SmashWiki talk:Bad faith: Difference between revisions
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Support== | ==Support== | ||
# After reading the text, people spam and ingore warnings. I even seen a warned user refusing to comply, getting blocked indefinitely by refusing to comply with the warnings. I'm tired of the spam and warning ignoring. And while I assume good faith with edits, I think we need this policy. [[File:George Jones.jpg|25px]] [[User:Corrin Fan|Corrin Fan]] [[File:Walls Can Fall.jpg|25px]] 16:29, 30 October 2018 (EDT) | # After reading the text, people spam and ingore warnings. I even seen a warned user refusing to comply, getting blocked indefinitely by refusing to comply with the warnings. I'm tired of the spam and warning ignoring. And while I assume good faith with edits, I think we need this policy. [[File:George Jones.jpg|25px]] [[User:Corrin Fan|Corrin Fan]] [[File:Walls Can Fall.jpg|25px]] 16:29, 30 October 2018 (EDT) | ||
# '''Full support'''. This policy has been necessary from a long time, even if it was not there to remind us we can't keep assuming Good faith all the time. Good faith is to still be assumed most of the time, though. --[[File:BeepYouSignature.png|40px]] [[User:Beep|<font color="Black">'''Beep'''</font>]] [[User talk:Beep|<font color="Black">'''(talk)'''</font>]] 13:12, 31 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
==Oppose== | ==Oppose== | ||
Revision as of 13:12, October 31, 2018
The policy on the project page is a proposed replacement to the current SW:VANDAL policy. As I explained previously on the policy's talk page, vandalism is not the only form of bad faith editing, and no formal policy exists for the other items in this proposal, I believe it would make for a suitable replacement to said policy, by providing a broader explanation of what bad faith is, and why it is unacceptable behaviour on the wiki. This proposal was co-authored by myself and Serpent King.
Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:59, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
Support
- After reading the text, people spam and ingore warnings. I even seen a warned user refusing to comply, getting blocked indefinitely by refusing to comply with the warnings. I'm tired of the spam and warning ignoring. And while I assume good faith with edits, I think we need this policy.
Corrin Fan 
16:29, 30 October 2018 (EDT) - Full support. This policy has been necessary from a long time, even if it was not there to remind us we can't keep assuming Good faith all the time. Good faith is to still be assumed most of the time, though. --
Beep (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2018 (EDT)
Oppose
- ...
Neutral
- I'm well and truly on the fence about this. While I recognise the need for more transparent policy covering the actions of bad faith users, this also seems a little contradictory to AGF. I'm probably not going to make that my final word though, so check back later to see if I change my mind. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 17:48, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
- Regarding AGF, that policy applies only when it is conceivable that the editor did not realize they were violating policy. If it has been made clear to them that what they are doing is wrong, and they knowingly ignore said warnings, then their activity is no longer considered good faith. This is essentially already in practice, it just isn't specifically stated in any policy, which is the purpose of this one. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 17:51, 29 October 2018 (EDT)
Comments
- ...
