UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Permaban Appeal

This is probably being reactive but I'd love to have the discussion nonetheless. I think it'd be a neat little page if we did it properly. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Make it a sub-page of A/DE, or even a section on the A/DE page. The latter is preferable as that's a low-traffic section anyway so we won't clutter it, but we also won't need to create a whole new section and archive for something small like this. Otherwise, yes indeed. 00:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

this should be a nice can of worms--

 

bitch 08:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I like this. UDwiki is seriously in need of an appelate system. Perhaps the escalations should be decided by the current sysop team at the time of unbanning, removing a minimum of the permaban? And, as Mis, it should probably be on A/DE. Oh, and 6 months sounds like a good cap.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This. -- †  talk ? f.u. 12:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see a permaban appeal being made very often so giving it it's own page would be a bit redundant. A/DE would be fine.-- Cheese 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Its my belief that appeals should only be allowed to users who had their bans unfairly escalated and not just because now they are sorry --C Whitty 15:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make a quick point, the only purpose of this sort of thing would be to overturn correctly applied permabans, since any unfair or wrongly apply permabans should be handled with an A/M case aimed at the involved sysops (or else should be pointed out on A/VB's talk page when it happens), and shouldn't need to go through a six month wait or anything else like that. If someone is escalated to permaban status without good reason (which I, myself, have been responsible for doing), we need to fix the issue quickly and we already have a way of handling it, so we don't need any more policies or systems to deal with it. —Aichon— 17:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

i really can't belive we are even discussing this. it's pretty hard to get kicked off this wiki. if you fucked about enough to get a parmabam you probably had it coming. i mean how many warnings do you get before you banned? 3-4? more than enough. even tho I find amazing to be funny and entertaining. this seem like a lot just to let one carear vandal back on.--

bitch 22:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the thing is I'm very sure we're obliged to do this anyway. So I'm just making a system where it can be done under some rules and red tape so there's a limit to how much trouble they can cause if they do get unbanned and keep becoming a cereer vandal. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's call it "parole" and tie in some accountability

As I mentioned above, we already have a way to handle incorrectly or unjustly applied permabans, so we don't need anything new for them. That leaves us with users who were rightly permabanned, but now want back in. Effectively, they're asking for a parole. I agree with the others that A/DE is the best place to handle it, with a section for parole cases added. So, basically, as has been said, after X months, allow a sponsor for the permabanned person to come and make a case there, and then poll the community to see what they think. It shouldn't be considered a majority vote, but should rather be treated in a similar way to A/PM and the like. The sysops should weigh the opinions for two weeks, and then remove the perma and next highest ban if the parole is accepted. If it's not, they can reapply for parole in another six months.

In the case of 3ER vandals, I think that removing the perma and leaving them with two warnings might be acceptable, though I think we should also ask them to state affirmatively that they will not vandalize the wiki any longer.

Three other random ideas I had while typing this up:

1. Setting parole dates at the time of a permaban
2. Sponsors being held accountable in some way
3. Only allow sponsorships from good wikizens

With the first, when someone is permabanned, the sysops at the time could choose when the vandal would be eligible for parole. A standard period would be six months, but they may want to set it higher or lower than that, depending on the circumstances. It gives the sysops some flexibility in handling things, though I would suggest that if it went into policy, a maximum time was set, that way you never had a case of someone being permabanned without the possibility of parole (which would be even stricter than what we have now).

With the second, I think it's beneficial both to the community and to the vandal if the person that sponsors the vandal and makes the case for them is held responsible for the vandal's actions during a (three month?) probationary period. By holding a sponsor accountable (e.g. both the sponsor and the vandal receive an escalation each time the vandal gets escalated), it will ensure that the sponsors take things more seriously and don't just start parole proceedings for the lulz. It also should help prevent some recidivism, given that the parolee would be aware of the fact that their shenanigans would hurt someone else and the sponsor will likely be actively engaged in trying to keep the parolee on the straight and narrow path.

As for #3, it'd be necessary if we did #2 (otherwise every sponsor we'd ever see would be a meatpuppet who couldn't care less if he was held accountable for anything on the wiki), but even if we didn't do #2, we may want to consider it anyway. Basically, it'd require that a sponsor be in good standing with the wiki, with a relatively low bar for what we consider "good standing". For instance, they've been around for at least three months, they have 250 edits in the last six months, and they have no escalations from the past six months. That should help to ensure that it's actually someone from "the community" who is sponsoring the vandal, rather than some random idiot that just wants to stir up trouble and make some drama.

