UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Escalation Strike Revision

Handy Header to start off with

Seems fair. I'd vote for it. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

nothing much to discuss in here. The text change is already followed by some sysops in some sort of way (i, for example, strike the last vandal escalation, not only the last warning). This policy can go to voting as it is. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When will it go to voting? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 10:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In 3 days. That's the minimum time a policy must stay in discussion before voting. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me bolding the changes, I think I got the lot. Yes, I'll vote for this change. I like the part where you get a warning taken off first, giving them a bit of breathing room. If it weren't for that, I'd rather have stuck with the existing one -- boxy • talk • 10:41 20 November 2007 (BST)

Yeah, you got em all. I figured that it would be a good idea to give people some breathing room first, given the responses on the A/VB talk page where this was originally discussed. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the bolding, it really helps. I think this policy won't get much opposition. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd vote for it. Seems fair to me. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair and rational. --Seventythree^Talk 10:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing the rules by consensus?

If this is something that absolutely no one has a problem with, is there a need for a vote to change the guidelines? (Although this is hardly a pressing matter I guess) -- boxy • talk • 10:52 20 November 2007 (BST)

Rules is rules. Not many people have really posted here, not a huge pie of the whole community. I'd say let it go to voting, even if it is unanimous. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 10:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A unanimous vote would be GOOD thing.... take it to the unwashed masses!! ;) Seriously... --WanYao 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I wasn't suggesting just doing it straight away. But if there arn't any concerns after the discussion period is over, a unanimous vote just seems like a waste of time -- boxy • talk • 11:09 20 November 2007 (BST)

if we could simply get enough general consensus in this policy, we could get it approved in just a few days, not in two weeks. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

in a community as large as this how do you identify that consensus? --WanYao 08:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

People who care about it comment. You judge the opinions of those who comment. That said, im for voting with this until a change to concensus based system is implimented. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible change

Just one question: Should it be two months total, or two months per escalation? (Or maybe 2 months for the first, then one month for every subsequent one) As it stands the wording is for the former. An extremely prolific poster could nuke off all of them in two months as this stands, which doesnt seem to be that conducive to prolonged reformation. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"provided that two months have passed since the user's last infraction." and/or the last time he had a vandal escalation struck from his log. Although i like the idea of striking the first warning after the last vandal infraction and striking one every month from them on. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Hagnat said about striking the first warning after the last infraction, etc. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat's the man with the plan on this one. One each month after.--Seventythree^Talk 11:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One month, two months, I'm easy. I'd always assumed it was another 2 months before they were eligible for another strike... hadn't noticed the fine print -- boxy • talk • 11:05 20 November 2007 (BST)

why am i the guy with the plan if it was grim who suggested it ? :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense! I thought you where suggesting something new with the one month thing, but you where clarifying! OK. Found the plot again.--Seventythree^Talk 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that "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" needs to be moved up to before the "To promote" sentence. Where it is, it makes the paragraph jump from one thing (when to ban), to another (striking on A/VD), then back to when to not to ban, and then back again to striking -- boxy • talk • 11:15 20 November 2007 (BST)

Im not sure boxy, the back-forth-back again works there, its to provide clarification to the rules after the striking is introduced. If people want your change though, i wont stand in their way. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the move. It really looks better this way. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I tidied it and added a note about the changes being bolded --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Added:

Grim s said:

, with another month for every subsequent striking after the first in the series, restarting in the event of a vandal escalation.

to the policy. Does this require any changes? (Damned edit conflicts)--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is anything left. Seems clear enough to me. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's a little overworded. Using ", and another month for each subsequent striking" gets the same message across -- boxy • talk • 11:39 20 November 2007 (BST)

But it leaves it unclear if that is for every strike made ever after the first strike, or the stated intent. Id rather overworded clarity than underworded ambiguity. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Each subsequent striking" makes it quite clear that it's a month for every additional strike -- boxy • talk • 01:35 21 November 2007 (BST)

