13,610
edits
User talk:MrLanceVanceDance: Difference between revisions
User talk:MrLanceVanceDance (view source)
Revision as of 13:20, 14 September 2011
, 14 September 2011→Re: Blocking
(→Re: Blocking: New discussion) |
|||
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
That's actually a really good question. Most of the people who are [[Special:Log/block|blocked]] are spammers or vandals, so the reason for their block is completely obvious. For duplicate accounts, often their main account will be given a message instead of on the sockpuppet's talk page. Don't forget that, if you're blocked and try to edit, the message at the top of the page explains the reason (and length) of the block. Any short-term blocks, where the person has been arguing or edit warring etc, ''should'' come with a message, though. Maybe we need to be better at that? [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 12:20, 14 September 2011 (BST) | That's actually a really good question. Most of the people who are [[Special:Log/block|blocked]] are spammers or vandals, so the reason for their block is completely obvious. For duplicate accounts, often their main account will be given a message instead of on the sockpuppet's talk page. Don't forget that, if you're blocked and try to edit, the message at the top of the page explains the reason (and length) of the block. Any short-term blocks, where the person has been arguing or edit warring etc, ''should'' come with a message, though. Maybe we need to be better at that? [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 12:20, 14 September 2011 (BST) | ||
:I won't disclose all the measure we use against spammers in public. They are different people, but we only have one spammer every now and then - not huge torrents of sockpuppets and vandals like the other wiki. But that is because we treat people fairly. GTA Wikia upsets its users by banning them for (almost) no reason, and they come back as vandals. As for a three-strike rule, I don't agree that that's a good method to use, simply because it is far too rigid. Every offence is of a different level of seriousness and a different level of "intent"; whilst every user would respond differently to different actions. | |||
:For example: | |||
:*A user who registers only to add 1 spam link (not useful/relevant at all) might not cause ''much'' damage, but they should be permanently blocked because they show no intention to be an editor. No warnings necessary, because they would make no difference at all. | |||
:*A user who posts good content but also spams a link to his personal website is a very different situation, because they ''could'' still be a good editor. They need to be shown what is and isn't allowed, where they ''can'' place links, and if they ignore the instructions from staff, ''then'' the blocking route should be pursued. We should be fair rather than blocking them straight away, and this should stop them turning into a vandal. | |||
:In both of these situations, the same offence (1 spam link) has been committed, but very different sets of actions need to be taken. If we were the GTA Wikia, then the way they strictly apply the blocking policy in EVERY situation (even to ''staff'') means they treat good users (who make mistakes, or get carried away, or just don't know all the rules) as vandals and spammers. | |||
:Also consider a user who was warned for posting 1 spam link 2007, was warned for an edit war in 2010, and now has an argument in 2011. But in between, they have made thousands of good edits. A three-strike rule means we'd have to block them forever, which is ridiculous. You could probably find 3 examples of where a staff member has broken a rule. Then we have to make dozens of exceptions which are open to abuse, saying things like "if they have >100 edits then they are allowed 4 warnings, not 3" etc. That ends up being a ridiculous mess, then we'd end up having to demote/block staff who didn't follow it exactly. That's what's [http://gta.wikia.com/GTA_Wiki:Comminuty_Noticeboard/Archive_2#Bunnyjoke_demotion_.28Bureaucrats_only_vote.29 already happened] on the GTA Wikia. | |||
:So this is why I make sure all my administrators are strong enough to make their ''own'' decisions based on what will benefit the wiki most, and what is fair for the users. If someone has a decent chance of being (or becoming) a good editor, then we should help them, not ban them for some silly or abritrary reason. Our promotion process is based around staff that can make fair decisions around complex situations, and I've not seen anything I really disagree with for quite a while. | |||
:Is there a specific user or situation you're thinking of where our current method of operating has failed or could be better? [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 14:20, 14 September 2011 (BST) | |||