
A "soft ban" like they've already seemed to have agreed to seems enough for the time being; there's probably not a need to make it official. Like I said, if things break down again we should revisit this, but presently there's no pressing need for it. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:57, 27 September 2018 (MDT)

of course there is an agreement. CL doesn't want to communicate and if GA doesn't respect it then discipline will follow, maybe.
Seems how there's confusion, I'll share my perspective of events.
Sept 18-CL warning and GA’s support. Much commentary in there, some of which is vague and could be seen as unfriendly towards CL.
Sept 19-GA’s warns CL for misquoting. Does not try to talk to his friend. Does not try to joke or jest with his friend. He warned his friend, for misquoting and the community feels it was kinda gray and hard to confirm its validity.
I think it is fair to point out I supported both of these things, but find my behavior towards CL different as things carried on.
Sept 22nd-GA sought out CL's edits and rather than edit templates to remove invalid parts, GA removed all templates by CL if there was a single issue with a template.
Sept 23rd- GA makes a belittling comment towards CL and defends the comment that it was a jest. Based of the previous four days of edits/comments/actions/etc I thought it was fair this wasn't a joke. I refrained from commenting because Guy addressed it, and did it well.
Sept 24th- I proposed the interaction ban 06:54, 24 September 2018 CST during my daytime hours based on the very brief summary of my perspective on things. In the #admin channel, a rant starting around 2pm CST, beginning with "a ban can’t stop me from talking to CL" (paraphrased?) followed by much disdain for CL. It carried on for a time, 6-7pm CST. .
I am not lying or crazy that GA was behaving poorly towards CL. When you take the totality of the circumstances, the picture is clear. If you wish to stand on each event as its on thing, having no weight or bearing on another comment or edit then that is on you (in a general sense, none specific). This is NOT presented to argue for a ban. My arguments are done. I am providing my perception because of the continued presumption nothing wrong was done and people are conjuring something that was never a problem. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2018 (MDT)

I am not arguing that the events never occurred, just that your perception of them is not accurate. My actions were all entirely lawful (except, perhaps, my joke with CL, which I accept others found inappropriate considering the circumstances even though I did not mean for CL to be offended by it). Despite him being my friend, I felt that some of CL's actions were out of line and against policy. It seemed to me that the crux of your issue with CL was him breaking policy and saying it was okay because no one challenged him on it before, so I chose not to let his breach of policy slide so as to reinforce the point that his actions were not okay. I felt - as I mistakenly believed you did as well - that trying to talk to him as a friend without sanctioning him would only contribute to the issue that I thought you had. I did issue the warning after the initial warning was revoked by CL's authority - that GD allowed CL to effectively "pardon" himself was an issue, I think - but I made the decision to warn him while away from the computer before the first edit was removed. It is easy enough to read messages on my phone, but I never edit pages that way. I apologize if it came off as unfriendly. I do try to use smiley face emoticons to reduce hostilities, but there is only so much you can do to come off as friendly while calling someone - even a friend - out for conduct that you think is inappropriate. I'm sure you understand this as well, being you've been calling me out for conduct you think is inappropriate :)
Lots of things are hard to confirm the validity of without admin adjudication. Should admins no longer be allowed to sanction users for unbalancing articles because balance is hard to confirm the validity of? The function of administrators on D&D Wiki is to confirm the validity of beliefs and actions. Without that ability, many more articles would "fall through the cracks" and never be deleted. Additionally, Discord server behavior cannot be sanctioned on D&D Wiki. Regardless, as I recall, I iterated numerous times that I had no hard feelings against CL. I am capable of being professional on D&D Wiki and challenging people without needing to necessarily hold grudges against them. I, for one, leave my personal feelings at the door. I only meant that a ban can't stop me from talking to him if it is absolutely necessary. To the greatest extent possible, I will refrain from interacting with him; I just didn't want my hands tied because I am more than willing and capable of respecting his wishes :)
Finally, I believe I went through CL's edits because I was prompted by an external conversation with SgtLion. It wasn't a negative conversation about CL, as I recall, just made me curious about his edits. I do go through certain user's edits out of curiosity sometimes. I think I may have even been looking to see if he was using maintenance templates correctly, particularly {{wording}} and/or {{wikify}}. I don't remember my exact motives, but I do know that they were not malicious. It is the right of all users to undo the placement of maintenance templates that are applied improperly. Again, I did nothing morally or legally ("law" meaning our policies) wrong.
Please understand that I see how you could come to the conclusion you did. I am not challenging the facts or saying that you were irrational to interpret them how you did. But I have corrected you and explained the situation multiple times now. I do not understand why this is not enough for your perception of events to change?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2018 (MDT)
My concern lies in the fact that CL did not break policy, and all of your actions seem to start with this preconception. We have discussed and stated multiple times that there is currently no policy covering the explicit use of maintenance templates. Do you understand why we are worried about your interactions with CL now? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2018 (MDT)