Annnnnd, that was way more than I meant to type. Sorry for the wall of text, but the "parole" analogy kinda struck me as being rather apt, so grabbing some ideas from it seemed reasonable. —Aichon— 17:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the sponsor ideas - when new vandalism occurs, it can be swiftly undone, and especially if the month escalation is kept, a permabanned vandal on parole who continues to vandalize is gone in no time (and will have a much harder time to return again a third time, given his track record). No need to hurt third parties with escalations by option #2. As for option #3, it would make things tough for old 3E vandals who might not have connections to established users (as in the HiteiKan case, an user who definitively has managed to stay in line since). As for #1, I'm indifferent. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

For #2, it's not about undoing damage. It's about discouraging recidivism by encouraging both the parolee and sponsor to be personally invested in the good behavior of the parolee. Undoing the damage isn't even a concern at all, given how easy it is to fix. The idea is to get the person reintegrated with the community and contributing positively, and having a sponsor is a good way to promote that. Ensuring that the sponsor is invested in the matter should help as well. That's what I was getting at, and while I'm not saying that I even like the idea myself and would support it if it went to vote (I'd have to think about it some more to make up my mind on the matter), I do want to make sure that the critiques aimed at it are for things it's actually trying to address.

As for 3ER vandals, I thought of that, but wasn't sure what to do with them. I thought about possibly allowing them to sponsor themselves using a new account made for JUST that purpose, but that seemed complicated to me for some reason. —Aichon— 06:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like the parole idea, I just think rescinding the permaban is simple and does the job. And if they fuck up again, it's just another month ban+ permaban vote, also v simple. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As DDR. I also just don't like the idea of calling it parole. Implies that the vandal is a criminal, which they're not. ~ 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If they've gotten themselves perma'd, there's a good reason. They may not be a criminal in the legal sense, but they're certainly the wiki's equivalent of criminals. Even so, that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for them, necessarily. Regardless, it doesn't particularly matter what we call it. I was simply using a term that already exists to describe this policy, that way we don't have to keep restating it. We can call it whatever we want later. —Aichon— 22:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well besides the term parole I'm just not really behind the idea of a sponsor system, which seems to be the central theme in your suggestion. I had assumed that was DDRs objection also but maybe that's not the case. It's not that it isn't a workable system I just think its a bit too complex. A more steamlined system would be more effective, especially since I imagine this would be one of the most underused (or perhaps the most abused) admin page. ~ 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion in terms here, since I'm not sure what you mean (the way I'm reading your words, it sounds like you disagree with your own policy, which is nonsense, of course). All I did was attach the term "parole" to your policy, since the term fits the description of what you proposed here (i.e. Oxford dictionary defines parole as, "the release of a prisoner temporarily (for a special purpose) or permanently before the completion of a sentence, on the promise of good behavior"). As far as I can tell, that's effectively what you proposed, hence why I suggested we use the term. So you can see why I'm confused if you say that you oppose the parole idea (unless you're objecting to the application of the term, as Vapor is doing, in which case that's cool too). As for what you meant, did you mean that you oppose the probation idea with the accountability for the sponsor? That part doesn't have anything to do with parole, and was something else entirely. If so, objecting to that is perfectly fine, since I'm not sold on it either and just wanted feedback on the thought. But yeah...I'm confused by what you meant and could use some clarification. —Aichon— 22:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the sponsor idea with accountability, etc. I think is unnecessary. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

if this does pass i really don't think a month ban is worth the time. we already went through the trouble of parmabanning them in the first place. if they fuck up again they should be re banned and chalked up to "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."--

bitch 18:07 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Except the assumption should never be "Well, they deserved it". This is a gaming community, inclusion is better than exclusion by minor offense and certainly better than allowing them to come back on a one and done policy. If anything they should be given as much chance as a normal user or more because they are, as most high level ban users are, reactionary but not bad people.

Harassment policy is the policy that needs to be enforced not exclusion and until that's understood and enacted through the sysops down there is no such justifiable stance that all banned users are bad users. There are maybe five users in the wiki's history that deserve their high level bans for being intentionally disruptive to the wiki's purpose nor counting 3 edit vandals who are almost universally turn and burn accounts like 3pwv that deserve deletion not simple banning.

The incorrect way to implement this policy is as a redemption system for bad users, it's purpose is potentially, and should always(like a sysops), be specifically to filter out the failures in the other processes in place. In this case this would be the first real potential review and follow up system that addresses the ability to deal with failures in the vandal promotion systems in place. Making it a user classing system just negates any potential good this policy could do.--Karek^maps?! 23:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A Question

