UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Reduce Vandal Escalations

Discussion

I like it- which is one reason why it'll fail.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The other reasons: Sysops will complain that it's too lenient, that it's a semi-hidden back door to let Izumi (and Amazing, I believe.) back in, that it's problems in implementation will be huge... but, frankly, none of that goes against the philosophy on the wiki;

leniency=not punishing vandals, reforming them. Implementation problems= get off your lazy ass. Back door=most of those people were just hot headed but honest contributors.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, most of them weren't "Hot headed" most of them were vandals.--Karek^maps?! 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear vandal. How are you?

Would you inform people that due to the change they are unbanned? If yes, How? Also how many people would the backtracking actually effect? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And would the policy be otherwise the same, losing warnings for good faith edits and all?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I like that idea, actually. Dear Amazing - welcome back!
2. I guess by posting on their talk page. Everything must remain on-wiki, otherwise we'll take over the world.
3. I have no idea - I didn't check.
4. Yes, otherwise the same - although I haven't checked yet to see if there's a conflict.

--Funt Solo ^QT 17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rule is, if a change isn't mentioned, things stay the same.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you'd be so interested in this policy, Nali. Hurr. (Figured I'd get that one in there before bob turns up.) --Funt Solo ^QT 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a bit more to the amazing thing than him simply having a permaban. Anyway, it might be best not to remove perma and 6 month, just add the two new escalations between 1 month and 5 month. There are, after all, some cases where a perma or 6 month is justifiable, not everyone can be reformed.--Karek^maps?! 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So, you agree that 1-month to 1-year is too steep? --Funt Solo ^QT 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a 1 month to 1 year leap, no. But I don't think that 1 year should be removed.--Karek^maps?! 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, really. The trouble I have with that system (or the current one) is the same. A user comes back off, let's say, a 4-month ban. Now, before they have the time to make the required contributive edits for escalations to be reduced, bang, they make some daft mistake, and before they know it - it's a year-long ban. A year, for the same kind of mistake that once got them a simple warning. I just don't see the use in that, you know. Sure, it saves the sysop team the trouble of having to deal with that particular user for a long, long time (probably forever). Now, replace that with a maximum escalation of four months (or something). The user comes back after four months (not even that likely, frankly) and they either A) reform, B) make a silly mistake and get another 4 months or C) vandalise clearly on purpose and then nobody has to worry about them for another 4 months. My question would be (is) what's the problem with the second method? --Funt Solo ^QT 19:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is your concern then why not make a policy that counts your time serving a ban towards your time for getting it struck? The problem with B though, is that it assumes no one will comeback after 4 months and makes it so that no matter what you do, like say attempting to get around your ban, you can't be banned any more than your 4 months. It's basically saying, we can punish you this far but no further.--Karek^maps?! 19:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So a month to a year is too long. After the 4 month ban, why not do a sliding scale, an extra 4 months each time, or suchlike?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"we can punish you this far but no further". What requirement is there (beyond the adbot, vandal-alt thing) for a harsher punishment? If someone tries to circumvent the ban, they get another 4-months, I guess, because it still escalates. If that's at the start of their 4-months, then it becomes 8-months, another circumvention attempt, it's up to 12-months. Hot-headed idiots can still buy themselves a ticket to a year or longer. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's how the current system works, so you might need to include something to that effect.--Karek^maps?! 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, a quick search through Vandal Data shows me that the current striking warnings system actually keeps most users that this policy would protect from ever even getting past 1 month anyway, most don't even make it that high.--Karek^maps?! 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Granted. And yet we still have a system which can place a user at the precipice of a year-long ban for a single bad faith edit, with no warning at all. I'm not saying the current system is completely broken, but that doesn't mean we can't improve it. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I wouldn't call capping bans out at 1 month per offense as improvement, now if say, two warnings were struck after a ban and the current warning strike rules applied to every warning that doesn't result in a ban that might also solve the problem for the most part. But, I really do think that 6 month, 1 year, and permabans should not be removed from the list of escalations, even if they are moved up enough to where you have to do what Izumi did to reach them.--Karek^maps?! 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not jump from 1 week to 2 weeks and then 1 month ? And which would be the penalty for a user who vandalis past his sixth ban ? would the user be permaed, or would he receive another 4 months ban ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1 week to 2 weeks is a good idea, and I'd be happy to add it. The idea was (although I should have written it in there) that you would receive further 4 month bans after the first if you continued to break the rules. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Now changed

