-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Phroziac wrote:
That sounds ok to me, but, I think the user should be
pointed to
relevant policies on the first warning also. I don't like the view
source part though, sounds a little evil. I don't feel it would do
much other then discourage the person from editing. er even make them
think it's a bug in the software and go report it.
On 7/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Proposal for a new policy:
>
>1. User does something stupid -> User is warned.
>2. User does something stupid -> User is warned, pointed to relevant
>policy pages.
>3. User does something stupid -> User is blocked for 12 hours (which
>will most likely be overnight), pointed to relevant policy pages.
>
>At stage 3 (that is, third act of stupidity) some software changes are
>required. Namely:
>
>* Editing restriction to user's talk page (and *possibly* subpages of
>their user_talk page)
>* Edit link is automagically changed into View Source, but visiting an
>&action=edit page will still reset the block
<snip>
There are two problems I see at present. The first one is ignorance -
the "How was I supposed to know I wasn't allowed to do that?" defence.
Yes, the user should probably be pointed to policy pages on the first
warning.
My present way of dealing with the clueless is:
if(!user.welcomed)
{
assumeGoodFaith();
welcomeUser();
}
else if(!user.warned)
{
assumeGoodFaith();
warnUser();
}
else
{
warnUser();
}
The second problem has been outlined in a message just in...
- --
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFC6Ox//RxM5Ph0xhMRA26zAJ49I9kKHkD133h1po1JmQPl04ui6ACeO+lx
x/3M1I3oSfIItm1PkrmhDno=
=gJ0V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----