UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vexatious

Quick update: I'm still here, I'm just holding off to see how the suggestion for a new arbitration goes down; It'd affect how to frame this idea if it passes. --MorthBabid 23:58, 20 April 2007 (BST)

---

So! Good idea? Bad idea? I know it at least needs work. --MorthBabid 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

its already pretty much covered. IE the misconduct page. There the mods can put whatever punishment they want to, bad idea to add more red tape and force the choice of punishment. Boogaboogaa 01:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, its not so much red tape as an additional guideline. Something specific we can cite and use our already existing methods (like you pointed out, misconduct) to deliberate upon. By agreeing upon a specific unwarrented and undesired abuse of our systems of moderation. --MorthBabid 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I imagine this came about from the C4NT deletion drama? This seems okay, but the potential for abuse is unlimited, or at least that's what critics will say. And when you say "ban"
[<a target="_blank" style="color:#bf8f00;" href="http://zombies.alexsaintcroix.com/">Zombese</a> for ","], do you mean from the wiki or from moderation services? Either way, that should be clarified.--Lachryma^☭ 02:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to your comment on C4NT? Yes and no. There have been some good calls, specifically on that one artists materials being used which he didn't wish, that have been made. But I'm starting to get the feeling that this is hurting peoples feelings and in turn is slowly building up into a war of frivilousness and blatant attacks using what is essentially our 'legal' system against itself. Its an issue of having high ideals and failing to live up to them, of doing something in the name of good intentions when the driving force is really your own. And I'd encourage any such critics to come forth. Point out the holes for abuse so we can work together and patch them up. :) The best friend of any idea or philosophy is an educated and respectful voice of dissent. --MorthBabid 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's nice...but I'm still wondering about the ban thing, as it's not very clear. And thank you for your very in depth response...Too bad you didn't answer everything! --Lachryma^☭ 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Theres a idea on dealing with punishments and your other comments below that I think elaborates a few ideas better than I could. --MorthBabid 19:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd include provision V, which allows gage to lay the smackdown on certain wikilawyers like akule. --Darth Cheney _{Malton Rangers} 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't he already do that? --Kamden 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we certainly felt at risk of a ban, or at least a formal warning, just over arguing the need to retain some NPOV portion of a POV war on a news page - We'd be surprised if Gage needs any more power than he already has.... we were completely oblivious to the C4NT drama (whatever it was), and would be surprised if he restrained his 'Ban hammer' if he fancied using it - surely Sysops can pretty much do all this anyway? --Crabappleslegalteam 01:20, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Well, C4NT drama I suppose, would go under the category of humor, more of less. --Kamden 05:54, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Not just for administrators?

I don't think (morth steer me back on course) that this is intended solely for vexatiousness stimulated by administrators. Any user my "misuse" administrative services as described in this policy. While we currently hold humorous suggestions to be a form of vandalism, no similar policy exists to protect other areas from being frivolously misused. I'll be interested in reading between the lines for loopholes but something similar along these lines does not seem outlandish. I would prefer a warning system just like any other form of vandalism so that newbs don't get spanked too hard before a ban comes into play. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Max above in that the current warnings' and bannings' escalation system seems more apropriate for this kind of cases. To have several escalation systems and records for every users would be overcomplicated for such a small wiki as this one is. Also, I would like to see this cases be treated on M/VB, preferently a special section of that page made with that only purpose, instead of Misconduct: treat this kind of cases on Misconduct will be misleading and counterintuitive in the form that the policy is not intended to be solely for Sysops, but for the community in general. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, actually, I wasn't even THINKING about administrators in terms of this guideline, Max, but good point. We've already got clear guidelines (drawn up by the tireless Xoid) for what mods can/can't do. And we've already got a specific area just FOR dealing with that. I think our moderation of our moderators has already gotten a BIG improvement, espcially with the re-evalutation of Speedy Delete and the ol' Ban-hammer. But yes. The use of a warning "good-faith" issue should be underscored; I guess I left that up to be infered a bit too much, and a good policy has to be damned specific. As for humorous comments as a loophole? Pheew. That's gonna be a slippery fish. I'll have to think about that; Maybe add it to the 'what is not' list to avoid the whole damn issue? :) And Matt, could you clarify your comments on the warning/banning system? And are you saying we should make a SEPERATE section similar to M/VB, or simply combine the two? I'm trying to avoid adding to the Mods already heavy workload, and rather trying to streamline and clarify a potential flaw. --MorthBabid 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was saying this:

1. Where you propose a new system of progresively escalating penalties that consist on how much you will be banned from posting on the administration pages, I'm saying (and interpret from what Max said that he wants this too) that we should use the cycle of warnings and bannings that we already have in place, because:
   • It would be easier to keep record of.
   • It's even more permissive that the automatic ban from vexatious litigation that you propose.
2. Where you propose the Misconduct page to be used for processing vexatious litigation cases, I say that it should be Vandal Banning, because:
   • Misconduct is specifically related to abuse or misuse of Sysop powers and authority: to use it for non Sysop related problems will be misleading and against the original purpose of the page.
   • There's no difference when it concerns Sysop's time consumed between posting this kind of cases on M/VB or M/M, as they'll have to process the cases and rule over them accordingly no matter on wich one of these pages the cases are posted.
3. Then, I proposed that we could even make a different section on M/VB for posting Vexatious litigations that, because of their nature, have to undergo a lot of interpretation in order to be ruled upon, thus being different than most of the current M/VB cases are. There's something similar being done on the M/SD page with Criterion 12 deletions. It's just a proposition anyways, you don't need to take it as a serious concern on the policy itself.

That's all. Now I'm pissed off about something you said, so beware. =P --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely, 100% agree with Matt. Putting this on M/M would just confuse people. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Thats actually a pretty damn good suggestion, and makes a lot of sense! I honestly wasn't too clear on how those two systems currently work on the wiki, but that lifted a bit of the fog. I'd like some more folks feedback on that idea before I go fiddlin' with the main page. --MorthBabid 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think what I'm really trying to address is Wikilawyering. Would this be a better term to use, or no? --MorthBabid 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that vexatious litigation will be a better term to use. Why? Because wikilawyering relates about single offenses of the practices metioned on that Wikipedia article, while Vexatious Litigation refers more to a repetition of conduct when it relates to abuse of the system and literal interpretations of the rules instead of the spirit within them. What does this mean? This mean that I rather see a guy being brought to A/VB over repeated offenses than single ones that could be considered as Wikilawyering. Crimninalizing wikilawyering, a very subjective term, will bring too many with hunts to users that in isolated opportunities have to resort to starting cases in order to properly defend a POV, like myself. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Great input. I'll probably make a version 2 draft of this policy in a few, and try to get feedback on that before finally posting it. And I am more going for repeat offenses, since otherwise the abuse of this policy would be "OMGD UR DELETION CUE OF MY SONIC THE HEDGEHOG PORNZ IS VEXATIOUS BAN HIM". ---20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You can take someone to arbitration for any reason really. Including if someone takes people to arbitration for dumb reasons repeatedly. A arbitrator can pass more or less any judgement they like including telling someone not to use arbitration for a while. --Jon Pyre 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)