Second warning first

As I read it If a user has more than two vandal escalations, the first escalation struck shall be the second warning. I like the changes, if you're ready for them that is, but I thought you were aiming at simplicity as well. What's the reasoning behind the second warning first rule? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This way you can get 3 warnings, endure the 24h ban, then you behave for two months, the second warning is striken, you vandalise and get a second warning. Think about nalikill for example, as soon as he get out of his timeout he will have to behave for months in fear that the next time he vandalise it will be a 1 year ban, or again a 1 month ban. Striking the second warning allow him to breathe a little before having to face this huge timeouts. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Expire time

dont you guys think that perhaps we could set a expire period for warnings? Say a year. After a year, if a warning was still not striked out it will be. There are some users who dont contribute that much, and i guess any mistakes made over a year ago can be forgiven. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Id say yes, on the provision that they havent vandalised in the last 6 months. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes to that too.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, specifically exclude users who have been permabanned or yearbanned from such a timetable. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

you are complicating this :P but of course, perma will always be kept perma'ed, and any user that have endured a yearban and came back to the wiki should be able to come back with a clear record --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yearban needs to be excluded too, because a year of not editing (Because he is banned) will get him a warning struck. And i disagree with you on that. If people insist on carrying on with their poor behaviour when they get back from a year long ban, they have no place in this community. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

well, for the yearbanned we could atleast remove the second warning them. To avoid being perma'ed because a user jumped the gun against him and another sysop banned him for good before he could even explain himself or ask for mercy :)--People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You have to do some pretty bad stuff to get a year ban....--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't like this addition at all. If you're not editing much, and still get into enough trouble to get yourself banned, especially for a year, then tough. Your ratio of vandalism to useful contributions is way to high -- boxy • talk • 05:43 21 November 2007 (BST)

That argument assumes that quantity equals quality. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The multiple warnings/bans speaks to the quality, and without a certain number of posts, there's no way to determine if they've reformed. Simply not being active for a year says nothing -- boxy • talk • 23:29 23 November 2007 (BST)

I thought this part of the discussion was only to do with warnings, not bans? Also, not necessarily multiple warnings. Plus, they may have made anywhere between 1 and 249 good faith edits. Or have I misunderstood what's being discussed in this section? --Funt Solo ^QT 23:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes Discussion

CharonX vote's discussion

Thats part of the existing guidelines, and gives breathing room for people who make a mistake while trying to reform. Besides, with a two month wait to get the first strike removed, the effect of any abuse would be negligable, at worst. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What happens if they go on a vandalism spree? 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. So technically they aren't banable? Or do other guidelines overrule this?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Other guidelines overrule this. Keep in mind that the one being modified is just a fragment not only of the guidelines, but of the "When an user may be warned or banned" section of the guidelines itself. Other sections deal with vandal alts, destructive users, adbots and so on. Have a link here. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it makes sense. Usually vandalism sprees (excessive page clearing, etc) constitute a perma ban anyways, assuming no constructive edits. Mkay.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We may want to rewrite that in another policy to be "Constructive edits since last vandal escalation outnumbered by vandalism" instead of just no contructive edits, but thats a policy for another time. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As The Grimch pointed out to me, the policy does only reflect the existing 3-strikes policy instead of adding it I changed my !vote to support (I falsely assumed that the 3-strikes policy was a new addition, my mistake, gomene). CharonX 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

BoboKilledMe vote's discussion

FYI, the two month wait for the first striking, followed by another two month wait for another striking if the guy fucks up in between and vandalises, on top of the requirement of 250 edits to be made per escalation striking means no one can just wait. They have to contribute in the time. Anyone attempting to abuse this would be in for a world of boredom, waiting for two months per instance of vandalism. That would simply blur into the background, and grow boring very swiftly. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I hadn't thought of the fact that the time length involved really would make abuse of the policy unfeasible, I just did not like the idea that a record over time could be completely wiped. Anyway I will strike my vote.-- BKM 21:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)