MEpedia talk:Moderation and blocking

Link to MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown
Consider adding a link to the list of reasons for blocking at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown. Maybe in a "See also" section. Pyrrhus (talk) 16:20, December 28, 2019 (EST)

Please add

 * stalking other users (following them to topics that don't normally interest you, reacting and responding to their every edit and post)
 * repeatedly removing content added by another user, while ignoring their explanation of why the content was added
 * not being here to build MEpedia (but instead only to annoy other editors, vandalize articles, etc.)
 * disrupting a work-in-progress, especially on a topic where you are not knowledgeable (overtagging, copyediting to make it mean something else, removing text without discussion, etc.)
 * attempting to impose non-existing rules onto other editors
 * falsely accusing other users of ignoring rules

May add more. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:01, September 17, 2019 (EDT)

Also, I believe that every editor should get a chance to (a) improve their behaviour, i.e. they should be warned first (multiple times as long as there is hope), and (b) defend themselves, before (not after, that doesn't work) any moderating action is taken.

Always keep in mind what we are here for to accomplish and that, unlike on Wikipedia, the number of people both willing and able to contribute is limited. Except for the core principles, adjust the rules to accomodate the people that you really need, not the other way around. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:09, September 17, 2019 (EDT)

Add shortcuts to sections
How about adding some easy to remember shortcuts for sections of this page, like the MOS:DATE shortcut for MEpedia:Manual of style. These could also be linked to from templates related to moderation and banning. Shortcut names used on Wikipedia could be used, since those might be the ones people expect. They are always upper case, e.g. MEpedia:BAN, MEpedia:BLOCK, MEpedia:PROTECTION - if we write a page on full vs semi-protection,MEpedia:RESTRICTIONS - for pages explaining any restricted / supervision if we decide to write one.

I would be happy to create in the relevant places for documentation we already have, or just add code like:     in the right part of the page, then click to create a redirect to the page. notjusttired (talk) 19:10, September 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * I’m just speaking for myself, but I find that shortcuts reduce readability significantly, especially when they appear on the right side of the screen, which is very confusing. I would suggest using the template instead of shortcuts.  Just my 2 cents.
 * Pyrrhus (talk) 15:54, September 19, 2019 (EDT)
 * They don’t do the same thing. Shortcuts are redirects to a page, and often linked to from Modules, error messages or templates, for instance linking to MEpedia:MOSDATE in a citation error message. The shortcut box doesn't do anything except let the person reading know the alternative link for the page. I should be change them to be displayed like the "See also" ones - ie no box around, on its own line. Do you want those changes done? They actually look pretty decent on a narrow mobile screen. ~Njt (talk) 17:36, September 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * I guess I'm confused about what shortcut boxes are supposed to accomplish. So if you click on a shortcut box, it will redirect you to the page you are already reading? Njt
 * Pyrrhus (talk) 21:00, September 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yes, it is a reminder box to tell you a shortcut for the page - often for section headings or subheadings on key pages. I just created MEpedia:BAN earlier - you can now click the link to get to the right subheading in the page. I haven't added a shortcut box for it. MOS:DATE is similar, jumping to just part of the page.   ~Njt (talk) 21:31, September 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * I've always used "What links here" to find any redirects that link to a particular section of a page. Maybe there's an easier way.  But I guess I just don't see the point of providing a shortcut to a page that I'm already reading.  Why don't we just have shortcuts on the pages that link to the particular section, but not on the page/section being linked to?  Wouldn't that make a lot more sense? Njt
 * Pyrrhus (talk) 21:49, September 30, 2019 (EDT)
 * Oh, did you mean that the "shortcut" is really acting as a bookmark to mark the location where the redirects point to? If so, I would expect that clicking on a bookmark wouldn't redirect you anywhere, although hovering over a bookmark might show the redirect in question... Njt
 * Pyrrhus (talk) 23:38, October 1, 2019 (EDT)
 * Yes, much like a bookmark or redirect. Displaying the shortcut is a similar idea to having a banner on a website to highlight an easier to remember phone number - like "call 212 TAXINOW" rather than the number in digits. You will probably recognize them from Wikipedia editors referring to WP:MOS, WP:POV etc. Displaying the shortcuts in an obvious box on the page highlights them and helps people remember them.

Request for page to nominate bans
Another spammer created an account today - User:MindtechAffiliates.com - Most wikis seem to have a ban nominations page. Is it worth creating one? It would need to be unprotected so anonymous users can also report. At the moment I post on User_talk:Kmdenmark, and bans can only be seen via the block log from special pages. I think I've seen "User ban nominations" pages elsewhere. Possibly create as a subpage here, or elsewhere in the MEpedia area? Adding __NOINDEX__  to the top should prevent search engines picking it up. notjusttired (talk) 08:29, September 18, 2019 (EDT)

Restrictions on user account names
Anti-spam suggestion: I would like to avoid having a dot in user names to avoid .com, .org, .net names. I am not sure if most of these accounts are created robots, if they are it may prevent them being created at all. I previously suggested banning the phrase "visit our website" although User:Pyrrhus thought it might be used elsewhere. I think if genuine it should be rephrased to say just "website" since links saying "click here", "visit" are bad practice. Possibly this could be explained in any error message so non-automated users know what to do. I believe these both would need developer changes. notjusttired (talk) 08:29, September 18, 2019 (EDT)
 * We considered this when creating MEpedia:Username policy, but quickly realized that many people like to have dots in their user names. “john.smith”, for example.
 * Pyrrhus (talk) 12:17, September 18, 2019 (EDT)


 * Text above copied to Username policy Njt (talk) 17:15, September 18, 2019 (EDT)