Why does this need to be complicated? Call it Administration/Ban_Review give it a nice arbitration like paging structure per case, pull the basic ideas of the Sysop Review policy and apply them to Vandal Banning cases. The only thing that needs to be raised as a question is whether it overturns previous Vandal Data beyond warnings, if it's an autoreban for matchable offenses to the final, or if it's simply a system to return a user to the wiki in the case that a later sysop team decides that they didn't get a fair chance or that their original ban hearing was somehow compromised either by the stiffness of regulation regarding the offenses or by a blatant bias. There's not much to discuss there just whether it's another level of protection or if it's an actual review process, once that's decided the rest will fall in place. --Karek^maps?! 00:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Which parts do you consider complicated? I think it's rather simple, and the additional things like a 6 month waiting time, etc. are there for reasonably (imo) important and good reasons. And even then they aren't what I'd consider complicated. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake was in looking at the debate as a quantifier of the policy. It's very concise and a good policy in general, kudos. I do have some issues with needless complications of the enactment though personally such as the 6 month period which is contrary to the idea behind what the policy should represent, a check on the inflexibility of the escalation system. It shouldn't have any real limits beyond requiring two sysops to agree the case should be reviewed after it's been put up by any user. Or, hell, nominate a user class who's only job is to review these if keeping the two separate is a real issue. Simpler the better.--Karek^maps?! 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and A/DE isn't the worst idea but since it's closer to misconduct in the review process you need a full page is more prudent, A/DE would get clogged when it should really just be a A/MR type rolling page. It needn't be a subpage of any other administrative pages. --Karek^maps?! 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think A/DE would be the best place to put it. After all, it's simply a request for descalation of the final A/VD step that has no other way of being deescalated, given that the user can't make the required 250 posts to be deescalated in the normal manner. It shouldn't be a common occurance. Full A/VD escalation permbans are (and always have been) extremely rare -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:36 8 March 2011 (BST)

A lazy man's way

An easy way to do something similar could be to reduce perma-bans to some number of years. People may have matured after that long, and even if they haven't, one act of vandalism that only takes 2 minutes to clean up every x years is pretty negligible.

On a different note, if you look at A/VB, it's not uncommon for there to be differing views about whether an act was vandalism or not. I think this often stems from people holding different opinions, instead of one side simply being incorrect, and it's been my experience that it's very difficult to get people to change their opinions. So I'd be a little wary of the same person who banned a user being asked to review the appeal if it's expected to be fair - someone (or some group) independent of the first decision may be better, not least because if there's ever a sysop "out to get" someone their power is limited over that person, and the confidence in the review's decision can be that little bit higher. --Toejam 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think a vote is the best imo, not just reviewing. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a community vote is the way to go. Maybe hash out a full policy statement on what the proposal is? I strongly feel that this needs to be carried out.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, working on it now. I forgot about this :( -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I swear that there are loads of great policies in the archives which have just ceased to exist, because nobody ran with them. :( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Okay here goes: so far, the policy will be that this will be added to A/DE's introduction:

==Permaban Appeals== Users who have been permabanned on UDWiki may have their bans appealed on the De-Escalations page. To do this, a user must submit a case under the permabanned user's name, preferably with usage of the {{vndl}} template and an explanation regarding why the user should be unbanned. The case will also be noted on the main page via {{Wiki News}}. Voting will commence for 2 weeks, and a majority of 2/3rds is needed. After the voting period is up, a sysop will review the vote and take appropriate action. If 2/3rds majority has been reached for rescinding the ban, the user will have their A/VD adjusted, and their permaban escalation will be struck, with an added link to the permaban vote. If the user was banned as per the "3 edit rule", they will have the permaban escalation struck but will be left with 2 warnings. A permabanned user must be permabanned for at least 6 months before they can have the ban appealed. If an appeal does not fit this rule, it may be immediately cycled by a sysop without warning. Appeals are considered a serious vote. Misuse of this privilege, eg. multiple submissions over a short time, may result in abusers being brought to vandal banning.

(note: what's in the box, not the actual box).

Thoughts? Also, feel free to fix some wording up at will if you think it's strangely written and there's a better alternative, etc. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

All looks good to me. The strange thing is, Hagnat proposed this system over a year ago for unbanning Hiteikan. O.o Strange...--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

i did what for whom ? Anyway, add that every user gets to have one appeal every six months, it will avoid multiple submissions --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 15:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I could easily summon half a dozen casual wiki users to file appeals for me, and a lot of more if I put more work into it. I think such a restriction would just be unnecessary red tape. Repeated and futile appeals could just be handled on A/VB on a case-by-case basis, along the lines of the Woot promotion bid spam. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant that you would only get one every six months, not that each user acting on your behalf could only request once every six months. And I don't think it's unnecessary at all. In the case of WOOT, there are clearly defined guidelines that are expected to be followed, as well as means of measuring one's compliance with said guidelines. In the case of appeals, however, there are no guidelines for why someone would get unbanned, nor are there ways of measuring how well a banned user has improved upon these nonexistent guidelines, meaning that we'd have no quantifiable way to judge whether or not an appeal was frivolous. Since we can't count on improvements on the part of the banned user to differentiate one appeal from the next, the only thing we can count on is time, hence why it makes sense. —Aichon— 22:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny what you discover sometimes

Thought some of you guys might find this interesting. It's a Google cache of someone at somethingawful talking about Amazing and how he got himself banned. —Aichon— 07:30, 7 April 2011 (BST)

Heh. ~ _{07:36, 7 April 2011}