Altered to clarify, and in line with hagnat's 2-week inclusion idea. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually... reading UDWiki:Vandalism#Penalties_for_Vandalism i have noticed we have been doing things completly wrong here on the wiki. BIG TIME. All sysops, no single one excluded, always banned users as punishment for their mistakes, while this shouldn't be. Recently we have been taking easy against newbies, but against long term users we have been punishing first and asking questions later. That is wrong. Punishment in the form of a ban should only come when the user refuses to stop doing things wrong, not when he just makes a simple mistake and is willing to not repeat them. If this is true, even 4 months is way too much for a user to be banned, and one should only be able to be banned for a month --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's how I read it first time around as well. But when it says that users should be warned before banning, that's our current 1-warning, 2-warning, ban system. There is no warning for any subsequent mistakes - it goes straight to banning. In the case of some idiot who hasn't thought about it, it's permaban if they haven't made a contributive edit - no warning required - and that's harsh. Perhaps both warnings should be dropped after a long-term ban? Anyone on a month (or higher) gets their warnings revoked? --Funt Solo ^QT 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a key point, actually. In the recent cases against Nali, the first thing he's said is "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it, I won't do it", and the reply from those persecuting him was along the lines of "ahah - but it's too late now - you already made the mistake". Of course, fortunately, that hasn't lead to his being banned - but it would have been unfair if it had. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for multi-posts: you got me thinking. How about dropping the warning system away from the escalation system. The first time you fuck up, you get 1-warning, 2-warning, 24-hour ban. Then, after the 24 hours, you're clean of warnings. If you fuck up again, it's 1-warning, 2-warning, 48-hour ban. The bans still escalate, but the warnings reset each time. What do you think? --Funt Solo ^QT 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Up to what point? Surely they would tail off, after the 4th or 5th offence. If you need warnings after your 48 hours ban, make it only one. If they haven't worked out what theyre doing wrong, they may just not want to know.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum where multi-post is a bad thing ;) And if you want to exclude warnings from the vandal escalation, then you can easily remove them at all. Allow any user to ask another to stop vandalizing, and make this part of the Vandal Report process. UserA vandalize a page. UserB ask in his talk page for him to stop, and if he continues, UserB can report him. A sysop can then choose to reinforce the warning if it's a small one-time vandal action, or to ban the user accordingly. While warnings are still somehow part of the process, they are not accounted --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do another re-word of it tomorrow to try and cement that idea. The emphasis on warnings being a part of the process, even during escalations, will be reinforced, but dropped from the list so that it scans more readily.--Funt Solo ^QT 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I always thought 3 edits 1 vandalism = permanently banned was too harsh. Are we planning on warning them first, then if they continue, a ban? That's how they do it most other wikis I believe, Wikipedia included. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem. What if they decide to relent for one day, then contiune to vandalize the next? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. A wiki-lawyer vandal. They could vandalise at will, cause everyone untold work and never get punished for it. Maybe the A/VB warning should count as a soft-warning that lasts for a certain amount of good-faith edits. Anyone with a soft-warning attached to them can be punished without the chance to relent, on the judgement of the serving sysop. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See, now it's getting complicated. Damn! --Funt Solo ^QT 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, if a user warns someone that they are vandalizing, that should count as the pre warning. I don't want have the user warned a billion times before I even warn him. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It was getting too complicated, and there are elegant simplicities to the current system. I went to something simpler in the latest edit. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Backtracking

Removing the current permabans is a really bad idea, and that alone, even if the rest of the policy is sound and agreeable, will get me to vote against it. First off 1 month is no time at all, second it only servers the purpose of unbanning Amazing and Izumi(who under this policy would still be banned for 40+ months according to the escalation thing discussed above), both of which knew what they were doing when they earned their bans, it will also lower the bans of Duce Nauks, Legend X. That's all, there are about 3 other people who have a month ban, they would be Poopman9, Nalikill, Reptileus, but they aren't really effected by this policy. There's absolutely no need for the Backtracking section.--Karek^maps?! 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But if it hardly has any effect, then there's no harm to it either, right? Oh, and I added a couple of examples, which show that Izumi wouldn't get unbanned. I'm not trying to be funny, but can you explain why you'd be against unbanning a handful of users? --Funt Solo ^QT 22:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they earned their bans, usually through over the top outrageous behavior as is the case for at least four of the users mentioned there. Those are the kind of users that should be removed from the community, if all that's being done in this policy is for the simple sake of unbanning them then it's not exactly something we should be passing, however, if the policy is being made to make the vandal escalations more reasonable then unbanning of those users isn't needed. Pardon's are a bad thing, that's pretty much all the Backtracking section amounts to, a pardon even though they knowingly pushed the limits as far as possible.--Karek^maps?! 22:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Lord knows being banned until 2011 is a pardon.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The chief aim of this policy is most certainly not the backtracking section. I simply do not have any agenda to unban any specific individual - this is clear if you realise that I didn't know any of them. It just seemed fair, if reforming the system, to undo the sins of the past, where possible. After all, if the new system doesn't include such harsh punishments, I couldn't then agree with a past system that did. I'm not saying I wouldn't drop that section if pressured, but I'd like to hear from other users. I still have no clear idea how popular this policy would be. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, still have backtracking but have an important discussion on who we want unbanned? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we take a page out of the constitution's book and say that this cannot be used for ex post facto bans and unbannings?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First off... yeah, i dont agree with the whole backtracking thing, as these users were punished during the old system, therefore they knew what they were going to face if caught vandalizing. Second, there is still instances where a user can be perma'd. See Scinfaxi for example. This user was an active troll years ago, harassing the Crossman Defence Force and their leaders. After more than a year idle, he returned to this wiki and created nothing but MORE drama against his old foes. Such user don't have a place in the wiki, and sysops should still have a way to remove them from our community.--People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]}

