User:Badger/sandbox13

Building a Better Warning Policy

Alright, well, I suppose it's maybe that time. We've been putting it off long enough. Let's roll up our sleeves and write a policy for warning people.

Current text

When one does not edit with civility and etiquette one gets a warning for each time (posted in the discussion; kept in tab with a per user system of warnings and bans combined). Warnings are given by admins; an admin should post one indent earlier then the post which is not civil with <code>''<!-Contributors' text in the post which warrants the warning. Seperate with commas and and.-> (<!-broken policy relating to the warning - see also civility and etiquette->) (<!-the users warning number -1,2,3:the users warning ban number).''</code> --~~~~. After that post it should continue along the same post thread as before (two later). The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially from the sixth warning (2 weeks) for each three warnings received.

Proposed New Text

When a registered user does not edit with civility and etiquette they will be issued a warning. Each warning, will be tallied on this page. Warnings are given by exclusively administrators. After a warning, the original discussion should continue along the same post thread as before. Block lengths start with one week after three warnings, and then increase exponentially after the sixth warning (2 weeks) for each three warnings received.

What causes a warning

• First and foremost, as mentioned above, editing without civility and etiquette, as defined by Wikipedia Policy, warrants a warning. This includes, but is not exclusively limited to, the following offenses:
  • Harassment
  • Personal attacks such as racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
  • Verbal abuse
  • Profanity
  • Belittling another contributor
  • Lying
  • Quoting another editor out of context
  • Rudeness: insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
• Secondly, pointing out another's offenses to an administrator can be considered a warn-able offense (as determined by the administrator). These will traditionally be considered warn-able offenses when a user persistently points out violations of one or many users. An informal and un-official warning should tell the contributor to cease these actions before a warning is issued.

How warnings are issued

• When a user's offending comment, written after 15:50, 4 September 2011 (MDT) is identified, an administrator will issue a warning.
  • Administrators will post one indent earlier than the offending comment with <code>''<!-Contributors' text in the post which warrants the warning; Separating with commas-> (<!-broken policy relating to the warning->) (<!-the users warning number -1,2,3:the users warning ban number).''</code> --~~~~.
• Comments by users with offending text before 15:50, 4 September 2011 (MDT) will be granted amnesty, as they were written before this system was set into place.
  • Any comment with offending text written before 15:50, 4 September 2011 (MDT) shall be edited by an admin like any other comment, but no warning will be added to that user's total.
• Comments with offending text written, at any time, by IPs will be edited like every other warn-able offense, but no warning will be issued.
  • IPs with warn-able offenses will be automatically blocked for at least 1 day, and the block reason should say "IP leaving comments in violation of warning policy".

How to revert a ban or block

If a user is banned for more than a single week, then they may petition, via email, that the sentence be commuted. After one week, blocked members may petition the admin that blocked them. Each email after the first, however, may be considered pestering an administrator, and cause for another warning. Blocks of users of any duration, may be commuted if an admin petitions on their behalf to the admin that blocked the user, at any time. As with other petitions, messages after the first may be considered pestering, and cause for a warning. For all petitions, a second message may be sent after 48 hours if the admin does not respond to the first message. While considered polite, an admin is not required to respond to the petitions of users or fellow admins.

Admins and Blocks

Administrators are not "above the law". That is to say, any admin can be warned, and subsequently blocked. If an administrator vote occurs during their block, they are permitted to vote, via email.

If an administrator is issued three warnings, and a subsequent block, their administrator standing will be put to a vote. After the block is over, they will be RfA'd, and removed from power if they are found to no longer be upholding the values of the community.

Warning Policy and the Tavern (aka Badger's hope springs eternal)

Because the wiki and the tavern are separate entities, blocks and bans will be issued independently. At the present admin's discretion a user may be kicked from the tavern without warning. Users blocked from the tavern aren't necessarily blocked from the wiki, and vice versa. Any administrator blocked on the wiki, however, will be disallowed from being a channel admin until their block is over.