GamerAim[edit]

Hey, GD, you issued me a warning for rants posted on my own user space, which looks to be in violation of established policy and precedent. First of all, we agreed that profanity was allowed on user pages. So that part of the warning is invalid. And secondly, it wasn't verbal abuse: it was on my own user space, as hidden as could possibly be. I didn't post it on someone else's talk page. It was on my own user page for my own uses. It wasn't part of a discussion anyone else was involved in. People don't like it? Then don't read a page named User:GamerAim/rants, same as any other user page. Quincy, another admin, looked at it and had no complaints about it. SgtLion had no qualms about it. I, a third admin, also thought that — as a user page where no other users were involved and it was clearly a venting area for legitimate grievances and not directed at anyone else — it was acceptable. As such, I would like my warning to be repealed.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2018 (MST)

When was it established that cursing is allowed in a user's space? You can do what you want in your userspace, but this does not mean that our policies do not apply to them. Policies apply in all circumstances. See also w:Wikipedia:Civility, "Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." For example if there is content of a sexual nature in a userspace, it will get deleted. "Additionally, D&D Wiki forbids the use of profane language, regardless of the appropriateness or not of the word in a given situation. D&D Wikians are urged to utilize alternative wording to express the same meanings of any individual curse word." (Help:Behavioral Policy). There is also nothing written that you can break the warning system on your user pages. This is a wiki about D&D, not about your personal problems (like how Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). It is not allowed to break the warning policy if your personal comments are leading to verbal abuse. You are labeling a group as "users like Vark, CL, Geodude and CW" who you "... don't do what they say or try to limit their power". Then, you verbally abuse them using foul language. "And GD defends it with, "we shouldn't stop users from criticizing admins!" But they're not. They're just throwing fits because I didn't let them get away with being ****s off of D&D Wiki." Does this help you understand where this warning is coming from? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2018 (MST)
I understand where it's coming from, I just disagree that it's warranted. Three admins implicitly or explicitly agreed that the content was acceptable and the community consensus is that profanity on user pages is okay. I made the text invisible without going into source, I marked my edits as minor, I posted it on my user page, and didn't link it to anyone or anywhere. As SgtLion agreed, it wasn't directed at anyone; I was venting about legitimate grievances using language that the community agreed was acceptable on user pages. I do understand if the language offended you and apologize for that, but as the only person to complain about it, I also wonder if quoting complaints about you as evidence for my wrongdoing could pose a conflict of interest as well. Your own rationale that, "if there is content of a sexual nature in a userspace, it will get deleted" contradicts your very actions here, as the rants were neither deleted nor censored.
I don't want to make a huge deal about this, nor am I trying to taunt you into deleting the page. In fact, I'm willing to delete it myself as a courtesy if it well and truly offended you, though I'd rather find a compromise that allows me to keep venting on my own user page. I just think that warning me over behavior that the community — including two administrators besides me — agreed was appropriate isn't right.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2018 (MST)
You weren't warned for what you said about others. You are warned for profanity. It isn't allowed. I certainly have looked the other way at times, but as the policy says, just because you aren't warned doesn't mean it is okay and that someone wouldn't be offended by it. Ergo, the warning is valid regardless what anyone thinks because the rule is no profanity. You could try and see about changing that policy but I don't think there will be much luck for a policy that allows cursing.
Secondly, I am sorry my friend, but I think the page needs deleted. There is verbiage that user spaces are not to be used as rants. If you were to alter your speech/grammar into a criticism style, then I could see supporting your page to vent.
Third and last, I don't think you are going to move forward with the people you are at strife with by publicly bringing them down. Just a bit of advice is all. Take it how you'd like. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2018 (MST)
Thanks for writing that out Bigshot. I was concerned that my own response, which was pretty similar(before the edit conflict ><), would of caused some backlash. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2018 (MST)
Yeah no problem, I can certainly understand those concerns and glad you said something so that there's no false representation of wikian feelings on the matter. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2018 (MST)
As GA linked, and GD literally admitted, the rules on Profanity on userpages is 'unclear' at best. If anybody thinks otherwise, please warn me for profanity on my user page then, and for verbal abuse by describing being in the presence of Discord users as literal hell. Unless we're finally admitting to being explicitly arbitrary about rules. <3 --SgtLion (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2018 (MST)
Literally said needs rewritten. I don’t see a rewrite. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2018 (MST)
