MarioWiki talk:Warning policy

I should point out that crossing your flaming at another user out deserves a reminder. So if I said "You idiot" at somebody, but I crossed it out like this: You idiot, it deserves a reminder. Just saying.

.


 * I'd actually say it's more dependent on circumstances: sometimes it could be a reminder-worthy example of passive-aggressiveness, but it might also truly be in jest, and other times, it might be so bad that it deserves a warning despite the "just kidding" excuse. Keep in mind that a lot of situations aren't as clear-cut as we'd like them to be, and things are bound to come up that aren't detailed on this page: it's not an exhaustive list, after all, but more of a guideline on how to deal with troublemakers while at the same avoiding breaking rules yourself. - 17:56, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

What if somebody made consecutive edits on a page? I do it sometimes, but that's because I don't want my netbook to load all the page up just to edit one minor mistake, and sometimes, I just spot another mistake after editing the page. :/ 16:00, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Yeah that happens to me sometimes. 16:02, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
 * That happens to everyone; it only becomes a problem when someone always edits like that. Going through a page section-by-section is okay, as is going back and fixing a couple things you missed the first time, but making a dozen minor edits to a single paragraph will get people peeved at you (especially if you're waffling over one issue: undoing the change, redoing it, tweaking it, trying something else, going back to the first change, etc. etc. - that's what the Preview button's for). - 19:24, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

how do you cross out words? purifieda


 * By putting a at the start and a at the end. WikiofSmash&quot;It&#39;s called society, ever heard of it?&quot; 23:29, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Joke Redirects: Level???
I think that there should be an offence level decided for creating joke redirects (e.g. User's page, redirected from Noob). Joke redirects include anything similar to the example given as well.


 * This isn't an exhaustive list: specific offences can usually be lumped in with the more general things we've included here. Those sorts of redirects would be considered flaming and be punished as such. - 23:44, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Userspace warnings
Is ignoring userspace warnings considered akin to ignoring a reminder? The article seems to include those, but it's not very specific there.
 * Yes, in this article, reminders mean both the template and the  template. I don't think there's any exceptions.
 * Alright, that clears things up, thanks.

More info needed
It should say why abusing warning privileges, creating sockpuppets and undermining admin authority are only warnable by administrators. Also please decide on what personal attacks warrant, as well as mid-level vandalism (e.g. swearing in an article, deleting letters etc. to make bad words), and also why warnings given by an administrator cannot be appealed. Also mention if removing a warning given by an administrator is still warnable. Oh yes, and wouldn't being a sockpuppet of an existing account be a level 4 offence, because it warrants an automatic infinite ban?Mr Man 13:57, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

It's obvious why those offenses can only be warned by administrators.


 * 1) Abusing warning privileges cannot be given by regular users because determining whether a user was or wasn't abusing warning privileges usually warrants a discussion on the administrative board and the administrators don't want people stepping in for discussing it.
 * 2) Creating sockpuppets are also only warnable by admins because admins have the ability to both block and check IPs of sockpuppets. If regular users were allowed to warn other user for sockpuppeting, there is the possibility of false accusation. Even if the user himself admits that User:XXX is his sock, that doesn't mean anything unless User:XXX has matching IPs or says the same thing. If there is reasonable suspicion, you can contact an administrator about it, but don't directly warn the accused user.
 * 3) Undermining admin authority can only be given by admins because obviously it's something that only pertains to administrators.

Personal attacks are generally a level 2 offense (level 3 or even a ban if it is severe enough). Vandalism is treated the same way. The discipline for the offenses just depend on the scale of the offenses. Warnings given by administrators cannot be appealed because they're the one making the policies in the first place. This doesn't mean that it can never be removed or mitigated. You may contact the administrator who gave you the warning and attempt to appeal to him/her directly, as long as you have a good reason and can remain civil in your discussion. There's already a sentence under level four offenses that says that sockpuppets are automatically banned.-- 12:09, 19 December 2011 (EST)

Edits to archives
I disagree that it warrants a Warning. It should warrant a Reminder, because people might not know that editing archives is not allowed unless they have good reason to do so.Mr Man 11:19, 6 November 2011 (EST)
 * Agreed.

