UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Impersonation Law

Definition of Impersonation

a user shall be guilty impersonation and bad faith if the user makes an edit that alters, deletes, strikes, re-words or adds to another user's signed comments. Impersonation includes correcting another user's spelling and altering another user's words that the editor finds offensive. Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting.--Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

A user shall also be guilty of Impersonation by improperly signing comments to mislead readers into believing that another user posted them, or that they were posted at a different time. (Tips hat to Brizth) --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:56, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Edit (above) struck the spelling part. Makes sense. --Kiki Lottaboobs 03:37, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Exceptions

A user may strike votes that are improperly formatted or violate existing rules;

This is in accordance with voting regulations and established precedent. --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

a moderator may move or indent an improperly placed or indented comment from a moderation page if the intent is clear;

Again, substantiated by precedent. --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

It has been noted that this should be changed from "a moderator" to "any user". I have no issue with this if it is widely accepted. --Kiki Lottaboobs 17:35, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Probably any user would be best, moderators shouldn't be the only ones that fix crappy formatting. - Jedaz 13:56, 12 September 2006 (BST)

a user may add an unsigned comment tag to the end of an unsigned comment;

Although I still don't know how to do this, it seems like this has got to be allowed. --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Again, pretty much any user can do that. I stole borrowed that template long before I was a moderator, and I'm partially responsible for it being used so frequently. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:39, 15 September 2006 (BST)

a user may remove comments from their user page at their discretion;

User page preference. --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

a user may remove blink tags from a discussion or public page;

Not expressly stated, but should be. --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Probably should be extended to things like giant-sized text, multi-coloured text (e.g. every letter a different colour), alternating sizes of letters (e.g. one letter at 72 point, one at 8 point, one at 1 point, the next at 108 point, etc.). One other thing, it should be "from public pages or their associated talk pages", as other talk pages can just have the comment removed until they add it without such stupidity. Of course, adding something like either of the two examples I gave to a public page without a damn good reason would count as vandalism. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:52, 15 September 2006 (BST)

a user may correct broken links as long as the links are correctly repaired;

In good faith. Of course, the sticky part to this is when someone incorrectly "fixes" a link (bad faith). --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

a user may correct the indentation on their talk page of comments made by other users;

To promote proper indentation and clear communication, users should be able to manage the indentation of their discussion pages. --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Stuff a dozen separate rules for the same thing just make one rule that states: "a user may correct the indention, spelling and grammar of comments left by other users;". Down with redundancy. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:42, 15 September 2006 (BST)

a user may edit their own statements if that statement has not yet been replied to, although this is considered bad form.

Bad form is not punishable. Precedent supports this exception. --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:41, 9 September 2006 (BST)

I see no problem with this. I would extend this to "a user may edit their own statements if it would not change the meaning of that statement or responses to it.", as this would (mostly) prevent this rule from conflicting with the "spelling errors" one. The problem is allowing someone to fix errors if someone has already replied to the comment based on those errors, which is what I'm trying to get around here. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:46, 15 September 2006 (BST)

What about this policy needs to be changed

Let's see...

1. You forgot the most obvious case of impersonation, ie. that of signing using someone else's name.
2. The lines: Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting. and a user may edit their own statements if that statement has not yet been replied to, although this is considered bad form. contradict each other.
3. "a user may remove comments from their user page at their discretion" needs to be clarified to prohibit selectivily removing comments from middle of the discussion
4. It doesn't say anything about fixing regular talk pages, only moderation and user's own pages. I see no reason to limit the indentation fixing to mods. I did plenty of it well before I became a mod.

Ok, that's it. I'll think more later. --Brizth ^{M T} 20:48, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Hahaha!! You're absolutely right... signing someone else's name was not put in the original definition. Forest - trees... The two sentences in your 2nd point (changes to own statements) balance each other. There is the blanket "Don't change your post after posting" and then the loophole "But you can change it if no one has replied to it". I know they seem to clash a little, but the combination of the two makes it work. I invite more comments. --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:56, 9 September 2006 (BST)

I agree completely with Brizth about indentation. Keeping good form on pages should be encouraged. If there is vandalism concerned with people deleting or changing indentation that makes the information change meaning, then I think we can handle it on a case by case basis. As is, letting people play with indentation makes the wiki more uniform and organized. - Bango Skank ^{T W! M!} 16:12, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Well, I was going to correct the grammar of the opening sentence of the policy to "A user shall be guilty of impersonation..." instead of the current "a user shall be guilty impersonation...", but I was nervous that I'd be accused of vandalism. I'm one of these "case by case is fairest" people, so I think this is just so much red tape, and a long list of rules I'll never read because there's not enough time in the day. --Funt Solo 15:11, 24 September 2006 (BST)

Why?