He said the rules were archaic and needed rewritten, acknowledging that they shouldn't be enforced as-written anymore. That no one — GD included — rewrote them does not mean that it was still the rule. The ruling was as SgtLion said, regardless of what the older, outdated article said. I am not at fault for GD's neglectfulness. Am I allowed to enforce rules from any version of a policy page, just because I can find them written? The fact is, the talk page was newer and should take precedent. Stop treating this as a loophole to enforce invalid warnings, BSFM. All you've done is give a further argument that I was warned out of negligence.
Also, where's all the people who claimed about me "violating consensus?" Because that's what you yourself have admitted to GD doing, by using a version of the rules where the consensus was that they were archaic and needed rewritten. It's silly to ignore consensus just because it hasn't been written into a rule page yet. Can I write whatever I want to on a policy page and then enforce it? No, that'd be silly, but it's exactly what you're condoning.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2018 (MST)
What loophole? You mean the rule? aka policy? The stuff you’ve expressedly shown interest in protecting. Policy in which you’ve been so upset when it was broken or abused by others but now, call it a loophole. Duly noted what you think of policy GamerAim. I’ve never condoned others’ misuse of policy. I try my darndest to stay true to the truth. If the conversation is as good as policy, then there are a many of discussions out there that indicate something other than what the wiki’s policies say. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2018 (MST)
There is no loophole, and this has always been the policy. No cussing, we don't need it. Of course the demon's home, hell, is not a curse word. I could write more about your behavior, but we'll see how it progresses. Ranting is something that I recommend you convey to your psychiatrist. I would delete the page. It has nothing to do with D&D, and frankly we don't need it. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2018 (MST)
Okay, do whatever you guys want. clearly all have it out for me for God knows what reason and are willing to do whatever it takes to chase me and SgtLion off. I don't care anymore, so say, do and delete whatever you like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GamerAim (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.
Sorry, but I agree with GamerAim on this.
Rightly or wrongly, I honestly feel like there's been a concerted effort by some to make the Wiki uncomfortable and conflict-filled for other users, just in the name of childish power plays - And now I really do feel you, Green Dragon, are making a point of backing that effort. I try to only ever act in the interests of: us all pragmatically having a fun wiki about DnD, yet I and others still get consistently and pointedly harassed by admins, and targeted in 'official' capacities for absolutely no constructive reasons.
I'll be banning User:SgtLion for two weeks for their refusal to adhere to your suddenly changed and totally-not-just-motivated-to-make-a-rash-point position and enforcement on user page profanity. With any luck, when I return, somebody here might take a minute to remember why we actually choose to spend our time on this website in the first place (protip: it was probably to have constructive, collaborative, fun). I pessimistically hope we can make amends and all decide to get back to doing that some day. Peace out <3 --SgtLion (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2018 (MST)
When we write a policy, we don't expect it to be re-written every few weeks so it's "fresh". Want it changed? Discuss the policy. You were lucky for a long time since no one noticed the foul language on your page. In the end, warnings are just a learning process and I hope you can understand the entire situation.
It's ironic how GamerAim always defends himself and all his actions as "upholding policy". There have even been two exceptional admins who resigned because of his way of "upholding policy". And of course, SgtLion always stepped in to defend him since a wiki and consensus does not work with this method of "upholding policy". Now, when I use a written policy letter-for-letter both of you flip over the table. Oh, how beautiful is the irony. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (MST)
I don't mean to interupt the flow of conversation but I though I'd just let you know since it wasn't clear in the history that Geodude671 and myself did attempt to remove profanity from SgtLion's page out in this edit but they were reverted both times. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2018 (MST)

Renaming this policy?[edit]

I'm curious what people think of using "infractions" instead of "warnings" for our disciplinary policy. I feel that using the word "warning" makes people less likely to treat this policy seriously and treat warnings more as reminders of the rules rather than the steps toward a potential ban that they are, and I feel that using the word "infraction" would help communicate this better. Instead of "unofficial warnings" alongside "official warnings," we'd have "warnings" and "infractions," where "warning" is used more in the colloquial sense and "infraction" is used for official disciplinary policy. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:37, 31 August 2019 (MDT)

I am not sure I agree. I think warnings and bans are appropriate. I also don't see the unofficial warning.   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   13:49, 31 August 2019 (MDT)
I'm fine either way. I "imagine" that if a user gets a warning on any internet site they will first check what that even means, but this may also be just as false as it is true. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2019 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!