Forum:Enforcing some policies

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Enforcing some policies
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 March 2009 by Azaz129.

Enforcing some policies

After seeing Cruser's talk page and Christine's subpage (lots of evidence of Cruser violating RS:GTS), I just found out that RS:GTS exists. I read through it and found it to be a rather good policy, I don't see why this shouldn't be enforced as a policy (it's a guideline atm). If you went to see Cruser's talk page, you would have noticed that Azaz blocked him for 2 weeks for violating RS:GTS a lot (he edited "Cheats and scams" more than 50 times and another page for not so many times). GTS is not a policy yet, and thus I would like to get community consensus to enforce it.

Also, after looking through some proposed policies, I would also like to bring up RS:DSA. I'm sure that many editors are already familiar with this proposed policy, in spite of the fact that it has not been enforced yet. It's even mentioned on the RuneScape:Style guide which many new users refer to. Basically, I find that this policy makes sense and there is no reason not to enforce it, thus I would like to get community consensus to enforce this too. Thanks. C.ChiamTalk 10:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be enforced as a policy. There is no reason anyone would do anything like what Cruser234 did unless they were up to no good. But so few people have done it or we haven't caught the people doing it it hasn't been an issue up until now. Now, I do believe it should be put into play as a policy that if broken, can lead to blocking. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to say Support or what not, but I do support Celabchiam's proposal. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 11:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We have always enforced DSA so there is no reason not to implement that immediately. As for GTS, I agree that fits the style and needs of this wiki (hell, any wiki) and we should make that official also. --Degenret01 11:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. GTS needs to be made a policy in light of Cruser's actions to the Cheats and scams page. As for DSA, it seems common sense (to me) to not sign articles and should be made a policy in my opinion. --Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, before we go all "let's start enforcing all these policies rigidly and block anyone who violates them in the slighest", we must remember to consider cases where a given person, while maybe violating a bit of policy, that they are actually trying to help. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we must assume good faith. Butterman62 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Support on both counts, I remember this is not the first time we've enforced GTS and I unfortunately doubt it will be the last. In summation, this policy is meant to catch those editors who are not directly violating policy, but are manipulating the hell out of the system (in this case RfA). The first time I saw this used as a block rationale would probably be when Earthere was repeatedly trying to down grade all editors are equal without community discussion and trying to manipulate RfA's rules repeatedly-(bottom of the page).

As for DSA, we've always enforced that as policy any. Also, Butterman please note the user hasn't even attempted to deny any of this.-- 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that. I'm just giving a little caution that, while this user may not be acting in good faith, other users in the future who "violate" some policies might. Butterman62 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to bring up RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls which is also a guideline atm, but should be enforced. Vandals may be vandals but they're still human, it is related to RS:UTP. Also, I wonder if this could be placed on sitenotice or something? It's not much of a consensus if only 5/6 people support. We need more people to discuss this. C.ChiamTalk 13:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I support the immediate induction to policy for these two mentioned guidelines.

Bonziiznob Talk

15:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Support - With all of these recent events we need to get something done and they are policies which should enforced. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 21:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Doesn't seem anything controversial to me Armcie 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - For RS:GTS and RS:DSA. Administrator Hurston (T # C) 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - What Cruser did was definitely not done in good faith, but I do agree that if another user starts something similar to it, we will have to watch him closely.  Tien  12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support both items on the table. Aside from new users who are still getting used to the Wiki, or mistaking an article from a talk page (which could easily happen with the saltiest of Editors), there is no excuse for it. And GTS can rarely be mistaken for good faith, especially in the forms that Cruser took. I'm a little iffy for going crazy over a couple of the other forms of GTS on the essay, such as using one policy to loophole another; some people may do that in misinterperation, and I don't think we need to maul people for mistakes. But other than that, I think it's good to go. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Oh yeah, in case you did not see, there's a second comment proposing RS:TROLL, wonder whether you guys would support making it into a policy too =D. C.ChiamTalk 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support making RS:TROLL policy as well - I do know editors who have lashed out at trolls and vandals before. Now, I don't know how many of the trolls and vandals have returned, but I can see why they might after be mocked at; it's not uncommon for people for people wanting to resume a scrap, even online; heck, even I have jumped back into the fray in a heated discussion, both here and on other sites after having a few licks taken at me. Perhaps if people feel that they CAN'T do this, we might be able to rein in some of the problems that we have had with tempers, vendettas, and all-around flaming in general. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - For RS:DSA, RS:UTP, and RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls hands down, no questions asked. I also support RS:GTS with the caveat that this rule should be applied at the same time as assuming good faith. What I mean is, you can't enforce this just based on suspicions. Good judgement needs to be used and only deliberate (not unintended) GTS should be punished. Of course unintended GTS should be addressed by working with the user. I would hope that most users (good faith) would work with you to resolve the issue. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 03:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I also think we should implement the Scope proposal, as it is also already being implemented.

Bonziiznob Talk

13:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - RS:DSA, RS:UTP, and ditto the above "I also support RS:GTS with the caveat that this rule should be applied at the same time as assuming good faith." Mamabear47 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment/undecided RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls - I love the idea but have no idea how to practically enforce it. Does this mean editing out any references to "famous trolls of the past", and other stuff? What stuff? Mamabear47 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I know I'm a complete minority on this, but I just don't understand Do we define it at a certain number of edits (e.g. 50, so 49 would be ok? Or 10, so 5 would be alright?), or do we just take an easier route and say "several edits" or "many edits"? I think it works best as a guideline that when broken to extremes blocks should be issued. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 03:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We won't be defining it by a number. We will be dealing with it on a case-by-case basis. We will see what the edits have contributed/removed. Like a "," changed to a "." and adding "[[ ]]" would be very minor changes and if are done consecutively several times, it would be counted as violating the policy (we will check the "offender" beforehand to see if he/she has any explanations for his/her actions though). Hope that answers your question. C.ChiamTalk 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I think we can tell most of the time if someone is acting in good faith or not, and that I think shall most of the time determine the verdict. Violating RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls and RS:GTS can't be done in good faith, while I imagine that a new player could in their first days start signing articler and violate RS:DSA (in which case, a warning would suffice). A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 08:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Actually, in the past I have tried enforcing RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls as a real wiki policy, only to find out by the admins that it's just an essay... I can't see why this should not be implemented as policy, if it leads to fewer trolls returning from bans to vandalize again. RS:DSA is already enforced and should continue to be so, naturally. RS:GTS is sound and should I think be enforced as well. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 08:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be general consensus amongst us so I shall close this and make the necessary changes now.C.ChiamTalk 08:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
https://runescape.wiki/w/Forum:Enforcing_some_policies
runescape.wiki
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-31
52354
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5YGRN3A4EJLF5RGJRAZMYP2ALIDOFG2J
<urn:uuid:c4489eda-3584-4e2f-b723-d8b31ca69e08>
2021-08-04T10:33:02Z
104.22.66.222
text/html
sha1:M2ZN7G2P7N43AOSYA2H6P6XIGWAOHJXR
<urn:uuid:b3e67b03-1070-4a80-a315-c20e572b8838>
https://runescape.wiki/w/Forum:Enforcing_some_policies
response
<urn:uuid:0b09f7ca-c021-44fa-bac0-5a4e72726334>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-169.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/