UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Banning Policy

Izumi is that Locketside Valkyrie person, right? Hmmmnnn... sounds like they were an idiot, anyway... I saw a bunch of their lame crap, and their lame-o enemies' crap, on the wiki while shopping in Tompson... And browsing through Banning stuff to see how it all works... Looks like they deserved it... Esp. when they made a SOCKPUPPET to get around a ban, did they not?

Ok, to the suggestion. I don't think we need to change the penalty times. Way I see it, you screw up badly enough to get banned? Wow... you suck... now fuck off... and don't come back... Dig?

Seriously, it takes some pretty bad vandalism and bullshit to get banned for a year. I think the system is maybe too leniant, if anything. But, all said and done, it works okay, I think. As far as I can see, it ain't really broke, so don't fix it. But lets the actual moderators have their say.... --WanYao 06:34, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Goooood booooy!!!! Maybe if you suck up to the admins enough you'll get a cookie! I like how Izumi's the idiot but you can't even form a proper sentence. My advice to you: Don't judge until you know the facts.

Izumi had a temper problem, but she did try to follow the rules for the most part. Most of her bans resulted from misunderstandings that were blown out of proportion by the sysops, then her resulting tantrum. Yeah, she needed some time away but a permaban? Seriously? I've known Izumi for a long time and I don't think she would purposefully do anything to merit a fething permanban. Just my two cents. Lunar Love 06:55, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Nice try, masquerading as a friend. Checkuser gotcha. --The Grimch ^U! 07:11, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Oh fuck you... I don't suck up to anyone... including Admins... ask them... And I don't know Izumi, and I don't really give a fuck about Izumi, except that from what I saw s/he looked like an idiot vandal. And really lame, to boot, from the group's wiki... Oh, and sign your posts next time... --WanYao 07:55, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Psssst... btw, all the "facts" I need are on Izumi's talk page... Seems like I hit them all right on the nose... And... since the civility policies haven't been enacted yet: fuck you and the winged steed you flew in on.... ( Hey! S/he started it!! :P ) --WanYao 08:08, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I rearranged this to fit the original post intention. Izumi forgot to indent her comment, and WanYao erroneously assumed the two seperate parts of her one post were in fact two seperate users posting. This situation has now been rectified. And yes, Lunar Love was indeed Izumi Orimoto, it is important that this be known so people can judge the post, and her personality, for themselves (And its listed under her name on the Vandal Data page). --The Grimch ^U! 19:58, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Actually this gives me an idea, but there are so many damn policies people are trying to shove through right now that I doubt any of them are getting the level of consideration a new policy deserves. People need to stop suggesting new policies, three is even too many but we have something like 10 that aren't even up for voting.--Karek^maps?! 07:22, 13 September 2007 (BST)

If you look in her vandalbanning history you'll notice that she progressed 5 steps for pure vandalism and only 3 steps for dodging a ban.

Izumi was told dozens of times that she wasn't allowed to edit other people group or user pages. Yet she did so repeatedly. Both to remove her name out of list and to insert insults into the texts. She was told countless times that what she did was wrong and vandalism even before she got her first warning. And she kept ingoring those rules even when, after a half a dozen of such edits, we finally began to warn her. And she continued to edit other people's pages even after we started giving out bans. Normally a person stops and starts thinking when she gets a ban. she just continued editing, not just this time but the time before that as well

I've had a long discussion with her over E-mail where she just didn't seem to grasp that it is vandalism to edit other peoples pages and that you aren't allowed to edit at all while being banned for vandalism. she certainly wasn't the worst editor we've had, but she simply kept breaking the rules blatently enough for long enough.

And as you can see by her many alts, it's quite clear that returning to the wiki isn't a problem. even Amazing was able to edit this wiki for a long time while being perma-banned. It's impossible for us to see which user is which as long as they behave themselves. There are a lot of things wrong with the banning system, but this policy isn't adresssing any of them.-- Vista  +1  13:52, 13 September 2007 (BST)

While she wasn't the worst troll out there, she simply would not follow the rules. As Vista said, She was warned a number of times before her first punishment. She appealed to me to not report her sockpuppet the day after she got banned. In the last 4 months pretty much any time she's been active on the wiki, she's been causing herself problems and blaming others for it. There's never been a single ounce of personal responsibility out of her. I support the sysops for doing their job. Izumi's campaign of whining about her fate doesn't help her one bit. --8 Bucks 16:38, 13 September 2007 (BST)