Maybe they could be perma'd if they return only to vandalize stuff? If they show no signs of reforming, then it's better to just get rid of them. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - it seems like dropping the backtracking section (or altering it to state that there will be no backtracking) is popular. Perhaps another policy could introduce something where a perma'd user can return to plead their case for unbanning. But that's for another time, I guess.

As for perma-bans. How do we tie that into a system which invites reform? Do we say 1-month max bans and then just deal with persistent offenders by giving them more and more 1-month bans? Or do we specify (somehow) when a perma can be slapped on someone? Can anyone think of a solution whereby we can fairly have both the soft and hard options? Might it be enough just to introduce those middle-ground escalations I started with, and keep the tough end ones of 1-year and perma? --Funt Solo ^QT 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that no backtracking is not only the best suggestion, but will also stop people voting against the policy for fear amazing could come back.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Futuraperma

I can see how in extreeeeeme cases, a perma would still have to be a last resort. Perhaps a request to a crat after citing evidence the policy had been followed, was being ignored by the vandal, and there was no other option? Kind of a reverse promotion?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two obvious choices:

1. Simply add in further escalation steps, all the way up to perma. It can be argued that anyone who gets that far knows full well what they're getting into.
2. Create a new method whereby, say, a Beurocrat and 2 sysops (at least) can vote to perma someone who has already exceeded the full escalation system.

--Funt Solo ^QT 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say 2.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are just sysops with the power to promote... not wiki-bosses. Just make it a vote of all available/interested sysops before a permaban can be enforced... 75% for a permaban, and you're out... and made it a conscious (sp?) vote, not needed to be justified. If a sysop believes that there is a chance of redemption for a vandal, they can freely vote against the 'final solution' -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:44 19 January 2008 (BST)

Thanks for your input. I'll draft up a new section along those lines. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And new section written. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm (Is this even needed?)

