It's nearing completion. Are there any other additions to be made? The 888th Avatar - Talk 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me as odd is the fact that there isn't an Avatar Wiki:Autoconfirmed users page used to define the user group rights for the individual group. If that were created, then its talk page might become an autoconfirmed-only talk. That might relieve Mattkenn3's obstinance about there being an admin-only talk. --Energybender 23:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, Mattkenn3 is no longer active, so it doesn't really matter. And anyway, there's no need for one, as most posters on VfD and the Community Portal talk are autoconfirmed or above. The 888th Avatar - Talk 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is an autoconfirmed users page now. Let's not let it turn into a talk page for them. --Energybender 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's just a soft redirect, if no-one suggests it, one won't be created. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 02:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant Comments

I think we should just start removing further comments people make to mainspace talk pages that should be in the forums. All the conversation from the past can stay, but from now on, it can't. If people can't take a quick glance at the Site News or the policy page, then that is too bad for them. --Energybender 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that might be a good idea. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Better to transfer them to the Correct Forum. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 05:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What we are doing now is nice. Transfer them, and tell them the user why. That way, we don't discourage them, but they should learn. After a while, then you can feel free to delete it. Joey - Talk Contribs 06:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting Deadlines

I've noticed that a lot of our voting takes a very long time. Maybe we should set a deadline e.g. two weeks. If the voting is inconclusive then, then the two options with the most votes will stay, and the people who voted for options other than the two options will recast their votes for one of the two options. If it is still inconclusive after a further two weeks, then no change will occur. We're taking far too long to make decisions. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Aww...come on. I didn't expect silence. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 11:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

now you know how i feel. User:Luvingazula - Talk 11:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised actually that no-one has responded here. I don't usually not get replies. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 11:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

now you know how i feel User:Luvingazula - Talk 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. But, perhaps it would be better to add this to a forum or the portal seeing how this will change our actual policy. Oh, and this page, the talk page, should be unprotected fully in case any IPs have questions. Joey - Talk Contribs 22:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with a two week deadline, it's a reasonable time in which people can vote, but I do feel that in the event of there not being a vote in some time, just end to vote, I'd hate to see every active member voting in the first couple days, and then waiting 12 days because that's what the policy says. About the unprotecting, only the talk page, where the feedback is supposed to be. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on both accounts. Joey - Talk Contribs 23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add this. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Policy

Okay, this wiki's never really established blocking policy, and in my opinion, we should start on one.

Personally, out of the admins that deal blocks on a regular basis (or plan to), I think I'm the softest. But I'm still much tougher than admins on other wikis, and I personally think that the last few blocks I've dealt out (which I was harsh on to be consistent with everyone else's blocks) were too hard. I think that our present de facto blocking policy is far too harsh and encourages repeat offenders because they get a overly "big deal" reaction. We should never, for instance, hand out blocks without warning. Also, I don't think we should hand out infinite blocks so readily.

My proposals:

  • Anon. vandals (inserting abuse, blanking pages etc.):
    • 1st offence = warning
    • 2nd offence = 1 week block
    • 3rd offence = 3 months block
    • Futher offence? = 1 year block
  • Registered vandals:
    • 1st offence = warning
    • 2nd offence = 2 week block
    • 3rd offence = 1 year block
    • Further offence? = infinite block
  • Problem users (personal attacks, disruption, disregarding policy):
    • Offence = warning
    • 5 warnings = 2 week block
    • 2 blocks = 3 month block
    • Further offence? = infinite block

In my opinion, a softer blocking policy won't necessarily compromise this wiki's safety, but it will certainly, in my opinion, be fairer and will discourage repeat offences. Also, IP address blocks must be softened, because every time we block one infinitely, we are increasing the number of addresses that will never be able to edit here again. What if someone new moves in at a location? That's why I'm not a fan of the infinite block for IP's. (Infinite blocks can however in my opinion be given out to users, providing autoblock is turned off). The 888th Avatar (Talk) 07:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we wing it like we always do? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 14:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's too tough, reduces the number of total IPs that can edit, and encourages repeat offenders. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But this would limit us. To many limitations can cause problems too you know. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 14:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be taken as a commandment. It should be taken as a guide. Adjust as you see fit, softer for more minor things, tougher for more major things. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 14:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that and you know that. But the thing is that once something like this gets written down, people start taking it seriously. The next thing you know, it's law. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, there are only a few active administrators and only a few of those administrators deal out blocks. Between us, we can limit the guideline's power. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 14:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right and then the regulars will be after us. The only way I see out of this with both of us getting what we want is a final statement that states that "This policy is subject to change according to the situation and the decisions of the sysops". Or something close to that. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically a statement saying that the policy could change at any time according to our needs. I can insert that. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 14:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The wording is a bit presumptuous, don't you think? Be sure to mention the situation as being a factor of the change. It would be better that way. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 14:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ye, okay. A nice bolded sentence saying that the situation can change any time, and that users should not take the guide as a Bible (something along those lines). The 888th Avatar (Talk) 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you told me to be more considerate. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 14:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? The 888th Avatar (Talk) 14:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone something like that. I'd be annoyed if it was me. And you told me not to be so blunt. Anyways I think we should just state that "the policy could change in accordance with the situation and the decision of the sysops". By mentioning "situations" we mellow it for those who have authority issues. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 14:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Didn't think it was necessary. If you want me to be more diplomatic with you (a fellow sysop who I know well and can trust), then just tell me. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 14:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh you were joking. Sorry about that. Of course you don't need to be that formal with me. In hindsight it is funny. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 15:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, no problem. Ya it is a little funny. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 15:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. So is my proposed statement acceptable? Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 15:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya, sure. I'm just waiting on some more feedback before proceeding. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 15:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who objects the above from being added to the page has 48 hours to say something. The 888th Avatar (Talk) 06:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is closed. The result of this discussion was:
Blocking policy implemented.
Please do not edit this discussion.


Hello (WOW i haven't been on here in awhile this place has changed in look college go by quick) I think we should make it so only picture used in articles not just in User pages. ~ Daniel 05:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me exactly what you mean? The 888th Avatar (Talk) 12:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Zero Sign - Zero - Talk 13:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Message walls

I have a question about the rules. It's about the message walls. Are anoonymous contributors allowed to post stuff on message walls? Because every time I post something on a message wall it doesn't appear. 14:07, July 23, 2012 (UTC)