The reason why it warrants a level two warning is because there usually is a note on top of the archived page that says not to edit the page. If you ignore that message, then you deserve a Warning. Of course if the page in question does not have something at the top of the page stating that it cannot be edited, some leniency can be given.-- 12:09, 19 December 2011 (EST)

Level-3
What is undermining admin authority, and why can it only be warned by administrators?Mr Man 13:31, 11 November 2011 (EST)
 * I believe it is constantly interfering with admin-only activities, such as editing the parameters on unnecessarily, ganging up on users that are in trouble, etc, as well as asking for promotions, trying to give admins warnings, implying that an admin needs a warning, etc. It is admin warnable only as the admins are really the only ones qualified to warn users for undermining their authority, for obvious reasons.

You are targeting that at me! That's unacceptable!Mr Man 13:25, 21 November 2011 (EST)
 * Sorry for the late reply, but I didn't see this. I'm not targeting you specifically; I'm listing ways users could be doing stuff that interferes with the admins' job. If you've been doing one of the things on that list, then you probably should stop it, but that wasn't the purpose of my comment at all; you asked what the behavior is, and I told you to the best of my abilities.

Per Bop1996.-- 12:09, 19 December 2011 (EST)

Please clarify "Abusing warning privileges"!!!
OK, I thought abusing warning privileges just meant to abuse warnings. But I changed the wording of a real warning to praise another user. I did not know that that was "abusing warning privileges" and I cost myself a warning and a threat to be blocked from editing this site.

I would prefer if this "abusing warning privileges" was clarified, because changing wording of a real warning is prevalent on wikis such as en-wiki.

--
 * Um, pls? -- 21:16, 18 December 2011 (EST)

We are considering this at the moment.-- 12:09, 19 December 2011 (EST)
 * Alright, we added a list of the main ways people can abuse warning privileges. Namely, handing out warnings inappropriately and using the coding of official warning templates to create informal replicas for personal use. Of course, the outline's not exhaustive: if folks think of new, creative ways to abuse the warning system, that'll get them in trouble just as much as the main offences we listed would. - 23:05, 22 December 2011 (EST)

----

What is a sockpuppet account? I read about it on the page but I'm not clear on what it means.


 * If a user has an account, but then goes ahead and creates another one, this is known as sockpuppeting. In a lot of cases, sockpuppet accounts are created to vandalize or just to start afresh after receiving a warning or block. Admins can check accounts for any matching IPs from other users, in order to track down sockpuppets. However, sometimes users create more than one account without sockpuppeting in the traditional sense. Like for example, if a user forgot their password. Also, siblings or other people who share the same IP are often mistaken for sockpuppets. If you want more info, check out this page.


 * 01:39, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Warning for vandalism
This page says that minor vandalism results in a last warning. However, in my newbie days when I was poor at editing, I got a regular warning. I am confused. -signed aka ShyTroopa or  John Roberts 18:32, 5 January 2013 (EST)
 * That's because your infraction wasn't major enough to have a last warning.

It makes sense now. -signed aka ShyTroopa or  John Roberts 20:17, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Anon. Users Editing
I think that anonymous users (as identified by their IP address, should be blocked from editing (anonymously only) after they have made more than fifty (50) mainspace edits, as we need more actual users editing rather than just IP addresses. Also, I know that this really doesn't belong on the Warning Policy talk, but I couldn't find any better place to put it.

Proposer: Proposed Deadline: March 20, 2013, 23:59 GMT Date Withdrawn: March 6, 2013

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) - No need to do that.

Adding a few things
We should add "ignoring a reminder" on the Warning section and "ignoring a warning" on the Last Warning section. These are somewhat minor things, but I feel it wouldn't be a complete waste of time to add them in. 15:21, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

New thing
I don't think anyone's ever done this, but I think giving a warning only an admin can should be a level 2 offence.