Im not particularly fond of this proposal. If people are having a hard time staying members, perhaps they should try vandalising the wiki less? It is not exactly difficult to stay out of trouble, even if people are out to get you. Ive been managing it for a goodly amount of time myself. The current system for escalation dropping is more than enough to encourage people to change their ways. The current system has about five levels dedicated to discouraging users from vandalism. If they dont cease and desist after those lighter discouragers, we have three levels of punishers on the end, as sticks to bring people back in line. Well, two sticks to get em back in line, and the third to club them over the horizon. We have both sticks and carrots in our system that serve to put people back on the path of righteousness and all that crap. The only thing we could possibly add would be a mad scientist in need of guineapigs. Fact is that on this wiki it is actually incredibly difficult (Ridiculously so, compared to others) for a person to be permad if they are trying to avoid it, and the only way a person can get that far is either through extreme abuse, or extreme stupidity. Neither of which are people i think we need in this community. I do not see a problem with what we have, and this policy serves to solve nothing. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know where you stand. Do you not see a problem with the current system, where a user can find themselves on the precipice of a 1-year ban, when they are not an out-and-out bad egg? It does somewhat go against the stated aims (as linked to from the main text) of the system not to punish someone who relents. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As i said, it takes extreme abuse or extreme stupidity to get there in the first place. If they were dumb enough or belligerent enough to put themselves there when all they need to do is take a two month break from breaking the rules to get a life at any stage of the process, followed by a one strike off per month, then they have what they get coming to them. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you do think it's fair to ban someone for a year for stupidity. Thanks for clarifying. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please dont twist my words funt. If a person is stupid enough to vandalise to the point where they are facing a year ban, they deserve it. Stupidity has never been an excuse for vandalism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I never meant to twist your words. I'm just trying to understand what you mean. From your reply, it really does seem as if you think that it is fair to ban someone for a year for stupidity. To be honest, I didn't expect you to be for this policy, given your vehement recent actions to get rid of Nalikill (for a year) for a couple of potential infractions, and your follow-up attempt to punish hagnat for going against you. Even your initial post to this thread called hagnat a "pussy" and suggested he was being underhand in showing any support at all for this policy. Fair enough, you chose to then delete that comment, but it demonstrates pretty clearly that your reasoning on this one is more emotional than logical. Sorry, but there it is. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I misread the policy title. I thought it was just a rewrite of the hagnat one at first. When i realised the error i deleted the comment. As such it should be considered non canonincal in this story. My followup push against hagnat in the case was not because he ruled one way, but because he moved all relevant objections to his rulings off the page, in a transparent attempt to hide such things so that another sysop wouldnt come along and say "Oh, this case probably needs another look, just to be sure", the result in such an encounter would probably have been the same as hagnats ruling, but all the same, what he did was not kosher. Also, if i was trying to run nali off the wiki, i would have ruled on that case instead of just commenting. You will note that i did not actually contribute much to that case. Only a grand total of six comments on the case in its entirety. For comparison, you made nine comments on that same case, bob made 29, Sweirs made 7 more, akule 2, hagnat 8, Animesucks 3, Seventythree 2, Nali 8, Honestmistake 1, AHLG 1, Amunu Jaku 5, karek 2 and Stephen Colbert DFA 1. If i was trying to get anything done, i would have let rip with at least 15, including responding to the crap from you and akule. The majority of my comments were in response to hagnats ruling, specifically elaborating on hagnats history with breaking or ignoring the rules when they do not suit his purposes, and accusing him of committing more of the same. His recent judgements of late have been questionable, at best. I suspect he may have gone crazy. My reasoning is never emotional, i doubt you would ever accept that though, but ill say it all the same. I dont think like other people, the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can get this ridiculous notion of yours out of your head. If we were having this conversation in person, by body language and tone of voice would ably describe what i am unable to do in written words. I have to add though, that using deleted material as basis for an attack is a new low, even for you funt. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If there's nothing about this policy you want to discuss maybe we should just leave it here. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it obvious that i was trying to discuss the usefulness of the policy. More specifically, the lack thereof. naturally, i do not appreciate your efforts to obfuscate this point. Such a matter is indeed worthy of discussion, and the only conclusion i can draw from your bottom of the barrel scraping delaying tactics here is that you cannot show that there is a need for this at all. First you try to twist my words beyond recognition to make my comments look vindictivly petty and overbearing to the passing skimreader, next you attempt to pass off my comments as emotional prattling on the basis of a deleted comment borne from a misunderstanding, and now you try to pretend that there is nothing at all here regarding the matter under discussion. Please cut the crap and show the need for this policy, instead of doing everything but. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have shown need, both in the policy text, and in my first reply to you in this section. I understand that you disagree with me (you've made it clear that you prefer the current system), so I don't see any point in repeating myself. The only other point to your posts seems to be to sling personal insults at me. Please - leave those on my talk page to avoid cluttering up this policy discussion. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Funt, there is something you should know. You do not say "Heres my proof" when someone has already undercut it. It just makes you look the fool. As i said earlier in response to your claims, the system is lenient to the point of absurdity. Nowadays we have sysops even letting people off for actual vandalism. We have five escalations before it turns into anything that could even be considered serious, a very generous method of reducing the number of escalations, and even then, we have three more levels of escalation to go before they are thrown off the wiki for good. To even hint that the system we have is strict in any sense of the word is absurd in the extreme, and would get a jolly chortle out of myself had i thought you were anything but sincere in this matter. This proposal would merely serve to weaken the system to the point of uselessness. The system is not just to encourage people to reform, but to discourage users from committing vandalism in the first place, while the latter sections are there to deal with people who obviously do not want to be part of our community. It serves all these purposes very well, and is, in many respects, the ideal for our community. This proposal, on the other hand, is not. It is tripe, through and through. You may as well do away with the entire system altogether. As for personal attacks, alas, i only wish i was attacking you. It would make more sense to both myself and everyone else who takes a moment to examine our discourse. It is you who have been lobbing the personal attacks, and performing all the evasive manouvers typical of a person without a solid argument against a person who does have one. Once again you are trying to taint others opinions of what i have said by throwing up tantalising falsehoods. A little poison in the well, as they say. Seriously funt. Who are you trying to kid here? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All the other contributers on this page seem to find the proposals reasonable enough to discuss. As far as I can make out, all you're saying is that you think it's lenient to ban someone for a year for a minor transgression. I don't find that reasonable. We've been over this already, right at the start of this discourse. As neither of us are making any new points, I once again suggest that we stop cluttering up this policy proposal. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is all you can make out, then i have deep concerns about your mental faculties, what with spelling out exactly what ive been talking about twice: The value of this policy. This matter is equally worthy of discussion as anything else, though you seem to wish to avoid recognising it. I have asked you its value, after demonstrating the argument on the front page to be a ruptured sack of horse manure, and your answer was to ignore my debunking and presson on with the thoroughly shattered argument, as if pretending that it was wstill whole would make it so. Of course, given your habitual misdirections and attacks in this discussion, id hardly expect any less. For those of you still duped by funts word twisting and other dubious tactics, i am not saying that a ban for a minor transgression is lenient. I am saying that a system where one has to commit 6 acts of vandalism with less than two months between each successive case is lenient, and provides more than enough leeway for a person to come to thier senses and stop breaking the rules. As i have said earlier: If people dont want to get banned from the wiki, a sensible first step in the process would be to cease committing acts of vandalism. It is not hard at all to go by without being convicted of vandalism. many users manage to go years without being warned there. I did it myself, and if the rules had been followed by Zaruthustra, i probably would still hyave a clean record (Ha, "Im going to have to ban you to get support to change the arb rules" he said). In any case, im wandering off on a slight tangent. The fact is that it is not even the slightest bit difficult to not vandalise this wiki and there are 5 levels of warnings and bans before they start to become serious, with the month ban. It takes quite a but of work to even get that far in the progression. If Nalikill hadnt been so determined to fight the law a few months ago, he wouldnt be in this mess now (Lets not kid ourselves, thats is what this is about). He is in a pit of his own making. If he does earn himself such a ban in future, he will have no one but himself to blame. Each and every person is responsible for their actions, as well as the consequences of those actions. This policy serves solely to weaken the consequences of those actions to the point of meaninglessness. It also effectively removes an important, though little used, part of the system: Specifically, the parts which serve to remove malignant users from our community. If they do not with to play by the rules of the community, they should not be here. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, anyone who reads the policy can make up their own minds, I guess. I personally find your diatribe laden with hyperbole and short on balanced reason. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Funt, would you be so kind as to refrain from attempting to poison the well? It seems to be the only activity you are any good at these days, which is dissapointing. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I'm replying to your concerns two sections below this one, in my reply to BKM. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Any more for any more?

