User talk:Wyndallin/Archives/HPA1
Current as of 16:26, 1 May 2006 (BST)
Tossing the First Revision data into my archives. -Wyn (talk!) 16:26, 1 May 2006 (BST)
Public Input on the Harassment Policy
The Drama Llama is still watching you, but I'll be more even-handed here than I would be above this point. -Wyndallin
inputherekthx. -Wyndallin
heywyndallinthisismyfirstpostinyourtalkpage. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 10:19, 23 April 2006 (BST)
illcheckoutyournewthingamajigsoonasienjoydeliciouslebanesefood...
andmaybepretendtobeacollegestudentforalittlewhile.youstayclassy! --Ron Burgundy 19:46, 23 April 2006 (BST)
My opinion is influenced by US upbringing. Harrassment here is behavior that serves no legitimate purpose. In this context, discussion with the accused harrasser would first have to present an alternative method (whereby legitimate purpose could be achieved without degradation). Systematic behavior wouldn't constitute harrassment until the accused continues beyond legitimate purpose. --Tycho44 23:43, 23 April 2006 (BST)
Also (again in the US), harrassment is systematic or repeated or an overall "course of conduct". To punish harrassment based on a single edit (or two edits) doesn't make sense. In my opinion, it might be appropriate to first load up a stack of harrassment warnings (e.g. 3) to unequivocally establish pattern of behavior then ban after that (e.g. 4th violation). Current wiki-combatants appear to make dozens of edits that serve no purpose other than to annoy other combatants... --Tycho44 23:55, 23 April 2006 (BST)
You made words on my Discussion page! >:( Seriously though: I can definitely see where you're coming from on this, but I can't agree with your counter-measures. You don't like reading racism, or homophobia, or burnsaucing on the Wiki? Fine: scroll past it. The entire point of this Wiki is to facilitate communication between users and groups. Sometimes that can conform to your personal standard of obscenity. Sometimes, it can't. I'm not saying you should be okay with everything on this Wiki. I'm saying that you should either grow something of a thicker skin as it pertains to the stuff that annoys you, or you should simply ignore it. I don't want to get called a "kyke" on this Wiki, but you know what? I'd rather have that happen than have my right to express myself here be restricted. I know the First Amendment, nor indeed any statute protecting this right exists here. But I will be damned if I'll let that stand for a passive affirmation of teh intarnet thought police. --Undeadinator 01:03, 24 April 2006 (BST)
The system seems interesting, but unfortunately, I can't support it. Honestly, we moderators have very few duties, and I'd like to keep it that way, because the more duties we have, the less duties regular users are willing to perform. I see constantly that, should a responsibility of a particular user be born by external forces, the less likely that user will work towards shouldering that responsibility. Even if it's an obvious fact that some users cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of being a user, I think it's vitally important that we continue to assume that they will - because if we assume that everyone will assume responsibility for the problem, then hopefully someone will, and it doesn't have to be the same someone every time. -- Odd Starter talk o Mod o W! 13:30, 24 April 2006 (BST)
- It's perhaps worded poorly. Even if I, personally, don't get more work, I don't want any form of Moderator to be the only group of users that are stuck with this work. Again, the more duties we have to perform, the less duties regular users are willing to perform. I'd much prefer that conflict resolution be something that, since anyone can do, everyone should do. (You can read an essay about my line of thinking through this link, if you're still confused. -- Odd Starter talk o Mod o W! 02:51, 25 April 2006 (BST)
- See, I fully agree that some users are not mature enough to resolve conflicts, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Even if this is the case, (and it clearly is), this shouldn't be stopping us from trying to act as if it isn't the case. The less you trust users, the less trustworthy they end up becoming. Put bluntly, I don't want a system where users cry for Moderator intervention everytime they get the verbal equivalent of a bump on the knee, because they know the Moderators will happily (or not so happily) resolve their problems for them, one way or the other. I'd much prefer that Arbitration be built on the idea that, if you care about what's going on, you help resolve the issue. Resolution by peers, not by some upper class.
