Forum:New Policies

Forums: Index > Brethren Forum > New Policies

As you may or may not have noticed, many of our policies, the important ones (Blocking policy, etc.) have been taken from Wookieepedia. I was going to add more, but I think we should vote on which ones we should take. For a list of the policies follow this link: [1]. Post additional policies below in traditional vote style (see here). I'll post one below as an example.

Vote

No personal attacks

Support

1. --Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 00:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
2. --Wanderingshadow 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
3. --Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 11:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
5. --User:admiral James Kaizer
6. --Jackthemonkey34
7. --Therequiembellishere

Oppose

1. --El Chupacabra 14:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Are attacks on vandals allowed? If not, will they be punished? El Chupacabra 12:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think vandals are also protected by this. We should be civil to anyone, and not stoop to their level anyway.--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Then I'm against it. If a miscreant damages or blanks pages with evil intentions, I'll call him a miscreant, and i don't want to be punished for this. El Chupacabra 14:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I can interpret it as (if not I'll just write it in) that if an anon or user that has made no worthwhile edits starts to vandalize pages, they are excluded from this policy. Otherwise, if they have made a few worthwhile contributions, you shouldn't insult them. Besides, calling a vandal a miscreant isn't heavy offense, I'd probably only block someone for a day or so, based on the severity of the insult. Miscreant would probably only get you a warning, and if harassment continues, a block of a few hours to a day. Remember, the policy states that saying something like "your being a miscreant" is somewhat acceptable, as opposed to "listen you dirty little miscreant".--Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        • We have to draw the line somewhere, like lord beckett said attacking them is devalueating ourselves. - Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 11:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Protection policy

Support

1. --Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 11:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. --Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 11:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --Wanderingshadow 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --El Chupacabra 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. --BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
6. --Therequiembellishere

Oppose

1. Reason for objection.--signature

Comments

• The link is broken. The page do not exist you need to improve it. El Chupacabra 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Deletion Policy

Support

1. --Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 12:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. --Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 13:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --Wanderingshadow 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --El Chupacabra 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. --BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
6. --Jackthemonkey34 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. --Therequiembellishere

Oppose

1. Reason for objection.--signature

Comments

• Post any additional comments here.

---

Three-revert rule

Support

1. --Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 12:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. --Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --Wanderingshadow 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --El Chupacabra 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. --BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
6. --Jackthemonkey34 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reason for objection.--signature
2. --I actually never liked the 3-R Rule because some pages get a large amount of cruft and good faith edits that need more than three revisions--Therequiembellishere

Comments

• Post any additional comments here.

---

Neutral point of view policy

Support

1. --Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 12:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. --Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 13:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --Wanderingshadow 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --El Chupacabra 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. --BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
6. --Jackthemonkey34 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. --Therequiembellishere

Oppose

1. Reason for objection.--signature

Comments

• Post any additional comments here.

---

Sock puppetry policy

Support

1. --Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. --Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --Wanderingshadow 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --El Chupacabra 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. --BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
6. --User:admiral James Kaizer
7. --Jackthemonkey34 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. --Therequiembellishere

Oppose

1. Reason for objection.--signature

Comments

• Post any additional comments here.

---

Vandalism policy

Support

1. --Lord Cutler Beckett^{Port Royal} 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. --Lord KAJ ^{– Company Office} 13:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --Wanderingshadow 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
5. --User:admiral James Kaizer
6. --Jackthemonkey34 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. --Therequiembellishere

Oppose

1. Reason for objection.--signature

Comments

• Id'like to propose the Treatment of Vandalism rules we have at the One Piece Wikia instead as they are much more detailed and therefore better. El Chupacabra 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)