UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Better Vandal Data

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 404} 18:21, 26 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 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. —Aichon— 18:24, 26 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.

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 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)