YPPedia talk:Blocking policy
Re: YPPedia talk:Banning policy
Arr, it seems like we've roughly reached the end of discussion over there: I can't edit this page, but I was thinking that something roughly to the effect of this should be added, from what was discussed (comments in parentheses):
== Bans for continuing misbehavior == (Misbehavior; yeah, like Teeg said, now it really does sound like daycare.) In the event that a user continues to be disruptive upon returning from a ban, he or she may be banned ''immediately'' if another violation of policy occurs. The duration of this ban will be at least the length listed in the section for temporary bans, and may be extended indefinitely (should it be at the discretion of the wiki OM, a community consensus, an Admin consensus, or at the discretion of the particular Admin?). In addition, continuing misbehavior on the YPPedia may result in a ban from the Puzzle Pirates game itself, and vise versa (or should it only go wiki -> game?), at an [[Ocean Master]]'s discretion.
While we're at it, maybe a little blurb at the top to make this seem less stark? I was thinking:
==Bans and their purpose== The word "ban" tends to conjure up the specter of a vindicative punishment; because of the nature of a wiki, however, this should never be the case. Bans are a last resort, and the preferable method of redress should always be a warning or offer for help, particularly if a violation appears to have been made [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|in good faith]]. Some individuals, however, will prove unwilling to heed the advice of the YPPedia community and follow the rules, and so a ban may be required. Users are reminded that a temporary ban is only that: A block on editing the wiki. When the time of the ban is up, users should feel free to return and become active contributers to YPPedia if they are able to follow the rules. A reminder to banned users: Do not try to avoid or "get around" a ban, as it will only result in your ban being extended. You may return when the ban expires, but are not permitted to edit pages until then. (You are free to view them as you wish.)
(I hope I didn't make that too jargonated.)
Beyond that, this article needs to be added to the policy category, and we should probably consider how it's referenced in YPPedia:Policies_and_guidelines. --Emufarmers 21:26, 23 May 2006 (PDT)
- Just a bump. --Emufarmers 18:28, 27 May 2006 (PDT)
- *Poke* This isn't going away, you know. :/ --Emufarmers 21:07, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
- Perhaps it would be best to wait to bump it when we're not dealing with a huge discussion about & a large number of edits pertaining to the changes in pirate article policy. --Guppymomma 21:14, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
- Well, I've been poking at this for some time now, and it's a fairly small discussion (and entirely unrelated to the other one), so I didn't see any time better than the present. If nobody else responds, though, I'll wait a few weeks until bringing it up again. --Emufarmers 21:21, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
- Perhaps it would be best to wait to bump it when we're not dealing with a huge discussion about & a large number of edits pertaining to the changes in pirate article policy. --Guppymomma 21:14, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
- *Poke* This isn't going away, you know. :/ --Emufarmers 21:07, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
That business is all well and done, so it's time to bring this up again. Also, as I suggested here, I'd like to see the rules on copyright infringement made more stringent. Thoughts? --Emufarmers 21:57, 28 June 2006 (PDT)
Malicious Vandalism
It frustrates me a great deal that, under the current policy, we effectively have to treat all forms of vandalism the same, if we want to stay within the policy. Someone who randomly vandalises a page to add "naughty words" (which has happened) is treated identically to someone who purposefully vandalizes a page to add "Pirate X is a faggot", even though one is just someone being silly, while the other is quite clearly malicious and deliberately hateful.
People who are plainly here just to insult or demean other users should not be entitled to warnings or to have their hands held and gently walked through the rules. Anyone who is honestly surprised to discover that you can't engage in namecalling and insulting on the YPPedia has bigger problems than a dirty mouth. The blocking policy should reflect this.
As such, I propose a simple change: "If the contents of an edit would merit a suspension from the game, and are clearly malicious, the user who made the edit may be suspended from the YPPedia for up to one week, without any warning. Repeated malicious edits may result in longer suspensions, again without warning."
Thoughts? --Ponytailguy 17:09, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
- Are people generally banned for a first offense ingame, or are they warned or shunned? (I haven't really had the chance to...Experience much of such things myself, nor do I read the forums enough to have heard much of the misfortunes of others.) What if they're paying customers? My gut reaction is certainly in line with your thinking, but I'd want to know how it works ingame. --Emufarmers 23:39, 11 July 2006 (PDT)
- In-game, it is my understanding that it depends both on the severity of the offense and the status of the account. An established, paying account would require a greater disruption to cause a banning than a freshly-created trial account, simply because the former has a history of acting acceptably, where the latter has no history at all. --AtteSmythe 14:08, 14 July 2006 (PDT)
- I'm guessing we've established a bit of a precedent for this kind of thing with the two recent permablocks. I'd amend this policy to a month-long block on first offense, longer otherwise, and referring to the OMs to see if a permablock is necessary. --Thunderbird 12:27, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
- I've added text according to what's happened lately in regards to dealing with vandalism. After notification from Eurydice, I've also added a section talking about in-game bans due to bad YPPedia behavior. --Guppymomma 19:51, 25 July 2006 (PDT)
