Forums: Index WoWWiki policy Tightening Penalties: Proposal

The Policy

For breaking specific policies, penalties would be tightened for the short-term. It would become permanent only if the community deemed it necessary.

Specific Vandalism

This has to do with excessive profanity, pornography, and general gibberish typically either inserted into articles or used to replace content within articles.

  • For those violating existing policy, it is proposed that the penalty should be an immediate, permanent ban.

General Vandalism

This has to do with all other acts of vandalism as already outlined in existing policy.

  • For those violating existing policy, it is proposed that the penalties should start with a warning, a mid-level ban, then a permanent ban.


This has to do with policy handed down by Sannse and wikia pertaining to the advertising of wowpedia on the wiki, and specifically on users' talk pages.

  • It is proposed first that this policy be expanded to include any other sites now or in the future that either allows readers to edit (the same as this wiki; i.e. 'come over here to edit') or are guide sites (i.e. 'wowwiki's information is garbage, come over here to read').
  • Second, it is proposed that this policy be included on the Policies page in its own category. As it stands now, new users have no idea this policy exists.
  • Lastly, for those violating this policy, it is proposed that the penalty should first be a warning, then a mid-level ban, then a permanent ban.


WoWWiki is in a state of rebuilding and efforts should preferably be focused on rebuilding and updating content. Repeated violations of the above mentioned policies are a distraction from these efforts and could slow down the process, making the rebuilding more difficult than it already is. If current penalties remain in effect, people who want to disrupt the rebuilding process have ample opportunity to return and continue in that disruption.

In the case of vandalism, for instance, blocking is said to occur 'after a certain number of acts' associated with continued warnings. The number of acts a vandal could be allowed before a permanent ban is 20, which seems far too many given the current state of the wiki. The penalties incurred for the types of vandalism included herein are also not adequately defined, though they are listed under the DNP policy. The proposal regarding specific vandalism is harsh because there is no logical way a person can accidentally, unknowingly commit such vandalism; it is deliberate, and so should be treated as such.

In the case of advertising, there is currently no way for a new user to know this policy is in effect. While it seems the community cannot change this particular policy, it stands to reason the repercussions should be a matter for debate. The reason for such a proposed penalty is due to the fact that such advertising isn't typically confined to one user page or article--rather, people generally attempt to 'tag' many user pages. The time it takes to revert those advertisements is time better spent on rebuilding the site and updating content.


Before putting this up for a vote, it would be nice to determine first if there are any of the proposals above that can readily be accepted. Should any of the above be ratified, it is preferred that the wording of the changes and alteration of the penalties come from the community and not be something handed to the community. Raylan13 (talk) 17:57, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

The clarification of action taken against users who violate policies is probably a good idea. The advertising policy as described would also affect database sites such as Wowhead or even the official Armory which users can contribute to (and would thus violate the allowed external links provisions of WW:EL). If you're going to be asshats, just come out and say mentioning Wowpedia is forbidden. --PcjGamepedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!

CSpecial:Editcount/Pcj contributions and counting) 18:14, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

People can put their preferences in the vote. Go to Forum_talk:Tightening_Penalties:_Proposal#Votes. --Gengar orange 22x22.pngBeware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9:30 PM PST 10 Dec 2010

Back to the Drawing Board

Based on the current status of the vote, I think it is safe to say this proposal will not be accepted in its current form by the community (though the vote has to be left up for a few more days). I think its time to return to the drawing board and decide what changes are needed to actually get some votes on the yes side. The changes I would reccomend are as follows:

  • If these proposals are indeed temporary in nature, then there should be a defined time limit when they will either have to be voted on again (to be continued) or automatically ended. An alternative is to not focus on temporary measures, and instead focus on proposing a permanent changes to the rules that are intended for long-term sustainment of WoWWiki.
  • Split up these proposals. Instead of one vote to cover everything, why not go to the talk page of each affected policy and make a proposal there for specific ammendments (either temporary or permanent) to that policy. The only thing a forum post would do then is act as a pointer to the various policy talk pages where discussion and votes are taking place. In this manner, people could vote "yes" to some changes while "no" to others, and people might also be more willing to vote "yes" when they can see the clear process and impact on the existing policy.
  • Further to the second point, state what you are changing from. Say "changing BLAH BLAH BLAH to BLA BLA BLAHHH BLAH" so that the before and after is clear. Actually copy and paste the specific, relevant portions of existing policy text and then write the ammended policy text immediately after it. This will also serve to demonstrate that, as a Wikia employee, you are giving all due regard to the existing community policies. It might help to eliminate an appearance of bias or heavy-handed tactics such as an all encompassing forum post, outside the policy space, would suggest. ddcorkum (talk) 23:25, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
Excellent advice. This proposal just had too many parts. I voted against the whole thing, because I don't like voting for parts of a proposal. --Gengar orange 22x22.pngBeware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:21 PM PST 13 Dec 2010
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.