So, judging from at least one significant example shown above, it looks like the current banning policy is working. So let's just leave it. And... I'm starting to think... If everyone on here were NORMAL human beings with a modicum of intelligence, then a civility policy would make sense. Actually, it wouldn't even be necessary. But considering what ASSHATS some people are, until such time as the community smartens up and grows up, I think I want to reserve my right to flame the worst of them, like I did above... Meaning that maybe I'm growing to support Grim's Free Speech policy after all... :) Actually, most people are just fine. It's only a few crazy people off their meds, like Izumi, who screw it up for everyone... Ok, enough off topic... Ciao... --WanYao 19:27, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Not to make this all about Izumi - but if ever there were a person deserving what they got, it's her. Read everything she says with the voice of the most spoiled teenager you know in mind, and it makes better sense. There's only one way to discipline that teenager - I agree that in the case of Izumi at least, justice was served by the yearlong ban. I only wish there was a way to truly make her go away, as she has proven tenatious with 14 total alts banned from the wiki to date. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya, Izumi...--Squid Boy 19:52, 13 September 2007 (BST)

On topic

please, forget about Izumi... she might not be the best example for these policy. The one that serves the best is Jedaz. He was perma-banned because of that evil-script he created that could disrupt the entire wiki. He tried several times to join the wiki, but was banned after each attempt to communicate with the administration. I had to talk with him in the Scroll Wars wiki, and work things out in his favor here so he could get a chance to talk! Long term users MUST have a chance to explain themselves before they get a perm-ban.
My suggestions for this policy is:

no more year-bans

no more perma-bans for long term users (more than 3 months)

a month is the maximum time a user might be banned in normal circunstances

perma-ban is a punishment only applicable in extreme cases of vandalism (or to vandal-only accounts), and it's not bound how many warnings a user have

before being perma-banned, a user have 24hours to explain itself. If he vandalise again in this period, he wont have a second chance.

--People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:05, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Hagnat, would you be willing to take some time every week or so to babysit Izumi and those like her who simply refuse to learn from their mistakes? Is it fair to ask anyone here do have to put up with that? How many warnings does it take? Is there a reasonable number of times that someone should be allowed to come back and cause more drama? While Izumi is an example, she's definitely not the only one who has earned and should keep the permaban. --8 Bucks 20:22, 13 September 2007 (BST)

first of all, banning a user is not always the best way to solve a problem. This was my instance during the beginning of the Amazing Age, and is something that i strongly believe in. Banning a user not only makes the wiki lose someone that can contribute, but also creates a potential vandal. Some of this wiki greatest vandals were once regular users that were banned for minor vandalisms. While, yeah, while i'd rather not babysit these guys, i believe there should be a way for most banned users to return to the wiki in a short time period, rather than being permanently banned. And, of course, in case of someone abusing this right to vandal other pages and being assholes everytime they come back, they could be simply perma-banned them. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:20, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Ugh, no. Long time users ahould be held to the same standards as everyone else. Would you like to still have Amazing running around? I admit, its hard to tell the difference at the moment with Akule running around, but still, twice the crap now. Long time users should be expected to both know and follow the rules, and it is only the rare long term user who goes on to totally fuck up his position and get kicked off for such a period of time. Looking at vandal data, i only see four: Amazing, Duce Nauks, Izumi Orimoto, and Legend X. If Jedaz was banned as you say (I wasnt here), that would make it five users in a grand total of two years who have gone through the vandal banning system to that extent that such punishments are even needed. Also, if a user insists on signing up again and again instead of taking the matter to email, or another medium, in full knowledge of what ban evasion counts as, then they deserve what they get. --The Grimch ^U! 20:31, 13 September 2007 (BST)

actually, yes, I'd like to have amazing around again. I have spoken with him several times after he was perma-banned and he seems to be a cool guy now... i wouldn't "share a condo in Malibu with him", but i'd share my time with him in this wiki again. And for that special treatment long time users should have in the wiki, well, anyone can simply create a few pack of sock accounts and let them lurk for a few days to avoid your's policy, Grim. Extending the time as i did would simple test their patience a little more. And long time users are one of the greatest assets in this wiki, they should be encouraged to stay in here, even when they are nuts like Akule. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:20, 13 September 2007 (BST)

correct me if I'm wrong? But as far as I know Jedaz banning had nothing to do with the rules as Xoid just demoted and banned him in one go, without using the current system at all. Now, a special communications page for appealing a vandal banning might be warranted but changing the rest of the system based on Jedaz his case isn't logical as that part of the system had nothing to do with it. In fact I'm not familiar with a case were the current escalation system was too harsh.-- Vista  +1  20:43, 13 September 2007 (BST)

An appeal system is an idea. I was thinking about that myself. But it should only apply to people banned for a year and/or perma. And, there has to be a "minimum sentence"... I think at LEAST three months. But, then you end up watering down the vandal/banning system and people will accuse you of a "soft on crime", "revolving door" banning policy :P --WanYao 21:10, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I like revolving doors. Especially trapping little kids in them. :D.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:18, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Only way a good appeals system can be made is if it's limited in who can appeal what and how it can be done. Specifically only sysops should be allowed to bring up someone for appealing of a ban and the vote should have to be unanimous among the voting sysops or very close, otherwise it probably won't work out too well. Anyway, wait until most of the current policies are closed before starting another vote. There are too many open policies as is.--Karek^maps?! 21:38, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Shush, Karek... we want MOAR POLICIES!!! --WanYao 03:15, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Actualy Vista, I requested myself to be demoted because I broke the communities trust by saying some very stupid things (and this was reflected in the poll afterwards). The ban by Xoid was unwarranted, but that is one case out of thousands and it was rectified eventually (don't ask me why exactly, I'm still not entirely sure). I think that the problem is that some people are far to willing to slam down the ban hammer rather then turn the other cheek. People have to ask themselves at some point why they are banning a user, especially if they are showing remorse, or at least are trying to contribute positively.