It would be good to hear how other users feel toward this policy, as well. So far, I'm not really sure of a general mood, beyond those few contributers above. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rather that vandals only got 1 warning back after a ban, and the max vandal escalation be 6 months (about the average wiki life time), rather than 1 month -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:24 19 January 2008 (BST)

I could easily live with both of those, but I'll wait to hear other opinion. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else piped up, so I went ahead and altered it. I do understand the need for tough punishments - I just think the current system needs loosened up - which I think is what I've ended up with. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, there needs to be a warning for people that fall under the 3 edits 1+ vandalism = gone rule. I'm not sure though, should it count as an official warning? We don't want to clutter vandal data, I suppose. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I disagree with that rule, as it's written (because what makes a useful edit is open to debate, and someone can get banned for making a mistake), I don't think this is the place to change it. Most of the time, that rule is used to get rid of insta-vandals, instantly. I was planning to make a separate policy to make that rule fairer. In trying to drop permabans and 1-year bans off the escalation list, I'm mindful that it's controversial, and didn't want to mess with the first three permaban regulations, or that one specifically, on this policy. Fair? --Funt Solo ^QT 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, another policy sounds fine. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Another comment. 250 and 1 month, not just 250, will probably end up in spammy things. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that the reason the 1 month is in there? Aha! Now I know. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And done, slightly more leniant than what we have now. (I've started to think that by the end of these edits, I'll end up with the exact system we currently have.) --Funt Solo ^QT 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Show need

