Forum:Civility Warnings - Beneficial to user relations or a time waster?

Forums: Index → Civility Warnings - Beneficial to user relations or a time waster?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 2334 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Grizzlei — You Are What You Dare TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — Friday, April 19, 2024 Over my year or so of administrating Halo Fanon, i've seen some good and bad things happen to the wiki. Namely, the introduction of the "Civility Warning" system created in early 2010. It seemed to serve a good purpose to ward off any potential users with bad attitudes, responsibility issues, etc. And for awhile it worked greatly, users were warned and that was normally the end of the situation. The warned writers went along with their business, acted right again and became great users. However, over this same time period, i've witnessed more and more users simply ignoring said civility warnings and gunning straight for those who try to help them. These days, civility warnings serve no other purpose than to simply antagonize a user into starting more arguments and further prolonging situations on Halo Fanon. From what i've seen, not once in the past few months has a Level 1 Civility Warning gone lonely sitting around for a second or third warning. Newer users, and seasoned ones alike, continue to try to get around these warnings and it's again hurting our community from within. I know that many others, including myself, are tired of having to do consistently monitor user activity just to "hope" that they'll shape up in the next coming days. I'm not bitching about doing my job, I love my job...its only when obstacles get in my way to do such a job that frustrates not only myself, but others. This is why I propose that the civility warning should be cut down to one warning and a cooldown ban or one warning and one situational-recommendation ban. The latter of the two would vary from offense to offense though will still have a limit following into a "temporary ban", such as a week or two. For right now, no voting will commence until enough people are interested in the change in policy. Thank you and have a great day! CommanderTony

Voting (PASSED)

As per the discussion, enough people have shown interest in the opposition and approval fields to warrant a vote. Please enter your vote and username in the respective categories below!

Support (10/2)

1. As per my statements above and those below in the comments section. CT Sig small
2. As per my comment below. Sonasaurus | Talk • Contribs
3. As per up top and down below--RichardRHunt ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:37, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
4. As per below. — Don't make a girl a promise if you can't keep it.
5. Second Lieutenant Keith Johnson ^{com link} 17:41, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
6. As much as the Banning System was wonderful at the time, it just makes things confusing now. For example, recently with Xzan Tamasee's article, I knew that he needed a short cooldown ban because he was being uncivil, but there's not one for incivility anymore - only the one for "personal attacks and disruptive articles" comes close. I think this is a much better system. Of course, only time will tell. --Am I a Lion, or a Lamb? Or a Boy? ^{Saint or Sinner? The Lost Books} 19:43, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
7. As per above and below. Nanosoldier
8. If it decreases the amount of stupid talk page arguments and helps resolves these situations faster, then I'm all for it. Actene: Heaven and Earth
9. Per above with Actene. As I am a good boy, this hardly coincides with me but it goes for the others. Have a good day and may let this be the end for the senseless flame wars and spam. (/)___(\) [/\Otaku of Halo Fanon/\]
10. Since I'm such a nice logical man, I'll support this venture. --SPARTAN-G023 ^{Viae Cohors Gamma Sparti} _{Limes Manipvlvs Myrmillio} 03:08, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
11. Phalanx Actual 18:32, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral (3/0)

1. It's better in theory because it gets the fact of punishment across clearer to the recipient, but there's a greater chance for human error and anger to deal more damage, if those administering them are not responsible. I believe they will be responsible, and remain so today, but it still sounds rather dicey. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 18:26, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
   1. There's a difference between "Human error" and "misjudgement." The former deals with incorrectly setting the wrong time for a ban, whereas the latter suggests a mistake in the ban itself. And personally, any Administrator (none of which serve today) have ever let their emotions get in the way of their duties in recent memory. CT Sig small
2. I'm voting neutral because they don't ignore the warnings, but they could quite possibly just jump back in after the cooldown ban even angrier. I'm neutral because I doubt this proposal sounds good though. EliteMaster117 18:58, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
   1. What you fail to understand is that most with warnings don't heed them. And after a cooldown ban, it's the same as if the civility warnings were still in play, they'd simply get banned again. Please do your research prior to voting. CT Sig small
3. Like the two points above. In my opinion it should also depend on the severity of the offense, thus the number of warnings given should rely on the administrater's judgement. —Unsigned comment by Felix-119 (talk • contribs). Please sign your talk page posts with '~~~~'.
   1. That was one of the suggestions... CT Sig small

