UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Reduce Vandal Escalations

Guidelines — Policy Document This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Summary

• Alter vandal escalations (only) to:

• remove the one-year ban.
• replace the permanent ban with a sysop vote.

Escalation Alteration

• The current list of escalations (repeated in text form here on the last paragraph), are as follows:

• Warning 1
• Warning 2
• First ban: 24 hours
• Second ban: 48 hours
• Third ban: 1 week
• Fourth ban: 1 month
• Fifth ban: 1 year
• Sixth ban: Permanent

• This policy proposes that they be changed (and the text of both UDWiki:Vandalism and UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines updated accordingly) to:

• Warning 1
• Warning 2
• First ban: 24 hours
• Second ban: 48 hours
• Third ban: 1 week
• Fourth ban: 1 month
• Fifth ban (or higher): 1 month + permaban vote

• The permanent ban (without vote) would remain in operation for vandal alt accounts, adbots and pure vandals, as already is the case and detailed in the first three sections of "When a User May be Warned or Banned".
• Attempting to circumvent a ban will result in an escalation without any warning, for each attempted circumvention.

• If this takes the user beyond 12 months, then they are automatically permabanned.
• If this takes the user beyond 1 month, then a permaban vote may take place.

Permaban Vote

• There may be a case where a persistent vandal refuses to reform and is simply causing work for the sysop team.
• Any user reaching a fifth (or higher) ban faces the possibility of a permaban vote.
• Whilst the user would initially be banned for one month (as indicated in the given escalation list), there could also be a permaban vote, carried out on the A/VB report that banned the user, as follows:

• Any sysop could indicate that they are calling for a permaban vote. (They are not required to do so.)
• All interested sysops could vote either For or Against, with no requirement for an explanation. The vote lasts for a single week.
• If at least three sysops, and at least a two thirds majority of all those voting, vote For, the user is permanently banned.

• Additionally, as indicated in the previous section, any user who attempts to circumvent a ban, and accumulates more than one month of ban period, may face a permaban vote, as above. (This requires that there be an A/VB case reporting the ban circumvention.)

De-escalation Alteration

• Currently, the guidelines contain this reform clause:

• To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single vandal escalation can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that two months have passed since the user's last infraction, with another month for every subsequent striking after the first in the series, restarting in the event of a vandal escalation. If a user has more than two vandal escalations, the first escalation struck shall be the second warning, followed by the bans in descending order of severity (If any), and finishing in the first warning.

• This policy proposes that the text be changed to:

• To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single vandal escalation can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that one month has passed since the user's last infraction, with another month for every subsequent striking after the first in the series, restarting in the event of a vandal escalation. If a user has more than two vandal escalations, the first escalation struck shall be the second warning, followed by the bans in descending order of severity (If any), and finishing in the first warning.

• Note: the bold text in both clauses is added here to indicate the change.

Reasons for change

• A permanent or year-long ban as an escalation does not fit with the "wiki philosophy towards vandalism [as being] not one of punishment".
• A permanent or year-long ban, as a punishment, or just a threat:

• provides a user with almost as much impetus to vandalise as to reform.
• provides other users with ammunition in the case of personality or minor edit conflicts, leading to spamming up of the A/VB page.

• A year-long ban is pointless, as it is so rarely used, and the chances of a contributer returning so minimal.
• This new system actually reduces the time it takes a persistent vandal to reach a potential permanent ban, whilst still 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.