A long time ago when 3PWV was around he went and made a few edits. Thats fine, I was the only active sysop at the time and normaly I would have banned him. However none of his edits were in bad faith, so I told him strait out that if he didn't do anything funny then I wouldn't ban him. I belive that if he had not been banned a few minutes later by another sysop that he might of acualy become a productive member of the community, or at least stoped his vandalism. My point here is that people follow the letter of the rules rather then the spirit in many cases. The purpose of banning is to prevent vandalism and not to punish the user. - If Jedaz = 04:13, 14 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

The letter of the rules is that edits are presumed to be in good faith until clearly demonstrated otherwise. Am I wrong? --WanYao 04:19, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Banned users seem to be able to email other users (who have email activated) using the wiki, it seems, as Izumi did this time. If they can't find a single sysops to take up their cause... then presumably they don't bloody well have one. Long term users already have a way of avoiding increasing bans by staying out of trouble for 2 months and 250 edits and getting a warning struck out... then they have another warning coming before getting banned. Anyone who can't go 2 months without getting a warning these days is pushing far to hard and deserves to be "on the edge" The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 15:19 14 September 2007 (BST)

Just to note

That this policy isn't written as to be retro-active, so therefore supporting or being against it on the stance of it being an appeal to currently banned users is off-base. About the policy as-written, who, exactly, are we arguing for here? Any user that starts going off the deep end deserves to be banned- you already have the ability to have your warnings deleted after a period of time and with evidence of good-faith edits. So therefore its to prevent a ban for users that 1- are continuously vandals and 2- aren't capable of realizing that breaking rules is wrong. --Karlsbad 04:48, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Who is "Long Time"?

'cause all ya'll are newbies from my perspective.--Jorm 03:31, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Lol. I guess 'Stable Contributor' or 'Steady Contributor' would be better.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  03:38, 17 September 2007 (BST)

When did you join up? I can't remember when you did, Grim been active longer then me, But I think I beat Hagnat.-- Vista  +1  16:14, 17 September 2007 (BST)

That's a tough question. Grim has me beat, I think. The earliest "real" edit I can remember doing is for Dia de los Muertos (page creation, I think), but I was around before that doing crap stuff (suggestions voting and the like). I got on the wiki within a week of my character's creation, which would have been the first or second week of Sept. 2005 (I wish wikipedia had better user account information). So at about two years. $deity cares how many edits.--Jorm 17:32, 17 September 2007 (BST)

userID numbers are fixed, but I don't know if it's possible to cross-reverence them to a date somewhere. I'm from early october, and that would make me IDnumber:595, with my first real edit being around mid october. didn't get really active untill december though so you've got me beat on all accounts. Now wondering If somebody's been longer active then grim S. he could be our resident Metusaleh-- Vista  +1  17:46, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Possibly LibrarianBrent? Also, how did you find your userID?--Jorm 18:07, 17 September 2007 (BST)

It's under My preferences : User profile. And librarianBrent hasn't been active on the wiki anymore for more then a year now. except for a drive by ruling in a VB-case involving you a couple of weeks back but I don't think that really counts...-- Vista  +1  18:11, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Actually Vista, your User ID is earlier than mine, its just that i have been more persistently active since the start, only missing patches of a week or two here and there, excepting the six month lapse at the start of the year, which was due to circumstances semi beyond my control (Damned telephone lines changed, then the battle against the bureaucracy that followed). Im number 659. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:26, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Wow. It's a lot higher than I expected - 1522. So you're older, Vista, and my memory is getting faulty in my old age. And Brent lurks a lot without getting messy, actually. He has a habit of that.--Jorm 18:28, 17 September 2007 (BST)

But I'm number 2 on NWWiki and SFWiki. And, uh, 57673 on WikiPedia.--Jorm 18:31, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Djeez, I'm the active resident decrepit oldy? Oh boy. Thank mike that Brent is still around then. anyway, I'm 72 on NWWiki But you got an unfair advantage there I feel... :) and number 2.357.909 on wikipedia. And the newest member of SFWiki seems to be number 61.-- Vista  +1  19:12, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Yeah. Brent has a pattern of lurking and then acting out of nowhere (like, oh, banning Amazing). The SFWiki has no users yet because it's not active.--Jorm 19:15, 17 September 2007 (BST)

(Moved the rest of discussion to my talk page.)--Jorm 20:18, 17 September 2007 (BST)