UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Escalation Strike Revision

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.

This is a policy to revise a section of A/G

It will replace the following text

[[User:|]] said:
The first action to be taken is to warn the user. A user must be warned at least twice (in response to at least two different reports) before a system operator may administer the first ban. Warnings are to be placed on the talk page of the user's account and recorded on the vandal data page. To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single warning can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that two months have passed since the user's last infraction. No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before.

From the Cycle of Warnings and Bannings section with:

[[User:|]] said:
The first action to be taken is to warn the user. A user must be warned at least twice (in response to at least two different reports) before a system operator may administer the first ban. Warnings are to be placed on the talk page of the user's account and recorded on the vandal data page. No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before.

To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single vandal escalation can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that two months have passed since the user's last infraction , with another month for every subsequent striking after the first in the series, restarting in the event of a vandal escalation. If a user has more than two vandal escalations, the first escalation struck shall be the second warning, followed by the bans in descending order of severity (If any), and finishing in the first warning.

Changes are in bold

The intention of this policy is to allow users with a large number of bans to reform themselves down their vandal trees so they cannot blow themselves off the wiki in a moment of weakness and/or anger, as the current policy allows. Overall this allows a more fair system (Not to say that the other is not also fair, just less so), and further encourages former vandals to reform their behaviour consistently. For example a user who gets up to a month ban, then reforms, and posts well for a year under the current system would be banned for a year if he had a bad run involving three warnings.

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. First post! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. I agree with the changes. It is more or less what I would have liked to write back then, but the trends at the time didn't allow such a daring move. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. --  AHLGTG 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Author vote. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. La la la...-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. +1 --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Me likey. Omega 06:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Fine by me. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Damn you Hagnat! I wanted first post! Yes. Good.--SeventythreeTalk 09:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Reformation is a good ting. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yep yep. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. mhm --~~~~ [talk] 12:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. -- boxytalk • 12:45 24 November 2007 (BST)
  14. First post!--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. In that case, I support the changes. CharonX 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Bleh <3 --Perne 01:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Last post --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 08:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Wanna bet? -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 08:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. I suppose the large time gaps in between strikes would make abuse unlikely. -- BKM 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. --Wooty 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 11:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. ------Sexualharrison ה QSGTStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 12:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. --Ryiis 14:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Kid tested, mother approved. --Akule School's in session. 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. In favour of the revolving door banning system ;) --WanYao 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. 'Tis good. --Pedentic 23:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Eh, the vandals still won't feel any better.--Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Although In would prefer that they were reduced in ban escalations instead of just warnings cause this seems almost too lenient.--Karekmaps?! 11:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. For sure. --User:Axe27/Sig 22:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Sure. --Squid Boy 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Against

# No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before. invites abuse. Any user could act-out twice, no matter how extremely, and still escape a ban. CharonX 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page Vote changed.

#Against- This allows users an unlimited amount of bans therefore eliminating the use of permabanning, what the hell happens when a user just tsw for a few strikings and starts up again? And what happens when this vandal does this over and over? The holes in this policy are terribly shortsighted and horribly planned. -- BKM 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting closed almost two weeks ago. Policy approved. 31 For, 0 Against. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools
advertisements