I have a few questions, why do you think that the current system doesn't work? From what I see in your policy it would take separate 13 vandalisms to warrant a 3 month ban. So the question is: why does an individual need so much leniency when he/she is clearly breaking the rules, without regard to anyone else on the Wiki, and why should they be given a free warning after each ban is over? Thank you for your time. -- BKM 03:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive been asking the same question in the section above. He has been spectacularly unwilling to answer it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, it takes 4 warnings to get a ban on Wikipedia. (With all edits vandalism, and I know that a lot of you don't like comparing us to Wikipedia). But in all seriousness, the only change this policy provides is to remove the year ban as it is useless and replace it with perhaps a 3 month ban, then a permanent. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nexuswiki runs on a one strike and your out policy. If you want i can rummage tthrough other wikis to get more examples of what they require. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can confirm that (notice the familiar sysop). And as for others. So I suppose we are slightly more lenient, but perhaps not quite enough.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 800% as lenient as nexuswiki for a determined offender. Thats so slight i can barely see it. maybe if we add the warning striking system we have here it will finally hit four figures! The system we have here is lenient to the point of absurdity. If people dont want to get banned, they should stop vandalising. Its not a difficult concept to grasp. There are more than enough stages for them to rethink their actions and return to the path of all that is good, cute and fluffy. If they decide not to take advantage of those wonderous opportunities, they have no one but themselves to blame for what happens. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, 800%? Us: 3 edits, them 1 edit. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, We have to compare equivelant ban levels. Us, 8 acts of vandalism (Warn, warn, 24, 48, week, month, year, perma), them 1 (perma). Thats said, they have only ever had to ban 54 poeple, half of which were adbots. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was referring to the the insta ban. Our current system is ok, except for the year ban, which should be removed for a 3 month, then a perma. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would be an entirely different policy from what we have here in this policy discussion. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You should go look at the first version. That's the whole point of having this discussion - to come to an agreement about what the policy should be. You can see from the changes I've made, I'm open to altering it - when people make clear what they want. As a side point, I see little point in comparing us to other wikis, except maybe wikipedia. They have their way of doing things, and their community to decide those ways. We have ours. Also, an argument based on how someone else does something is fairly empty without some attached reason about why one thinks their way is the better way.--Funt Solo ^QT 10:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed again to bring it closer to the current system. I still feel the additional warnings provide the breathing space a reforming contributer may need. Any ardent vandals will still find themselves out on their ear - it'll just take longer for them to get there, is all. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BKM, to answer your questions:

• The problem I have with the current system is that a user can find themselves wanting to reform but on the brink of a 1-year ban. Now, take the case (as you describe them, of someone "without regard to anyone else on the Wiki") - they may have got themselves to that point deservedly. The thing is, what do we want that person to do when they come back from a (current system) 1-month ban? Do we want them to become a useful contributer? I'm assuming yes. Let's say they do become useful, but then, before two months have passed, despite making many, many useful edits for the wiki, they break some minor rule. That's it - bang - 1-year ban. No warning.
• From that point, I decided to go and read all the policy documents I could find on how our vandal banning system works, which is where I found an interesting quote: "The wiki philosophy towards vandalism is not one of punishment. We try, for the most part, to attempt to prevent the vandalism from happening, rather than punish interlopers. So, if someone is actively vandalising a page, and stops after being warned, we will not go any further on the issue."
• At that point, I realised that our system is all about punishment, and little about easy reform. I can make 250 (I consider useful) edits in two weeks, and yet a reforming vandal needs to wait two months to strike their first vandal escalation. That's one third of an average UDwiki lifetime.
• In suggesting this new system, I'm trying to create more opportunity for vandals (even persistent vandals) to reform. If that increases the workload for the sysop team (due to increased A/VB reporting, vandal escalation data recording and so on), well, why not? There are plenty of people willing to take on the role of sysop and help out with the workload, I'm sure.
• The 1-year ban is also, unfortunately, used as a weapon by other contributers. You only have to look at the three recent Nalikill cases to see three cases that should never have been brought before A/VB. Three users who are trying to slap a 1-year ban on Nalikill for personal reasons, or just because they can (dogs licking balls syndrome). Those cases are needlessly causing work for the sysop team, and based on an idea that 1 person (the reporter) can easily rid themselves of another user. This new system, by stretching the system out and making it reform-based instead of punishment-biased, would hopefully avoid such cases. (For example, Nalikill would currently be facing a warning, and then a 1-month ban, instead of a 1-year ban with no warning.)
• I do not wish to promote vandalism, or mollycoddle vandals. One thing the new system would allow is harsher judgements. If a vandal faces a harsh 1-year or permaban penalty, the sysop deciding the case may let them off (if it's a minor offence), which may then set precedent to allow more vandalism. This new system promotes lighter punishments (warnings, and lesser time bans), that could be applied more fairly across the board.
• This system does nothing to dislodge the three permaban methods for adbots, vandal alts or pure vandals. Those remain, and (I think) are by far the most used abilities in A/VB.
• Finally, I am still open to negotiation about the particulars of this suggestion, as I have been from the top to the bottom of this discussion page. If you want any clarification of my position, fire away.