Oppose (1/0)

1. Some administrators look at the background of problems and there are those that just react quickly, this new system relies even more on the judgement of individuals. Depending on who the administrator is, this could work really well, or really badly. But I understand that being an administrator would be frustrating and that you would want to have clear, quick rules. If situations are looked at from a neutral perspective, all is fair, but there could be more room for human error in the new system. — Rex ^{(Talk To Me) (My Work)}
   1. Seems like I have to double repeat myself today, "there's a difference between Human error and misjudgment, you are thinking of the latter." And you are referring directly to the latter suggestion in my previous post, whereas most have approved the use of the "one warning and cooldown ban" method. As Administrative methods, please do not think you can talk about how we run business. Each Admin looks at the background of a particular situation and acts accordingly in a timely fashion. Referring to the "well or bad" bit, you have failed to read the "temporary clause" on the latter suggestion in my proposal. And i'll repeat myself again today, please read before making your vote. CT Sig small
   2. I suppose I regard human judgement as part of human error. I thought that is what you put out there to discuss. I didn't realise that my opinion of what I read could be deemed wrong. It's just my opinion and I understand that administrators might prefer simpler systems, but all systems that involve human judgement are complex. That's all that I'm saying. — Rex ^{(Talk To Me) (My Work)}

Comments

Sonasaurus — UNSC Astrophysics Anomaly #47931; May 20, 2604 TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — Canada Eastern-Standard Time I like this proposal. While we're on the subject, can we also put it into the rules that the community can't be sarcastic or condescending towards any new users because that pisses them off?

Grizzlei — You Are What You Dare TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — Friday, April 19, 2024 I concur, hostility and "hazing" of new users on Halo Fanon shouldn't be tolerated in the slightest. However, a bit of playful sarcasm is nothing to be concerned about, at least until it gets out of hand (and it has) and turns into a flamefest. When this happens, fess up immediately to your actions, don't counter them.

Spartan-091 — Senior Bureaucrat Orpheus 10/105 M56S TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — 02:01, April 23, 2011 (UTC), Eastern Standard Time (GMT -5) If this is a "Infraction 1: Warning, Infraction 2: Cooldown Ban," I feel this is an appropriate and acceptable measure. One-strike punishments are a bit draconian.

Grizzlei — You Are What You Dare TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — Friday, April 19, 2024 Both options I suggested were exactly what you stated, save for the latter one being an extended CooldownBan. And while sometimes I feel like giving a user a cooldown ban right off the start, I was strive to get a user the benefit of the doubt on the first warning (granted said user hasn't made a mockery of the wiki off the start). However, it seems like every time I try to be responsible and kind, it gets thrown in my face. So a good compromise to the "carrot" and the "stick" seems appropriate nowadays, at least temporarily.

Spartan-091 — Senior Bureaucrat Orpheus 10/105 M56S TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — 02:10, April 23, 2011 (UTC), Eastern Standard Time (GMT -5) This has my approval.

Per Spartan-091. :) — subtank ^(7alk) 12:28, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Rozh — Situation normal, all fucked up. TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — Friday, April 19 2024 (Eastern Standard Time) I love this idea. My suggestion would be a three step system: a civilty warning, followed by a 1 day cooldown ban, and then an extended ban lasting at least 1 week. Needless to say, though, I'm in full support.

Lordofmonsterisland — There are... no strings... on me... TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — US Central Time Zone I approve of this

Tuckerscreator — Some, high above, cherished its arrival. Others, down below, thought only day by day. Samcha was one of them. TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS — Friday, April 19 2024 (Pacific Standard Time) Will there be any difference in what is eligible to receive a civility warning? Are these conditions the same, decreased, or increased?