- Really, it should only be after absolutely nothing works, and that all further avenues have been completely exhausted that mod status should even come into it. But then, it's clear that the two of us have entirely different ways of looking at this, and while I'd love to continue talking about this, I have major assignments due not long from now, and I really shouldn't be procrastinating on the wiki like this... -- Odd Starter talk o Mod o W! 03:35, 25 April 2006 (BST)
Absolutely brilliant idea. The current moderation and arbitration system is completely broken and this is a welcome step in the right direction. --LibrarianBrent 07:18, 25 April 2006 (BST)
I think the best thing to do would be to use the arbitration page for this but simply change the rules so that the arbitration is compulsary.--The General W! Mod 16:09, 1 May 2006 (BST)
Issues With The Proposal
Permaban
- Leave Permaban for extreme cases only, like is done with vandal banning. - Mia Kristos
Ignoring Harassment
- Harrasment shouldn't have to be ignored, because it shouldn't be going on to begin with. Additionally, I shouldn't have to avoid whole sections of the Wiki, or take some of my time to delete things from my user space. - Mia Kristos
Larger Probationary Period
- To punish harrassment based on a single edit (or two edits) doesn't make sense. In my opinion, it might be appropriate to first load up a stack of harrassment warnings (e.g. 3) to unequivocally establish pattern of behavior then ban after that (e.g. 4th violation). - Tycho44
Concerns About Drama
- Maybe you could cut down on that by requiring one mod to verify harassment and two to verify a false accusation. Better yet, two and three. The more mods, the better.
- Don't leave ban length up to the mods. It would make things easier on the mods and the community if the laws are as specific as possible. - Ron Burgundy
- In general anything that relies on large numbers of mods to keep moving is going to be baaaaaad. We try to leave it to users as much as possible. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:27, 25 April 2006 (BST)
Scrap It All
- The entire point of this Wiki is to facilitate communication between users and groups. Sometimes that can conform to your personal standard of obscenity. Sometimes, it can't.
- [...] I will be damned if I'll let that stand for a passive affirmation of teh intarnet thought police. - Undeadinator
Crime and punishment
To be honest I have grave doubts about it's workability and even bigger doubt about achieving it's purpose as it'll be used in flamewars were both sides are culpable as a leverage tool and most rulings would lead to further flame wars.
as constructive critism, why a second set of punishments alternative to vandalism? either use the system arbitration uses or just the regualar vandalism system. both are easier and more consistant to work with.
Anyway it's not for me although I'm sympathetic to your goal, good luck with it.--Vista W! 10:36, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Some Terms
- I would suggest adding the terms "prolonged" and "unprovoked" to it, with reasonable cutoffs, defining "uprovoked" to be: Comments made more than 2 days after last attack or unreasonable aggression in retaliation, with the extent to which is unreasonable being determined by the mod on the spot. "Prolonged" would basically mean happening over a period of time, demonstrating a reasonable history of the behaviour. - Grim s
More issues will be brought up as input is given, and when a list is compiled, edits will be made.
Updated 03:18, 24 April 2006 (BST)
Only one edit allowed for someone to defend themselves seems a bit strict - I can see why you would put that in, but would you really ban someone for not obeying it? If you do, then you could end up banning a lot of non-harassing people. And if you don't then you leave yourself open for accusations of bending the rules for one side and being biased.
The time allowed to remove false accusations should maybe be raised to 24 hours, so that: -the accuser has time to sleep on it -we can be more sure that they will have the opportunity to remove it
And perhaps add 'malicious intent' to the list of false accusations judging criteria? --Toejam 18:27, 1 May 2006 (BST)
- With regards to the banning ... if you're asking me, personally? Yes. I would if I had the ability to do so. And I'm smart enough to recoginize what harassment is and is not, minus familiarity or 'inside jokes'. Moving on to the point about the alloted time for removal... Frankly, I'm a little iffy about allowing a person more than an hour, because that gives them time to publicize a page, or be a general troll, and then go 'Oops! *wink*'. And if 'you might be warned/banned' isn't enough incentive for someone to not say something, especially when they have a known history of being an ass, then they really should be banned, as far as I'm concerned. -Wyn (talk!) 18:54, 1 May 2006 (BST)
