| abstract
| - Awesome policy. Sockpuppets FTL. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 20:30, 4 August 2007 (CEST) First, I don't think this is ready to be made official today given that it was posted today, so I'm moving it down on the list on PvXwiki:Policy. Second, as far as I am aware, both the user and the sockpuppet get infinite bans. At least, that's how I believe we've been doing it until now. Certainly, a second time offender warrants an infinite ban in my opinion. A sock puppet undermines the entire PvX system. Someone who feels the need to continue doing so after a warning... well... I don't think they have any place on this wiki. Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:56, 5 August 2007 (CEST) Aside from that though, I don't know that we need this policy. Real Vetting already says that Sockpuppet votes are to be stricken, and it's not like a policy is going to change a) The number of people who do it, or, b) How we deal with these offenders. Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:03, 5 August 2007 (CEST) 'Tis harsher now. I believe there should be at least one warning however. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 01:03, 5 August 2007 (CEST) Well, we at least need the policy in words. The puppet masters have no official policy governing their punishment and everything is under admin discretion. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 01:04, 5 August 2007 (CEST) Well... to be honest, there aren't any set standards of which I am aware for any kind of violation that merits a ban. So, there are two possible purposes that this policy would serve. Either, you're looking for some kind of "uniformity" in punishments, to which I would respond that it really isn't possible to have a single standard since there are different variations on a single "crime," or, you're trying to limit an Admin's theoretical ability to abuse their power, in which case I would say that this simply isn't necessary since banning sock puppets isn't really an abuse of power in my opinion. Perhaps I misinterpreted your last message... but otherwise, I stand by my original comment that I don't see the necessity. Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:12, 5 August 2007 (CEST) The main goal here is to give people a second chance. Everyone should have one. Also, its to clearly say "This is the policy in writing right [[PvX:SOCK|here]]. Here are your choices. You can make another puppet and get permanbanned or you can positively contribute here." That way, the user clearly knows what is and isn't acceptable. Idiot-proofing if you will. Considering the hatred for sock puppets on this wiki (which is warranted might I add), something in words and not a "Yeah but everyone knows it. Like an unspoken rule" type of thing would be great. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 01:18, 5 August 2007 (CEST) Fair enough. In that case, it might be nice to simply put together a list of other "unspoken" rules, vandalism, sockpuppetry, and whatever else you can think of, and expand the policy. To be honest, it might be nice to have a policy that essentially takes all of the rules hidden in the various policies, as well as the "unspoken" rules, and distills it down into a simply list of "Things not to do," along with (maybe) suggested punishments for policies that warrant banning. That way, we can simply have one place where all the "simple" rules can be found. Essentially, one place where users can look to see the big "no-nos." Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:24, 5 August 2007 (CEST) Well, if nothing else, the name is amusing :). Might want to think of another before we actually considered making it official, but still, amusing. Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:28, 5 August 2007 (CEST) I can't think of any other big no-no's. :/ —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 01:31, 5 August 2007 (CEST) How about: PvXwiki:Unwritten Rules and Regulations or something. We could then use an acronym like PvX:RULES. Although that might be confusing given how awesome PvXwiki is :)... Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:32, 5 August 2007 (CEST) Well then they wouldn't be unwritten... Still, with this policy you can make PvX:NO which is rather amusing. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 01:36, 5 August 2007 (CEST) (edit conflict) Hmm, by definition, a policy called 'unwritten rules' can't have any rules written in it, right? :-) Will think about it tomorrow, too tired now. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 01:41, 5 August 2007 (CEST) How about immaturity (outside of joking)? Wyvern 01:55, 5 August 2007 (CEST) No, for a billion reasons. -Auron 02:09, 5 August 2007 (CEST) If I want to act like a six year old brat, that's well within my rights. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 03:58, 5 August 2007 (CEST) I dunno, PvX:NONO sounds pretty golden. - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 22:34, 5 August 2007 (CEST) I got a good laugh at that, no offense. "Please stop vandalizing. You are violating Big No-No's." -- Nova Image:Jirouji-Nova.jpg -- (contribs) 04:04, 8 August 2007 (CEST) Speaking of that, PvX:REG works just as well. -- Nova Image:Jirouji-Nova.jpg -- (contribs) 14:19, 8 August 2007 (CEST) PvX:NONO is just wonderful, though. Very lulzful. It seems like there's being more discussion about the name than the actual policy.. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 14:22, 8 August 2007 (CEST) The policy is pretty sound. It's just what we have now unofficially made official. Nothing new really. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 17:29, 8 August 2007 (CEST) I'd like to add a note to the Vandals section. Some people just pop on to the wiki and vandalize numerous articles before anyone gets a chance to warn them (for fun, for stress therapy, idk...). In a situation where they are making repeated, deliberate vandalous edits like that, I'd like to just ban them right then and there. Not permanently, but for a day, maybe a few days, possibly a week. I'm not much of a punisher, I mostly block people for convenience. Note would read something like "In cases of deliberate, repeated vandalous edits made in short spans of time, the offender may be subject to an immediate block without warning." Discuss? - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 07:07, 16 August 2007 (CEST) I'd support that idea. While I like what this policy is trying to do, one of the things that makes it hard to write such a policy is that invariably, each case is slightly different and extenuating circumstances often play a role. However, since I do think it's a good idea to have a list of these "unwritten" (until now that is I guess) rules, perhaps the section of each kind of offense related to punishment should be adapted into something more along the lines of a "discussion" of various factors that play a role and more generalized solutions as far as punishment goes. Image:Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:14, 16 August 2007 (CEST) Hey, no one is complaining about those immediate infinite blocks :p -- Nova Image:Jirouji-Nova.jpg -- (contribs) 01:52, 20 August 2007 (CEST) Don't bother with infinite blocks, IP could be used by a bunch of people in an office, at a school, by a library, etc. - Image:Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 01:59, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)