No Backtracking

• Users currently serving one-year or permanent bans (from escalations) cannot use this policy to retroactively end those bans. Those bans were earned under a system in which the users were aware of the punishments they would incur.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. I believe this system allows for non-career vandals to remain within the community (i.e. reform) more readily than the current system. Further, career vandals can still be permanently banned, if need be, by agreement of the sysop community. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Kill - Aha, fooled ya for a second :D --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
3. I think you comprimised as much as you could, and I agree that it would create an atmosphere that encourages reform rather than punishment. Others may feel that the more strict process should stay in place, however, this seems much more democratic and less authoritarian. --Ryiis 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
4. For --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Ok.. I guess. - Whitehouse ^T 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
6. A year ban is useless. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   Users have come back from them.--Karek^maps?! 00:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

   Either remove them from the community or let them reform. I don't see any people who came back from a year ban, skipping along with smiles on their face. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

7. For - A/VB is there to root out malicious vandals and reform incidental vandals. The current system treats both the same while this actively encourages judgement and common sense rather than the "BAN HAMMER" Not only that but it doesn't dilute the ability to be rid of serial pains in the ass! --Honestmistake 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Seems sensible, so I will vote for it.--Memoman 03:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
9. From a month to a year? needs change.--'BP^Tmz 05:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)'
10. All my yes vote are belong to this. Omega 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Vandal Banning is not about punishment, it is about moving vandals off the wiki, as such, questions about leniancy and such should take a back seat to wether this policy will reduce incidents of vandalsim. AS such, I beleive that this policy will serve better than the current one.--Seventythree^Talk 12:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Permabanning is a serious business, it shouldn't be left up to the first sysops who happens along (unless it's an obvious vandal account) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:42 26 January 2008 (BST)
13. Sounds good to me. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 13:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
14. --~~~~ [talk] 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Works against the spirit of a wiki. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 01:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Nicely wraps up the idea that someone can be permabanned quicker in a soft coating of friendliness.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
17. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
18. One million percent "I guess" --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
19. - Give everyone a chance for change. -Inky 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
20. For - Sure. --Amanu Jaku 06:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
21. For - the 12 month ban is pointless.--Jed 06:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
22. I looked to see if I voted for this; I saw I hadn't and slapped myself.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Against

1. Against - Unless you can clarify and justify the deescalation change, depending on what you intend that to mean I might be willing to change my vote.--Karek^maps?! 23:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

   The de-escalation change is simply that instead of two months for the first step down (and then one month for each subsequent step), it's one month for the first step (and then one month for each subsequent step). The justification is partly to do with encouraging swift reform, and partly to offset the fact that the ban escalation ladder is now one step shorter from first warning to potential permanent ban. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

   So it's not cumulative? Like first time I get a month warning I get 1 month till it's struck, second time 2 months, third 3 months, etc.?--Karek^maps?! 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

   No, it's not cumulative. After a ban (any ban, even a 24-hour ban), you need one month and 250 good faith edits to strike it. (Let's face it, anyone who manages to get as far as a second or subsequent one month ban is in serious danger of being permanently banned - the sysops here are sensible, generally, and won't put up with career vandals wasting their time.) --Funt Solo ^QT 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Against - This is far from ready, and turns the permaban into a popularity contest. Also, despite being requested numerous times, there has never been a demonstration for the need of this policy. We are already absurdly lenient to vandals, this just compounds the matter. If people do not want to be warned or banned for vandalism, my answer is and always shall be that they shouldnt vandalise in the first place. Its not like its difficult. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

   Regarding the "popularity contest": 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. It would only be a popularity contest if the sysops, as a whole, were not good at their jobs, and I don't think that's true. Regarding the request to show need, you may not accept my reasoning, but I believe that I have shown need both in the policy (Reasons for change) and in various places during the policy discussion (especially the Show Need section's bulleted list). This policy does not necessarily make it more leniant on vandals. It actually reduces the vandal escalation ladder, and the time to a potential permaban. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, I think this is too lenient. -- BKM 06:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

   This new system actually reduces the time it takes a persistent vandal to reach a potential permanent ban, whilst still 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. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

   I See that you have greatly changed it so I will strike my vote, it does seem to make it a tiny bit less lenient. -- BKM 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

3. This is just too dumb. We already got a system that WORKS. Why tinker with it endlessly?--ShadowScope 06:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
4. As ShadowScope. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Against Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 05:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Voting closed. Policy approved. 22 For, 5 Against. (81% majority.) --Funt Solo ^QT 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)