--Funt Solo ^QT 11:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is something that's been bothering me for a while, where do people get the 6 months is the average user lifetime here thing? Oldest reference to it I can think of without looking is by boxy but statistically I'm sure 6 months is actually rater high considering the 20,000 accounts. Most users never use the wiki for much other than reading things and most of the users I've seen that have been around for 2 months have been around for more than 6 months, actively contributing.--Karek^maps?! 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just took that as read (hearsay). I think the point remains valid that 2 months to wait to get your warning back goes against both the spirit of the regulations (as given above) and the activity of a regular contributer. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But see, if you accept that 6 months may not actually be the average and that 2 months may not actually be a long time then a lot of that block of text loses it's base. The punishment reform argument loses it's base, along with the 1 year ban being used as a weapon argument because Nali has shown just how short of a time 2 months can be by having had them fly by so fast that many users still refer to him as recently unbanned. Then you get that if he's been unbanned for 2 months why didn't the people who are out for blood try and get him banned a month and a half ago? It's obviously not a big issue, as I cited above there are only 5 users in the entire wiki's 3 year history to reach this point, that's out of 24,889 registered users. I really don't think because Nali might get banned, even though as of current the system we have protects him by giving him two warnings, is really a great reason to justify getting rid of 1 year or perma-bans. This would be a case where Nali isn't the rule but the exception to it as one of a very very select few to manage to rack up that level of vandal bannings and still be pushing limits wherever possible, I have no problem with the system getting a few extensions but it should be because we really want a system that is geared more towards giving users more chances instead of adding extensions to prevent one specific user from being banned for his own actions.--Karek^maps?! 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And, the chief reason I want this new system is because it's more to do with reform than punishment. Nali's case still serves as an example of spamming up A/VB for no good reason. Given the initial case (of the three most recent) as being due to the reporter simply losing their temper (with someone they have a personal grudge against), the second case was clearly vindictive, and reported by an ardent troll. By the time of the third case, I doubt very much the reporter was unaware of the potential shit they'd stir up whilst hiding behind the mask of "just follerin' the roolz, guv". Nali's case simply reminded me of something that's always troubled me about the system. It may not be a big issue, but if the system can be improved, why not do so? --Funt Solo ^QT 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see harsher vandal escalations than lighter ones. --Pgunn 04:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see sanity than insanity. -Dawgas 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then avoid the Sanitarium at all costs.--Karek^maps?! 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one point you made is what I have a problem with, there is the two month requirement so that people cannot simply go on arbitrary edit binging in order to get all of their escalations wiped, this prevents someone from basically vandalizing as much as possible in as little time as possible, I believe that the more important aspect of the rule is the time rather than how much you can edit the Wiki. I also have a huge problem with the second warning being wiped after each ban period, that doubles the vandal escalations aspect of this policy. I should also point out that the most recent vandal escalations policy I was initially against, because I thought it was too lenient, but I realized that I was, in fact, wrong. I have serious concerns about this policy however. Edit: To The Grimch: I read through your discussion and I too had those concerns, which is why I thought I might ask. -- BKM 06:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see now what Grim was getting at - but at the time I was blinded by all the insulting terminology he used. It really is distracting when you're trying to focus. Thanks for being more succinct in your approach. Just to be clear, the current system has 2 months wait for the first warning to be dropped (+250 edits), and then a single month (+250 edits) for each further escalation strike. There are not 2 months for each, as your reply seems to suggest. Given that I can make 250 good faith edits in 10 days, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow a reforming vandal to attempt 250 good faith edits in a month. (This policy keeps the one month requirement for all de-escalations.) Yes - they might go on a spam-edit binge - but that's assuming that they refuse to reform. Also, anyone that stupid (to want to spam out 250 edits and wait a month just so that they can be a shithead again) is bound to slip up and make vandal edits.

Yes, I am suggesting doubling the escalations by introducing a free warning between each. The aim is to increase reform, if possible, plus all the other things I've stated above. I was going to ask what you would accept as the terms of this policy, but it sounds as if you like the system as is. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

--Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to the hawks

At the moment, I don't see this policy passing muster. I think one key issue people have against it, is that it doubles the vandal escalation lifetime, by giving out that second warning each time. My other solution involved everyone reported to A/VB getting the chance to relent, prior to judgement. However, that's open to abuse by griefers, who could then vandalise and revert with no punishment, at will, forever. There is already this text on A/VB: "Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits." Here's my suggestion for a compromise to appease the hawks: drop the free warning part (thus not doubling the vandal escalation lifetime) but enforce that suggestion from A/VB. People reporting a vandal must try and sort it out with them beforehand, and make it vandalism of A/VB if someone doesn't follow the rule. At the moment, any contributer can spam up A/VB with false reports as much as they like and never get punished for it. (I still want to get rid of 1-year and permanent escalation punishments.) --Funt Solo ^QT 12:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