Level 4
Wouldn't being a sockpuppet of an existing account also count as a level 4 offence? Sockpuppets get automatic infinite bans, don't they? 85.210.146.72 15:12, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

Changing British Spelling the American is Worth a Reminder?
May I ask why is it worth giving out a reminder for changing British spelling to American? As a wiki, we need to be consistent; we should either only use American spellings or only use British spellings. Either way, this definetely isn't reminder-worthy. Of course, Europe-only games should keep their European names, but besides that, I don't quite understand the basis of this rule. Andymii (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2015 (EST)
 * Yeah, that sounds like an incredibly trivial reason to give a reminder for. Any background on this reason, and is it similar how back then, Mario Smash Football was the name, and Super Mario Strikers was a mere redirect? 19:44, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Maybe I'll try to get rid of this rule via a proposal? As you said, it is very trivial, and while it is still in the air which kind of spelling is final, it is not worth a reminder by any means. Andymii (talk)


 * Don't. It's not up for debate. Both spellings are allowed on a first-come, first-serves basis, and spellings already in place should not be changed: if you are changing them you're breaking policy, although I feel like informal reminders are better for minor things like that, unless the problem persists. The reason we have both spellings is because it is the fairest and easiest way to run the wiki, as no one if forced to try and remember and use spellings they don't know. Games and their subject matter use the North American names for consistency (it can be hard remembering which games happened to come out in a PAL region first), but also because the majority of readers are North American and having the North American names is best for internal navigation and for netting us all-important search engine traffic. This is also not up for debate. - 20:19, 10 February 2015 (EST)

I can not stop the edit's you are erasing them if you want me to stop writing edits save my edit's but thanks for the sprite you saved for Manky Kong.
 * Uh yes you can stop the edits...just don't edit the page. 00:04, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

You put "Not marking a flood of edits as minor
Shouldn't it be "marking a flood of edits as minor? 15:45, 17 April 2016 (EDT)
 * No, if you make a ton of small edits in a row then they should be marked as minor. -- 15:53, 17 April 2016 (EDT)
 * Then shouldn't it be changed to "Not marking a flood of small edits as minor"? 22:45, 17 April 2016 (EDT)
 * In general any several edits made consecutively to a single page should be marked as minor, small or big. Unless they are very clearly not minor, such as rewriting headers one at a time for example. -- 22:49, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

Removing Valid Information
Shouldn't we list another offense that may be either level two or three? Removing valid information without explaining why in the edit summary. I've noticed some people removing valid information without giving a reason, shouldn't this be an offense? Because I can't edit the page so could an admin please add that in thanks. 22:58, 31 August 2016 (EDT)


 * If someone removes valid info, the first step would be to approach that user and ask to clarify the reason for its removal and come to an agreement: not warn them. It could be so that the information was indeed unnecessary, if it was already mentioned on the page in another section for instance, so it would not be a good idea to recommend giving a warning right off the bat without clarification first. If the user does not respond then information can be restored without further questioning, although not responding would be discourteous. If a user repeatedly removes that information when a rough consensus was not reached, then that's edit warring. And generally, if a large amount of information was removed without agreement from others, then that comes under "Making major changes without approval".


 * 04:49, 1 September 2016 (EDT)

What is "too many consecutive edits"?
Can this standard be defined? Because no one knows exactly what "too many" is. Also, wouldn't this be the same thing as "not marking a flood of edits as 'minor'"? - 17:37, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * For example, if I typed out this sentence, but saved after every word, that would be too many. If it's something that can be done in one large edit, it should be, so the page's history and the Recent Changes don't get flooded and make them hard to look through. 17:40, 24 November 2017 (EST)
 * Hmm... okay. - 17:46, 24 November 2017 (EST)

Plagiarism (copying and pasting parts of an article)
Which level offense does plagiarism fall in the Warning Policy? Mari0fan100 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2019 (EST)
 * I'd say a level one reminder. Plagiarism should fall under failure to follow writing guidelines. 15:52, 4 January 2019 (EST)
 * I kind of think minor plagiarism should be a Level 1 offense while major plagiarism should be a level 2 offense. Mari0fan100 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2019 (EST)

