FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Rules Improvements
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 3 May 2017 by Liquidhelium.

So I have benn trying for approximately a month to try to improve RSWIKI rules and guidelines to make the wiki a little better, as you might know I have been trying to imagine ways to bring new people to the wiki lately. These suggested change shouldn't affect most wikians as most are long term editors but they are rather directed to potential new comers.


Warning system and minor bans

Yes, (we do already have a warning system, but as far as I know, its only for vandalism. My idea is that if the user put an unintentional error (note im talking about info error not typos) it will be first given a warning (assuming he had the chance to fix it during a relative space of time (24 hrs?) and then if he do it a again a minor ban (min 2 days or + depending). Now before you automaticly say oppose, please read to the end. The idea here is that (assuming he readed the warning) have the fear of getting banned, thus prompting him to systematicly double check is info. Of course if the user end up getting a minor ban, it would not count as a real ban for thing like the Wikian title requirements, also this could be considered as a test of will, to see if he want to be a long term wikian or not, of course there nothing wrong with casual editors, but we all know that quality is better than quantity. Here a list of thing that could be warnable:

  • Data/informational errors
  • Unclosed template or wrong parameters.

(Feel free to suggest warnable things)


Maintenance stuff

One thing that can be incredibly annoying is when you are doing mantenance stuff and that there is a retake/obsolete template without a given reason, like I said this can be problematic especially on obscure stuff, so if the user don't give a specified reason within a relative space of time he would get a warning and then a minor ban per above.


My reasoning behind this is that since we are the main source of information for rs, we should avoid these errors the most possible, im not trying to scare potential new editors, I just want them to fix their error themselves, we are in 2017, we have editings guide and Discord, there is litteraly no reason why someone couldn't be able to ask for help. x5sQGus.png  αšΌ 𝕷𝖔𝖗𝖉 π•Έπ–†π–“π–•π–†π–Žπ–“π–™ ᚼ (t)(c) 17:01, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong oppose - I read through your entire post (contrary to you thinking people would just "automatically" oppose) and I disagree with all of it. We leave messages on talk pages if we have a problem with a user (vandalism is only one reason for this), a warning system is not needed. If anything, a warning system for doing something incorrectly would scare off new editors. They'd want to do things right and get frustrated if they're slapped with a warning rather than a simple talk page message similar to "Hey, this is incorrect - here's what you should've done" (which is what we currently do, I'm sure). Also, I think it's a really stupid idea to warn people about "maintenance stuff" for the same reason. Being friendly is best. See: RS:AGF. xHR7zpA.png6encXAo.png 17:10, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

??? - If a user entered incorrect data in good faith (and I think most people are very generous with their interpretation of good faith), a warning is never given. This proposal would actually make things harsher for people who edit. And we don't block people for good faith edits.... And people with blocks get the Wikian title anyway.... --LiquidTalk 17:55, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose This proposal creates an incredibly hostile environment for new editors who are learning the ropes. If you ban a user for making a mere 2 mistakes because they don't understand how to work wikia, do you think they're ever going to come back? I'm betting most of them won't. We're not trying to sift out editors who won't be "long term wikians". Also RS:AGF Pikachu lv95 (talk) 17:59, May 3, 2017 (UTC)


Omg no - Jayden correctly states that these warnings will do more to discourage and scare away newer editors. To go a step further, how are these people to know they made a mistake that needs correction? You propose warning them after 24 hours. Man, that is messed up in so many ways. Not everyone is on the wiki every day. And your proposal violates our rules for blocking. Have you ever read them? Do so. You also make this assumption that because editing guides and Discord are available, everyone should know about them. Ips do not get a welcome with a link to our editing guides, and not everyone reads them. Discord? I have no idea how it works except it's some chat thingy that I have not bothered to look into. I bet the same applies to many many other folk. What percentage of regular contributors spend time in there on a daily basis? Anyhows, no, bad proposal.Degenret01 (talk) 18:08, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Nah - Per everyone above and also RS:AGF. Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) 18:20, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Errr... - Yer proposing we scare people into providing accurate information? Nope nope nope nope nope! If somebody makes an error (e.g. changes the floor or spelling to American, puts the wrong level on an item), we let them ken. We even have prepared messages for such instances. If somebody just slaps {{Cleanup}} on a page, we either try to figure out why or ask them to provide a reason, or remove it if we cannot figure out the reason. Threatening people will just scare them away and give us a worse reputation. Blocking should be used against those who are being malicious (e.g. putting in misleading info deliberately) or who acknowledge and continue to ignore warnings (e.g. continue changing flooring systems to American cause "British is stupid"). In those circumstances, we ken that they're nae acting in good faith or in ignorance. The idea of rule through fear is generally best kept to Italian philosophical discussion Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 18:28, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - As someone who is a bit new to editing, I would say this would just discourage new contributions from more casual people. Having this threat of warning/banning people for relatively small things (even if they're annoying mistakes) would just tend to drive new people away overall. --Ardore Forza (talk) 18:38, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - As per everyone else so far, this would discourage potential new editors from making changes to the wiki for fear of being banned for something as small as a spelling error or slightly incorrect information. Abyssal vine whip TonyBest100 Bandos chestplate

Oppose - User:TyA/sig 19:37, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose - You say that fear of being banned will encourage new users to make more careful edits. First of all, it won't, it'll deter them and give us a bad reputation (for good reason). But even if so, do we want to harrass new editors into making valuable contributions through fear rather than their own enthusiasm? I should remind you that everything everyone does here is voluntary, and this system (while indubitably you intended it in good faith Wink) will almost certainly bring the influx of new editors, or singular helpful edits, to a certain halt. Existing editors would probably leave too. Heck, the way I edit sloppily sometimes, I'd be banned within the week (yes I know we all agree that's a good thing).

The current way things are handled is arguably not ideal, since often we just revert an IP's well-intended but 'bad' edit with at most an edit summary that they aren't going to read, but this proposal would make things worse by orders of magnitude numerous and manifold. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 19:58, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Why block potential editors for this mistake? I normally give a warning when it seems obvious it is vandalism and I just revert it and get on with my day. There are some people who probably add or remove information based on their view, but would not go into more research (because not everyone loves to do research like cook). Giving them a warning would force them to do something they don't want (research), would no longer want to edit the Wiki, and potentially bad mouth us. Santa hat Powers38 γŠγ―γ‚ˆγ†γƒΎ(Β΄ο½₯Ο‰ο½₯ο½€) 20:14, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - It's abundantly clear that the community is overwhelmingly against this proposal, and that further discussion will not be productive. Therefore, this thread will be closed as unsuccessful. --LiquidTalk 21:01, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.