5,680
edits
User talk:JFletcher/Archive/1: Difference between revisions
User talk:JFletcher/Archive/1 (view source)
Revision as of 04:54, 18 November 2008
, 18 November 2008→HuangLee: reply
(→HuangLee: reply) |
|||
| Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
Okay I understand a bit better now. However, "spamming" is more about filling pages with nonsense, gibberish, links to websites etc - stuff that is of absolute zero value to the Wiki. Adding content in the wrong place is usually an accident - a misguided attempt at adding content. Doing it again after being told is unfortunate - but perhaps he didn't read your message, or didn't understand it - so I wouldn't punish at this stage, never mind block. At this point I would protect the page that was being defaced, and issue a stern final warning to that user, explaining exactly what was wrong, and exactly how to avoid doing it again. If it happened again, it would show a deliberate attempt to do the opposite of what you instructed, and that could be worth a small suspension.<br />The fake gripes, the taking-the-piss text in there, and the removal of content complicates things slightly. He had already said that the gripes would be added, since I explained that if the cheat codes page stayed empty, there would be no point in keeping it. Perhaps we need to be clearer about what we allow. I think at this point he was frustrated, and perhaps on the defensive (after a conflict with me), which probably explains the piss-take text and the fact that he did it on the wrong page. This still doesn't warrant banning him from the site. Removing the text might have been because he realised it was wrong? Surely thats a good thing...<br />I appreciate the effort, but I think you jumped to using the "block" option too early - remember it really is a last resort. Protecting the page for 3 days would have done the same thing, without causing the upset a full suspension has done. Protection is a protective measure, as opposed to a punishment. Blocks are also meant to be protective and defensive, but users can very easily interpret it as an attack and a punishment, so you really have to be sure, and communication has to be spot-on. No hard feelings from my end, and I hope things are clearer to you now. Let me know if you have any questions - [[w:c:gta:User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] <sup>[[:w:c:gta:User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 04:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | Okay I understand a bit better now. However, "spamming" is more about filling pages with nonsense, gibberish, links to websites etc - stuff that is of absolute zero value to the Wiki. Adding content in the wrong place is usually an accident - a misguided attempt at adding content. Doing it again after being told is unfortunate - but perhaps he didn't read your message, or didn't understand it - so I wouldn't punish at this stage, never mind block. At this point I would protect the page that was being defaced, and issue a stern final warning to that user, explaining exactly what was wrong, and exactly how to avoid doing it again. If it happened again, it would show a deliberate attempt to do the opposite of what you instructed, and that could be worth a small suspension.<br />The fake gripes, the taking-the-piss text in there, and the removal of content complicates things slightly. He had already said that the gripes would be added, since I explained that if the cheat codes page stayed empty, there would be no point in keeping it. Perhaps we need to be clearer about what we allow. I think at this point he was frustrated, and perhaps on the defensive (after a conflict with me), which probably explains the piss-take text and the fact that he did it on the wrong page. This still doesn't warrant banning him from the site. Removing the text might have been because he realised it was wrong? Surely thats a good thing...<br />I appreciate the effort, but I think you jumped to using the "block" option too early - remember it really is a last resort. Protecting the page for 3 days would have done the same thing, without causing the upset a full suspension has done. Protection is a protective measure, as opposed to a punishment. Blocks are also meant to be protective and defensive, but users can very easily interpret it as an attack and a punishment, so you really have to be sure, and communication has to be spot-on. No hard feelings from my end, and I hope things are clearer to you now. Let me know if you have any questions - [[w:c:gta:User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] <sup>[[:w:c:gta:User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 04:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
:I was actually editing this page again when I got the email saying that you did. Ever since HuangLee got to the wiki, I have felt sympathy for him. I don't know why he had to wait a year to join (unless he was already IP blocked) but when he did join, he had me come to him twice correcting something he did, then he had what he thought was a great idea which he then misinterprated our posts, to think that we hated the idea. I saw on [[Talk:Mike Toreno]] that he thinks that no one takes him seriously. Then he got blocked, and he says he's never coming back. (this is where I was up to when I got your message) I was going to mention (in this edit) that he possibly did it out of frustration, and that yes, he may have done removed the text for a good reason. Thanks for the advice. '''[[user:Biggest gta fan ever|Biggest GTA Fan Ever]]<sup>''[[user talk:Biggest gta fan ever|Talk]]''</sup>''' 04:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||