Anonymous user
The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal: Difference between revisions
→Blocking users after warnings
imported>C.Syde65 |
imported>K6ka |
||
Line 296:
:::Those are fair points regarding the reasons for blocking. However, in these specific cases, administrators (myself included) chose to forego an immediate block in exchange for a stern warning, only to have those warnings overridden hours later without the warned users doing anything additionally to violate policy. I feel it should remain an administrator's prerogative whether to issue a warning or a block for a policy violation, rather than a blanket rule. In these cases, the users were given final warnings, so any additional pornographic uploads would have been met by blocks and any porn would've been immediately deleted. Even clear demonstrations of bad faith should not be met by immediate blocks in all but the worst cases, and then should almost never result in indefinite blocks until all other courses of action are exhausted. So, I agree with your justification for blocking, but feel you should have respected the warnings already in place and left well enough alone. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LiR</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 01:33, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
::::Okay. Well, I still disagree that users should be given another chance after committing such actions, but I'll be more careful to avoid overriding already issued warnings given to users that have done those sorts of actions. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 01:44, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
:::::I think users should be given one final chance even after committing such offenses, if only because the "Zero Tolerance" policy is a policy that has failed to deter crime when put into practice; such a policy, in practice, only increased the number of incarcerations with little to no reduction in crime. It is absolutely possible for even a very bad vandal to eventually become a productive editor, and while most vandals won't take on such an opportunity, we may not want to slam all the doors shut immediately. In other words, {{tl|Uw-vandalism4im}} (and templates of the like) were created for a reason; they're meant to be used in these circumstances, and they're already pretty serious by themselves. If an editor stops editing when they receive an only warning, then the problem is solved right there -- no block necessary. If an editor continues, ''then'' we can block, and problem solved again. A warning is a good practice for administrators, and it helps to give the impression that we are more rational and civilized, as many wikis and websites out there will block or ban you on a first offense, without warning (I've been on the receiving end of such communities before). True professionalism, or at least good etiquette, should involve a notification before any drastic action is taken. Your electric company warns you about an overdue payment before cutting the power, right? —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 02:14, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
| |||