Warnings given by Patrollers
I know that you can appeal a reminder, warning, or last warning if you got it from another registered user and that you can't appeal a reminder, warning, or last warning if an admin or higher rank gives it to you. Can you appeal a reminder, warning, or last warning that's given by a patroller? Mari0fan100 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2019 (EST)
 * No, they are still staff members. 11:03, 11 January 2019 (EST)
 * Unfortunately, I can't change the policy myself, but if I could, I'd change the entire thing from Admins to Patrollers. (Ex: An asterisk marks warnings that only patrollers can issue.) Similar to admins; even though patrollers have less privileges, it doesn't affect how they issue warnings. Mari0fan100 (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * I don't understand what you mean. You can't appeal a warning from a staff member: Patroller, Administrator, Bureaucrat, or Proprietor. 10:57, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * What I'm trying to say is that I wish I could change this quote from "An asterisk (*) marks offenses which only administrators can issue a warning for" to "An asterisk (*) marks offenses which only people who are patrollers or higher rank can issue a warning for." Mari0fan100 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2019 (EST)
 * "Be aware that the term "administrator" is often used as an umbrella term to refer to all the wiki staff, rather than the specific admin/sysop rank, so unless otherwise stated, the one lower rank, patrollers, should always be assumed to be included in any discussions about "admins," as they are generally treated the same anyway, aside from a few technical limitations." 11:03, 25 January 2019 (EST)

Yet Another Question...
What level offense is lying considered in the Warning Policy? For an example of lying, think of someone saying, "My brother's the one who vandalized these articles, not me" when, in reality, that person actually did it. Mari0fan100 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2019 (EST)
 * That's not something they can really be warned about, as it's likely the "brother" is already banned in that scenario, so the one conveying the message would also be banned if they provide no proof of their claim. 21:58, 9 February 2019 (EST)
 * How would the brother be banned if they just opened MarioWiki in an account on the same family computer that wasn't logged out of? Seems to me there's no way to prove either way, and claiming they're "lying" would be jumping to unfair conclusions. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2019 (EST)
 * Anyways, take a look at this situation: Say a family has a big get-together, and the house chosen happens to be the home of a Mariowiki user. Now, said user wanted to make an edit, but then suddenly their cranky old aunt forces them to share the computer with their bratty little cousin, and said cousin vandalizes the wiki while the user is getting scolded for not treating said brat like a little prince. Now, is it fair to blame the user if this happens? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2019 (EST)
 * If you have a "family computer" and a troublemaking relative, not logging out is like giving a baby beer. 23:36, 10 February 2019 (EST)
 * The account would still get banned regardless, perhaps after a few warnings if the current user doesn't respond to them, and they can send a message to the admins from the admin noticeboard or by IP editing. The situation will be dealt with internally, same with any other block appeal.
 * Not a good idea to edit wikis with children around, though. They will want to try it themselves :P 23:42, 10 February 2019 (EST)
 * And if one's haggish aunt physically pulls them out of the chair or gives them a sudden time limit of 5 seconds, what are they to do? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2019 (EST)
 * ...Has this happened before? 23:44, 10 February 2019 (EST)
 * The aunt thing is an exaggeration of something my whiny, brittle aunt did to me before I had online accounting at all (ie forcing me off of the computer via veto power and then claiming I was being "mean" to my cousin for telling him to clean up his own drink spill). Anyways, I recall one blocked person who was blocked because their cousin twice vandalized the wiki over two separate Thanksgivings, which I find too suspicious to have been the user themselves. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2019 (EST)
 * Well, that sucks. What user was that? 23:52, 10 February 2019 (EST)
 * Can't remember, unfortunately. It was before I started editing. I've browsed on here since 2007 or 2008. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2019 (EST)

How does this make sense?
I thought you couldn't create accounts while blocked! How does this make sense? 11:06, 11 February 2019 (EST)
 * Creating sockpuppets during a temporary block (will extend the block the first time and become an infinite ban the second time)
 * 1) Autoblocking IPs keeps them blocked for the next 24 hours, afterward the IP opens again. IP can be blocked separately, though.
 * 2) You can create an account using a separate IP.