After taking a look at the discussion, I think I could go for something like what you have just suggested. I never really liked the idea of perma-bans except for extreme cases... and even a year-ban is quite excessive. It's an interesting compromise, and I would probably go for it. --Ryiis 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about, instead of adding extra warnings in between bans, we just take out the year ban altogether, and add a proviso that if someone gets a month ban, and vandalises again before having a warning struck, they get a month ban again and a vote is taken among the sysops as to whether it be increased to a permaban? That way the vandal gets booted immediately, but if a majority of sysops believe they are worth giving a chance to reform, they can return after a month. It's easy enough to ban them once every month or two if they continue their behaviour -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:38 25 January 2008 (BST)

Thanks, boxy - that's very helpful. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Considerably altered

Okay, I made some considerable alterations to the policy, to answer some of Karek, Grim and BKM's concerns. In particular, the new escalation lifetime is now shorter than the one we currently have - to answer the key complaint that the earlier version of the policy doubled it. Permaban's still there, only (as per hagnat's earlier suggestion) it's up to a vote in the case of a vandal escalation. The 1-year ban is gone. That's pretty much it, and I'd appreciate feedback on whether or not these changes have made this more palatable. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy! Now users, even if they are persistent vandals, can stay, but only if they are popular. If they arent, well, thats their tough luck. Democracy sucks for administration. Ditch it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one (very negative) way of looking at it. I can't think of any way to make this policy appeal to you, and still actually make a positive change. Thanks for your input. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably fair, at this point, to point out my positive opinion of a permaban vote, from the policy (so that readers may compare it with Grim's opinion): "allowing the sysop team to make a decision to be leniant based on the contributions of the user overall, rather than just the step they've reached on the banning ladder". It comes down to this: I trust the sysop community to reach a fair decision on whether or not to permanently ban someone from this wiki due to vandal escalations, more than I trust an individual sysop to make that decision on behalf of the community. The reason for that is that I don't trust individiual sysops not to have an axe to grind with a particular user. (Evidence of sysops with axes to grind with particular users, attempting to get rid of them through our current processes, will be provided on request, if anyone wants me to show need.) --Funt Solo ^QT 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I doubt you can show need without maligning intent. Anyway, not that that matters to me because I believe that a month is too little for the max ban without perma, a month is a joke and all this will do is result in users actually being able to abuse the system in the way you seem to think it's already being abused. Oh and for the cases where real escalations are needed it maxes it at a month, which is basically not a punishment so much as a short vacation that will make them immune to being punished for their actions.--Karek^maps?! 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get "immune" from "permaban vote". Anyone who's clearly a career vandal - why would the sysop team vote to keep them around? If it was a popular vote of ALL users, I would immediately see your point, but the sysop team is generally in favour of getting rid of career vandals. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When does this go into voting? I'd like to look at it properly one last time. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry. Although, it's coming to the stage of either vote or chuck. I don't think there's any way to convince either Grim or Karek: they both seem to find the current system adequate. Nobody else seems to be saying anything - so the only way to know if they're representative of the majority would be to put it to vote. Soon, I guess. But not tonight. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove # [Pre-ban warning 2] --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? --Funt Solo ^QT 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Useless. A single warning prior a ban shoudl suffice. Atleast if i am still reading this warnings as those a sysop should do prior banning, independently of how many bans the user have. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the free warning prior to each ban has been dropped, in favour of a tighter system. All it does now is ditch the 1-year escalation, and make the perma require a vote. For a career vandal, this system is actually stricter than the one we have now, although both Grim and Karek don't recognise that because they assume that a sysop vote would be a popularity vote, as opposed to a reasoned vote. (At least, that's what I'm reading.) --Funt Solo ^QT 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Then i am fine with this... it *can* go for voting tonight --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe it puts more power in the hands of Sysops, which I'm against. And at the same time it weakens the standard Vandal Banning system, which I am also against.--Karek^maps?! 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean about weakening - that's a reference to ditching the 1-year ban period, right? But how can this put more power in the hands of the sysops? It's already sysops that have to judge vandalism/not vandalism on any given case. All this does is say, in the event of perma, it has to be a group of sysops that make the decision. How's that giving more power to the sysops? Do you see my confusion, there? --Funt Solo ^QT 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It cuts escalation time and makes ban length depend completely on one decision by the sysop team instead of having them have to stay with the escalation system.--Karek^maps?! 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)