I don't support this policy. Why? It's completely inflexible. If a user impersonates in a way that you didn't think of, our hands are tied from being able to penalize them. If someone commits impersonation accidentally in some way, and are a newbie, we lose our ability to say "they didn't mean it." Not to mention other numerous flaws with the policy, such as "Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting." Quite frankly, Kiki, this is exactly what I was worried about when you started compiling the precedent on your sandbox. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 23:10, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Well, alright, I understand what you're saying, but I think these things could be worked out with careful wording and and thoughts from users with your level of experience. If there's a way to improve it, I'd be pleased to hear and implement it in the final version. If we could address the flexibility issues, leniency concerns and the wording problems, would you be more in favor of this policy? I disagree with the assumption that an unstated set of rules is better than a plainly stated set; this is the first step in clarifying a lot of the vandalism cases that are slung on this wiki and helping new people know what is what. For the longest time I didn't know that I could not edit group pages. My first and only warning was because I moved something on the Vandal Banning page, and I didn't even think that was bad faith. The more stated rules there are, the less capricious a ruling can seem. --Kiki Lottaboobs 01:00, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Well that one should be stated explicitly; "Most recently reported at the top." or such, but it's a very delicate balancing act to nail down what we want to permit while preventing what we don't. More than half the problems on the wiki are because of making the rules too narrowly defined or too wide reaching. There are always flaws in the wording, and they come up at the most inopportune times: when you are actually ruling on a case. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:36, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Spelling

I want people to correct my spelling. HURR.--∴Gage 23:12, 9 September 2006 (BST)

Laugh out loud if thou dost correct my spelling thou shalt be smote as a vandal gage–Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:26, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Well, if it is acceptable for people to correct spelling, then by all means, I don't have an issue with it. We have seen that some people have been banned for f*cking with sh*t other people posted, though. Is there a distinction between censoring someone's words and correcting someone's words? If someone types "fcuk", is it appropriate to correct the spelling, but not to type "F*ck"? I'm still asking. --Kiki Lottaboobs 01:04, 10 September 2006 (BST)

I haven't seen anyone banned for correcting spelling. And yes, I think there is a distinction between censoring and fixing typos. For example, if I say "what the fuck," and you replace it with "what the f***," that's vandalism (my intent was not to be censored). If I type "hwo the shit did that happen" and you fix the typo, though, that's not vandalism (my intent was not, presumably, to typo the word "how.") However, if I deliberately typo, then correcting that could be construed as vandalism (but it would be hard to prove). Remember, all vandalism cases boil down to question of intent. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 01:09, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Xoid corrected my spelling once, and I did the same to him a few weeks later so there is plenty of precedent of fixing typos and spelling not being vandalism.--∴Gage 02:41, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Alright... Noted. Correcting another user's spelling is acceptable. That's an easy correction to do. --Kiki Lottaboobs 03:35, 10 September 2006 (BST)

September 15th, 2006 version of Impersonation

a user shall be guilty impersonation if they improperly sign comments to mislead readers into believing that another user posted them, or that they were posted at a different time. A user shall also be guilty of impersonation and bad faith if the user makes an edit that alters, deletes, strikes, re-words or adds to another user's signed comments. Impersonation includes altering another user's words that the editor finds offensive. Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting.

Exceptions:
Any user may strike votes that are improperly formatted or violate existing rules;
any user may move or indent an improperly placed or indented comment from a moderation page if the intent is clear;
any user may add an unsigned comment tag to the end of an unsigned comment;
any user may remove signed comments from their user page at their discretion;
any user may remove blink tags, improper formatting (including color changes and font size changes) from a discussion or public page or their associated talk pages;
any user may correct broken links as long as the links are correctly repaired;
any user may correct the indention, spelling and grammar of comments left by other users;
any user may edit their own statements if it would not change the meaning of that statement or responses to it (if that statement has not yet been replied to, more latitude is given).

--Kiki Lottaboobs 05:46, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Remove the line "any user may move or indent an improperly placed or indented comment from a moderation page if the intent is clear;", as the line "any user may correct the indention, spelling and grammar of comments left by other users;" already covers that. Overall, this is looking a lot better. Hm, something about being allowed to preserve formatting, or such should be added. Like adding a # before a comment to preserve numbering, or would that be covered under indentation? Hm. Perhaps "a user may edit another user's comments to make the formatting consistent to the rest of the page"? That could alleviate most problems I'm thinking of. We could still have someone trying to make the formatting consistent with the bad formatting of the rest of a page, but that would be bad faith if deliberate, and ∴ that particular situation would already covered by the existing rules. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:59, 15 September 2006 (BST)

Another thing to add would be people creating accounts with names that are really close to the name of an established user. The rules as Xoid articulated them is that it warrants a permaban. But does this mean that a user who's first account on the wiki is similar in name to an existing user is permabanned, and then when they make up a new account with a unique name, they are linked to the previous alt and then permabanned again? It seems like someone could make a mistake on their first account and because of it never be able to edit the wiki on their IP ever again. --Kiki Lottaboobs 07:49, 15 September 2006 (BST)

September 23rd, 2006 version of Impersonation

a user shall be guilty impersonation if they improperly sign comments to mislead readers into believing that another user posted them, or that they were posted at a different time. A user shall also be guilty of impersonation and bad faith if the user makes an edit that alters, deletes, strikes, re-words or adds to another user's signed comments. Impersonation includes altering another user's words that the editor finds offensive. Impersonation also includes creating a user account with a name so similar to an existing user's name as to create confusion between the two. Impersonation also includes an editor making changes to their own signed statements after posting.

