UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Better Vandal Data

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.png Guidelines — Policy Document
This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.
Notice
This policy has 3 separate policies located on this page, the last (third) of which did not pass voting. Only the first two votes are considered a Passed Policy.

Summary

Three new policies are being proposed, all aimed at improving the handling of Vandal Data. Two of the policies are mutually exclusive.

Policy 1: A/VD Links

This first policy proposes that a user's Vandal Data should include links to the relevant Vandalism/Misconduct cases, and, if policy 2 passes, a link would be provided to any relevant de-escalation. Here is an example of what A/VD would look like if this policy passes.

Why?

The history of A/VD becomes cluttered and difficult to navigate, it is complicated to track down the cases relating to a user's vandal data, and history wipes further obfuscate the problem. Providing links to the archives is a simple, easy way to add clarity to any given user's vandal data. It would make it easier to conveniently check the history of any user, for whatever reason, reducing the possibility of error and oversights. If policy 2 passes, the vandal data of any user would be further improved with a very clear record of when and why their warnings/bans were struck via de-escalation.

Implementation

If this policy passes, then sysops would merely include a link to the archived record of the vandalism case when making their vandalism ruling, however, the policy would not be retroactively mandatory. If any dedicated users wanted to update A/VD to include the appropriate links, this would be encouraged and legal, but it would not be a requirement of the sysops or anyone else. Only vandalism rulings brought after the passing of this policy would be required to be linked to A/VD.

Policy 2: Formalize De-Escalations

This second policy proposes to formalize the method of de-escalation, using a process similar to A/D. Here is an example of what the newly formed A/DE would look like if this policy passes. This is mutually exclusive with policy 3

Why?

The current process of de-escalation is inherently flawed. Currently, users can request to have warnings and bans stricken from their record (de-escalated), provided they have shown good-faith reform. However requests for de-escalation are merely placed on the sysops' talk pages. This causes a number of problems:

  • There is no centralized record of when and why de-escalation requests have been filed, or how long a request has been waiting, or why it has or hasn't been fulfilled.
  • When a user's vandal data is altered by a sysop for de-escalation, there is no centralized record of why it was altered, and if the alteration met the requirements for de-escalation. Server history wipes further compound this problem by completely removing the history of alterations to a user's vandal data.

Having a simple, formalized request system would clear up these problems by creating a centralized database of all de-escalation requests and establishing transparent guidelines for de-escalation that can be easily viewed and archived, regardless of history wipes and changes to the current list of sysops. If policy 1 passes, the vandal data of any user would be further improved with a very clear record of when and why their warnings/bans were struck via de-escalation.

Implementation

A new Administration page would be created under "UDWiki:Administration/De-Escalation", or "A/DE". It would work similarly to A/D, where any user could place a request for de-escalation for any other user, providing relevant links. A/DE requests would then be fulfilled or denied based on whether or not the request met the requirements for de-escalation.

In order for Policy 2 to be implemented, it must pass and policy 3 must fail. If policy 3 and policy 2 both pass, only policy 3 will be implemented. These two policy proposals are mutually exclusive.

Policy 3: Remove De-Escalations

This third policy proposes that the de-escalation process should be completely removed. This is mutually exclusive with policy 2.

Why?

The process of de-escalation is inherently flawed. Users are already provided with a number of chances to avoid serious bans, including a number of warnings and short-term bans. De-escalation was meant as a way to reform vandals, but it hasn't worked. Removing the most convoluted and complicated aspect of vandal data entirely would simplify the vandal data record, and make enforcement of the wiki's rules more obvious.

Implementation

If this policy passes, everyone's vandal data would be maintained exactly as it is. The record of warnings and bans would be completely unaffected, however there would no longer be any way to de-escalate or strike old bans and warnings from a user's record. Each vandalism or misconduct ruling against a user would stay on a user's vandal data, and subsequent rulings would follow the current escalation policy.

If policy 3 and policy 2 both pass, only policy 3 will be implemented. These two policy proposals are mutually exclusive.

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.

General discussion should take place here

1: A/VD links

For

  1. For - I don't know why this isn't already standard. Seems like a relatively easy and minor way of improving things. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 18:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. For - It was my idea after all. It's easy to implement and makes fact-checking much simpler for people who need to look through the data later. Aichon 18:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. For - This would greatly aid the running of vandalism cases by enabling prior context to be seen by all. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. For - --Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. For --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 19:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. For - Anything that increases sysop workload get's a plus from me :D, also as above, it would be very handy.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. For - Sounds alright. Also, *cough* CNR↓ --  AHLGTG 22:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. For - Thank god it isn't retroactively applicable. Lol'd at CNR↓ -- 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. For - As Aichon - easy to implement and helps us track vandals easier over time (instead of digging through archives.) Linkthewindow  Talk  00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. For - Looking good. Cyberbob  Talk  03:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. For - Good idea.--Mallrat The Spanish Inquisition TSI The Kilt Store TKS Clubbed to Death CTD 06:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. For - Not sure why we aren't doing this already.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. For - This one's a no-brainer.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 13:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  14. For - Go for it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  15. For --AORDMOPRI ! T 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  16. For - A given? --C Whitty 21:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  17. For - Me Likey. -- Cheese 10:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  18. For - Yes, please. --sannok(talk)(kilts) 10:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  19. For - Should already be in use. --ZsL 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  20. For --Weed.jpgImthatguyWeed.jpg found some weed 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  21. For -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  22. For --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  23. For --Haliman - Talk 20:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against - Putting multiple policies up at once is dumb. Using difference links is just as dumb because we're due another history wipe which will render them all dead. Good job genius. And you'll be removing all reference to my falsified vandal history from your example page or I'll meatpuppet its deletion on the basis of an attack page. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    That must be the 7th meatpuppet threat I've heard from you in two months without any action. -- 00:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    Is my tally behind your empty promises? I'll try and improve sweetheart. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    Funnily enough, it actually is far far worse than mine. -- 03:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