It's either I found a typo or this makes no sense

 * Not marking a flood of edits as "minor"

Are you saying that not marking a small amount of (non-minor) edits as "minor" deserves a reminder template? Shouldn't you instead say:


 * Marking a flood of edits as "minor"

instead?


 * No, it's saying you can be warned for continuously not marking small edits as minor. 21:21, 10 March 2019 (EDT)

Why
Why is falsely claiming to be an admin not an "admins only" warning? 17:48, August 18, 2019 (EDT)
 * Because it's something that can very easily by noticed by anyone. 17:49, August 18, 2019 (EDT)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. 18:00, August 18, 2019 (EDT)

Missing level four offense
So, why is threatening someone's life not on here? Lord Falafel (talk) 13:57, November 21, 2019 (EST)
 * That's a level of flaming, as in making derogatory comments toward another user(s). Life threatening would be an immediate block, but it's not something we really need to clarify. Should be a given. 13:46, November 22, 2019 (EST)

Expand Parts of the Warning Policy (specifically the lists of offenses)
Ok, so I've been looking at this wiki, and there's one thing that kinda annoys me. Why do people get reminded, warned, and even blocked for not signing comments, even though this isn't part of the "Level 1 offenses"? I feel like blocking a good-faith user over forgetting to sign talk page comments is a bit absurd. (Assume said user has mostly made contributive and productive edits, like fixing typos in an article or asking for help when needed.) If a user gets warned for something that's not even in the Warning Policy to begin with (and FYI, forgetting to sign comments is not discourteous behavior), it seems unfair to give a user a reminder for an offense that does not seem to be reminder worthy, at least if the warning policy doesn't say that it's an offense.

That being said, I did notice that only admins can edit the warning policy. Since I can't edit it, I'm going to see how this proposal goes.

Proposer: Deadline: September 18, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 25, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Look, I hate getting warned too but it's worth it. I've done some dumb stuff and I should be called out for it.
 * 2) This proposal does not have a clear enough goal. As I said in the comments, the  title and reasoning are very contradictory.
 * 3) See comments
 * 4) Per all, this proposal is too unclear.

Comments
Is the goal of this proposal specifically to stop people from getting warned for signing comments then? If so, the proposal title is very misleading. 21:24, September 4, 2022 (EDT)
 * The goal of this proposal is to expand which offenses are warnable, and forgetting to sign comments would be a "Level one offense" if this proposal passes. Of course, users would get an informal reminder before getting an official reminder about it. Mari0fan100 (talk) 23:01, September 4, 2022 (EDT)
 * The reasoning of the proposal makes it look like you're trying to do the opposite of that, so I think there needs to be some rewording done. 08:40, September 5, 2022 (EDT)

Don't we have Don't shoot your foot off to address this sort of gap in warning policy? 23:16, September 4, 2022 (EDT)

BTW I don't think this will be an effective proposal. There's no clear goals to be made here. All this proposal to me seems like it's just pointing out potential issues with our warning and blocking policies but not really going into what can be done to solve this aside from suggesting we expand the policy page to encompass more infractions. 23:19, September 4, 2022 (EDT)

Also make sure you list the proposal in Proposals. 20:58, September 7, 2022 (EDT)

I agree with Bazooka Mario. We don't know what other things you want to be enforced by the warning policy. For all we know, the "Leaving an unsigned comment when a signature is required" offense is the only offense you want to actually add on the list (in which case, I would personally just go notify an admin about it before starting any proposal). Are there any other offenses you want to be added? Is there anything else regarding the warning policy you'd want to be changed (which offenses need to be changed, moved to which level, or deleted; how the procedure would go, etc.)? If you don't know anything else to be added or changed, then why bother with the proposal? Just ask an admin about the "Leaving an unsigned comment when a signature is required" offense and why it's not on the list of offenses. Oh, and for the record, I could've sworn that the "Leaving an unsigned comment when a signature is required" offense actually was listed somewhere, but I guess I was wrong about that. 10:04, September 9, 2022 (EDT)