Exceptions:
Any user may strike votes that are improperly formatted or violate existing rules;
any user may add an unsigned comment tag to the end of an unsigned comment;
any user may remove signed comments from their user pages or affiliated group pages at their discretion;
any user may remove blink tags, improper formatting (including color changes and font size changes) from a discussion or public page or their associated talk pages;
any user may correct broken links as long as the links are correctly repaired;
any user may correct the spelling and grammar of comments left by other users;
any user may edit another user's comments to make the formatting consistent to the rest of the page;
any user may edit their own statements if it would not change the meaning of that statement or responses to it (if that statement has not yet been replied to, more latitude is given).

--Kiki Lottaboobs 20:05, 23 September 2006 (BST)

With so many exceptions, I wonder if they won't overwhelm the rule. Is there a potential downside to adopting a more generic "no spoofing other users" rule, and leaving enforcement to the discretion of the mods? Also, I have a real big problem with the "includes an editor making changes to their owned signed statements after posting" bit; people ought to be free to revise their own remarks always, in all circumstances, without risking being reported to vandal banning. --Centerfire 09:42, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I think that the exceptions are general enough to accurately illustrate what impersonation is and is not. I can see a little of what you're saying, but I don't think it will be too overwhelming. I've also heard the "just leave it up to the mods" concept, and I have to say that I see no harm in writing down a common, agreed upon standard of rules. If for no other reason, a common "law" would be helpful for users to consult and abide by good faith standards. If we leave it all up to the mods, then all policy discussions and votes are irrelevant as we could just leave it all unsaid. As far as editing your statements after posting them, I don't think that's good form at all. If users can revise their statements based off of the replies other users make to it, then it becomes very easy to alter the history of the wiki. --Kiki Lottaboobs 23:17, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Well, "where's the doom?" isn't really much of a justification for a policy change, IMO. And I'm not advocating for blanket moderator discretion, just suggesting that your proposal, as written, is more of a straightjacket than anything. A generic "no spoofing" rule is admittedly more open to creative moderator interpretation, but that's not necessarily a bug: it can be tailored to circumstance rather than leaving the mods with no way to deal with something that's contrary to the spirit of the rules while nevertheless in technical compliance with them. As far as revising remarks is concerned, I could not disagree with you more. For one thing, bad form is frequently in the eye of the beholder; for another, bad form is not synonymous with vandalism; for a third, a wiki is not "threaded" in the conventional sense, and thus the expectation that conversational history is sacrosanct strikes me as very unreasonable. --Centerfire 00:26, 26 September 2006 (BST)

Here's the ultimate point. The rules -as they exist currently- are whatever the mod feels like at the time. This is the very definition of capricious. Right now there are cases in vandal banning that provide no evidence, but are ruled on. There is no way for a nOOb to learn what the rules are, and there are few mods who would take the time to explain it. This policy was an attempt to codify the rules so that rulings would have to be applied fairly, like laws are in real life. This spells it out, is ammendable, was up for discussion for 2 weeks without significant participation and was killed by users whose sole contribution to this debate was to vote against it. That's cool, though. Just have fun when the winds turn against you, because there are no rules to follow. --Kiki Lottaboobs 00:45, 6 October 2006 (BST)

Wow, sour grapes much? The analogy to real life fails because the wiki is not real life. The codification of criminal law is a requirement of due process because an accused is facing sanction by society; here, an accused is facing sanction by a private host and/or his agents/delegates. That's a good deal more than a semantic distinction, inasmuch as a private host has no particular obligation to afford his guests any basic guarantees of fair treatment (see also, hopefully-benevolent dictatorships). Furthermore, the point you seem to be impervious to is that limiting moderators' discretion is not an unalloyed good: for instance, the policy effectively removes the ability of a moderator to go easy on a newbie who makes a good-faith mistake, because the policy defines violations as automatically being bad faith, and therefore vandalism, regardless of circumstance. If you were proposing to just create a list of guidelines, things that are typically deemed to be vandalism in the absence of mitigating circumstances, that would be one thing, and it would still serve your stated goal of helping to educate newbies. But instead you're proposing hard-and-fast rules, which while they may be clear, will likely create as much injustice as they cure. --Centerfire 22:08, 10 October 2006 (BST)