UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Altered Ban Lengths

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Few A/VD related policies have passed as Accepted Policies on UDWiki. One of the better ones, Better Vandal Data, comprehensively fixed what many users found was wrong with UDWiki's vandal escalation system, and how it was run. The only community concern it didn't address was the prominence of career vandals who manipulate the de-escalation system our wiki has. One of the suggestions was removing de-escalations altogether. Being rather harsh, there is another option that is a bit more fair to all.

This policy attempts to change the escalation system on A/VD so it is harsher for those subjected to it. This is done by increasing the length of the ban time vandals will be banned by each escalation.

If this policy passes, the following changes will be made to the relevant part of A/G:


Current Escalations System

  • Warning (first)
  • Warning (second)
  • 24 Hours
  • 48 Hours
  • 1 Week
  • 1 Month
  • 1 Month + Permaban Vote

Proposition

  • Warning (first)
  • Warning (second)
  • 48 Hours
  • 1 Week
  • 1 Fortnight (2 weeks)
  • 1 Month
  • 1 Month + Permaban Vote

Some points of note

Whilst everyone who is banned will be affected by this, Career vandals are the target. They will find themselves in a more difficult boat, since they will have to work harder to work up required edits to work off previous escalations with the unban time they have. Long story short: Short-term de-escalations will be harder to achieve.

Even though the ban times have been increased, you will notice the amount of escalations have remained the same. This means that every user still has the same amount of escalations before they face the potential permaban vote. A user will be banned the same amount of times, just for longer periods. It just makes the bans more difficult to deal with when looking for short-term de-escalations.

Users on UDWiki rarely get banned, and those who do, deserve it. This isn't the sort of thing that will negatively affect a normal user.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. I hear what Iscariot's saying, but I cordially disagree. While the intended purpose of the policies may be to reform, reform clearly does not work well enough as it is. Reformation occurs as a result of incentives or disincentive in an environment. The current disincentives are not strong enough, and we cannot provide further incentives. Strengthening the disincentives is the clear choice. Aichon 08:27, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  2. Regarding what Iscariot said, reform will always be the ultimate goal. But it is achieved through the privilege of de-escalations, not by giving watered-down punishments which they don't learn from. Because of this, the system is easily abused by those who attempt to and since reform is only as effective as the subject's willingness to reform, the system is too easily abuseable. One has to keep in mind that 99% of normal users doing what is deemed generally right on a wiki never get escalated, let alone banned, so the wrath of a policy like this only ever affects those who need it. -- 08:33, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  3. As a regular on a couple of other wikis (including Wikipedia where I'm an admin) I'm all too familiar with what a pain in the ass vandalism can be, so I'm all for anything that would help discourage long-term vandals and keep them off the other people's backs so we can concentrate on improving this wiki. Chief Seagull squawk don't mess with the Seagull! 09:13, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  4. As DDR. --VVV RGPBMBCAWS 09:39, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  5. If you spare the rod, you spoil the child.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:07, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  6. Ban the witch! We're coming to get you, Barbara 15:20, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  7. No comment. Infrastructure 17:14, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  8. As DDR. --AORDMOPRI ! T 21:49, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  9. As Aichon and DDR. - Goribus 01:30, 16 April 2010 (BST)
  10. For me 24hr bans have always felt like a mockery of banning systems, 24hrs is a shortime, especially for a site most people visit 1 per day. --Kamikazie-Bunny 03:07, 17 April 2010 (BST)
  11. Stephen Reid 18:32, 21 April 2010 (BST)
  12. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. BoboTalkClown 17:29, 27 April 2010 (BST)

Against

  1. As I said on the talk page, UD is played daily, hence why the removal of the privilege to edit it for 24 hours should be the first step. Just about everyone who's supported this seems to have failed to read basic wiki policy, bans aren't there to punish, this isn't system of retribution but of reform. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:37, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  2. There will always be career vandals until there are serious changes made to the de-escalation system. This would only affect the ones stupid enough to let themselves rack up too many escalations in a row. It's a nice thought but ban lengths aren't the problem here. Cyberbob  Talk  09:30, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  3. As Bob. That feels wrong. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:21, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  4. I just can't see this addressing any of the current flaws. --Honestmistake 12:49, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  5. As above. Also speaking as someone who mistakenly got up to a week ban. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 15:35, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  6. It is a convincing case, but I just don't see enough problems with the status quo to warrant a change at this time. Asheets 19:59, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  7. Iscariot and Cyberbob make a convincing case. - User:Whitehouse 20:03, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  8. I don't think this is the solution people are looking for... -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 23:50, 14 April 2010 (BST)
  9. As Bob. This won't solve a thing (and as Iscariot said on the talk, it helps reinforce the idea that bans are purely as punishments.) Linkthewindow  Talk  02:13, 15 April 2010 (BST)
  10. Agree with Bob--C Whitty 08:32, 15 April 2010 (BST)
  11. I agree with Iscariot and Bob. --The Shoemaker Talk Red FactionDinosaur.gif 20:31, 18 April 2010 (BST)
  12. Draconian much? --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 05:39, 19 April 2010 (BST)
  13. Proxies and DHCP render banning near pointless against the determined troll anyway. --Anotherpongo 22:20, 19 April 2010 (BST)
  14. Banning is more or less useless--Weed.jpgArthur DentWeed.jpg BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 20:51, 21 April 2010 (BST)
  15. Over-punishing idiots creates career vandals. The weaker escalations we have now were brought in (by my policy, as it happens) to ease that situation (when we had permanent bans at the end of the tree), so I'm voting against a move backwards. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:27, 21 April 2010 (BST)
    Your passed policy was entirely different to this. All it did was remove the 1 Year Ban escalation and replace it with a month and then a permaban vote (instead of a permaban). It had nothing to do with stopping career vandals and it would not be rewound in any way by this policy. Perhaps by understanding career vandals more you actually have to maintain a career on this wiki, Funt. -- 05:45, 25 April 2010 (BST)
  16. Not needed. It's the de-escalation system that encourages career vandals, not the number of bans. This fixes nothing -- boxy talkteh rulz 04:08 25 April 2010 (BST)
  17. Against - as per the numerous cogent arguments made by others above. --WanYao 04:21, 28 April 2010 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements