UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prevent Harrasment: Difference between revisions
(I vote keep) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*Double check your grammar and sentence structure. My subconscious doesn't like it. | *Double check your grammar and sentence structure. My subconscious doesn't like it. | ||
But again, it does seem necessary. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC) | But again, it does seem necessary. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
=I don't like it= | |||
You'll end up with n00bs banning pretty much anyone who posts something that they don't want to hear on their talk page. The requirement to go through arbitration in order to remove someone's freedom to post where they like is necessary to ensure that there is actually harassment going on before they are banned from the page. The classic example of this is Iscariot, and his long term "ban" on any sysop whatsoever posting to his talk page, despite the majority of them in no way harassing him. This would make such a ban legitimate, and mean that anyone of them who inadvertantly posted to the talk page (without an admin reason) would automatically get a warning despite their intentions (good or bad faith). There have been plenty of other examples.<br />The process of getting a ban approved via arbies could do with some simplifying, perhaps, and some way to kill off the "I refuse all artitrators" defense <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 21:33 5 February 2011 (BST)</span></small> | |||
Revision as of 21:33, 5 February 2011
1st
Needs a clause allowing sysops to still be able post on that page for official reasons. -- Cheese 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 18:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
2nd
You spelt harassment wrong. =p -- Cheese 18:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I like it
This is a textbook example of something we do based on precedent but haven't yet set forth into policy. The need is clear. However, the document itself is rough around the edges and will need a bit of revision. Namely:
- Use the word harassment less. It makes it sound like you're trying to outlaw trolling, when you're just making people the masters of their own domains.
- Don't make people "use their header" (whatever that means). Make them place the list 'clearly' on their talk page. Nothing in the style of <!--Hey, Example_User! If you post here I'll get you banned! :P--> should be allowed, for obvious reasons, but we can't force people to put something in a specific place on their talk page.
- Double check your grammar and sentence structure. My subconscious doesn't like it.
But again, it does seem necessary. --VVV RPMBG 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't like it
You'll end up with n00bs banning pretty much anyone who posts something that they don't want to hear on their talk page. The requirement to go through arbitration in order to remove someone's freedom to post where they like is necessary to ensure that there is actually harassment going on before they are banned from the page. The classic example of this is Iscariot, and his long term "ban" on any sysop whatsoever posting to his talk page, despite the majority of them in no way harassing him. This would make such a ban legitimate, and mean that anyone of them who inadvertantly posted to the talk page (without an admin reason) would automatically get a warning despite their intentions (good or bad faith). There have been plenty of other examples.
The process of getting a ban approved via arbies could do with some simplifying, perhaps, and some way to kill off the "I refuse all artitrators" defense -- boxy talk • teh rulz 21:33 5 February 2011 (BST)