2: Formalize De-Escalations

If you wish to vote for 2, you should vote against 3. If both policies pass, only 3 will be implemented.

For

  1. For - At first I was a little confused, but the example cleared things up. All of a user's VD still in one place, but the process of de-escalation will work akin to deletions. Good change. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 18:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. For - I find it surprising that an official matter like this isn't conducted through a centralized system already. Considering the confusion that occurs at times, I think it needs to be centralized for clarity's sake. Also, I would prefer policy 3, but I find it incomplete, so some improvement (i.e. this policy) is better than nothing. Aichon 18:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. For - --Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. For-- Adward  19:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. For --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 19:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. For - Most certainly. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 20:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. For - Give it a go. --  AHLGTG 22:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. For - -- 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. For - Linkthewindow  Talk  00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. For - Okay, let's give it a try before moving on to policy 3 if necessary.--Mallrat The Spanish Inquisition TSI The Kilt Store TKS Clubbed to Death CTD 07:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. For - It will streamline an important process and it's as easy as A/D.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 13:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. For - I want that new admin page.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. For - Why doesn't this already exist? --AORDMOPRI ! T 17:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  14. For - Makes sense.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  15. For - Me also likey. -- Cheese 10:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  16. For - As above. --sannok(talk)(kilts) 10:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  17. For --Weed.jpgImthatguyWeed.jpg found some weed 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  18. For -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  19. For --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  20. For --Haliman - Talk 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against - Multiple policies are bad. Removing a user's control from his vandal data is a bad thing as it allows users to force legitimacy onto a falsified history. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Against - Does jack squat about the problem of serial vandals abusing the system. Apart from that it's okay, but I'm surprised that with all the talk about increasing the requirements to have a warning/ban struck nothing was actually put into the policy. Cyberbob  Talk  03:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    Jack squat? I thought the correct expression was jack shit...?..--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 13:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    Either works. Plus squat sounds better. Cyberbob  Talk  23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Against - I don't think we need a new subpage for the de-escalations. I think it would be alright if de-escalations were managed through the main vandalism page, and that they need to be linked to strikes on A/VD. --ZsL 23:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

3: Remove De-Escalations

If you wish to vote for 3, you should vote against 2. If this passes, only policy 3 will be implemented.

For

  1. For - Without de-escalation, the current escalation system is perfectly adequate for those who wish to reform. Multiple warns should be seen as disregard for the rules, and nothing less. They never lynch children, babies—no matter what they do they are whitewashed in advance 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. For - I cant see the need for de-escalation and agree with the above comment --C Whitty 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against - I would prefer to implement policy #2 first and give that some time and see how much of an effect that has. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 18:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Against - While I wouldn't mind seeing de-escalations go away, a policy change of this nature needs to be done at the same time as a change to the escalation policy, otherwise the escalation policy becomes too severe. It'd need to go back to something like what it was before de-escalations were introduced. Aichon 18:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Against - --Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Against - Policy #2 first.-- Adward  19:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Against --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 19:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Die in a fire - I think you know why. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Against - Yes, brilliant, let's have people be escalated by a minority that only promote those they want even when others are more qualified and have more support and have no way to avoid the eventual perma. Setting up for your own promotion bid I see. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. Against - I am for a test period of the different policies --JohnGGeo 21:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. Needs some work. --  AHLGTG 22:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. Against - redundant vote is redundant. If we where to pass this, then we would have to reform the whole escalations system at the same time (and even then, I can't see this working.) Linkthewindow  Talk  00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. Against: simply so we can try policy 2 first, and possibly improve this suggestion in the meantime.--Mallrat The Spanish Inquisition TSI The Kilt Store TKS Clubbed to Death CTD 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. Against - If we want to nail serial vandals we can whup up a policy geared towards hammering them.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 13:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. Against - :D --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  14. Against - Me no likey. -- Cheese 10:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  15. Against - 2 2 2. --sannok(talk)(kilts) 10:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  16. Against - I don't think this policy is the correct way to go about the problem. --ZsL 23:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  17. WTF? who the hell idea was this?--Weed.jpgImthatguyWeed.jpg found some weed 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  18. Against All this would do is discourage any new user from ever editing. There are just somethings that are better by trial and error, especially when they're trivial... and for these things, there should be a policy of forgivness. -Poodle of DoomM! Fear is only as deep as the mind will allow it be.T 00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  19. Against --LithedarkangelMeth!The Great Meth Man 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  20. Against - As I said before, removing them completely is a bad idea. --Haliman - Talk 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
advertisements