UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Altered Ban Lengths

Please discuss whatever thoughts you have here. I am eager to hear the communities thoughts or questions on this. --

 

 

 

 

07:23, 10 April 2010 (BST)

The problem is that you're taking people out of circulation for longer and quicker. A week for a fourth offence is daft, particularly when some of the wiki mechanics (re-evaluations for example) run on a week cycle. Hence I'll be voting against this unnecessary change. The current system works fine, two warnings which nice people will pay attention to, two short cooling off periods for those that don't. All this before they're binned for long enough to not be able to participate in some of the wiki mechanics. The current escalations system is fine. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:31, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Regarding taking people out of circulation, that's exactly the point. You mention a user needs 4 offences before being banned for a week. That's four occasions when they are told what they are doing wrong and they are given a good amount of time not to commit vandalism, and even get a de-escalation in the process. Realistically, if you are banned and you miss something like an A/RE evaluation, then it's tough shit.

Let's put it this way. Out of the users being banned for a week, I guarantee you <5% of them aren't going to be career vandals, repeat vandals who make merely 5 edits a week or breakers of an arbitration ruling. Those three demographics of users either don't care about admin processes or don't deserve to get concessions. And if they are regulars who are banned during the period and care enough, just get another user to vouch for them. I've done it at Hagnat's request before, and I don't even like him. Every other admin input of note is 2 weeks. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise because I know this policy will be a matter of opinion and I respect that. However, I feel I have to address your points because I personally don't agree. --

 

 

 

 

07:43, 10 April 2010 (BST)

I'd agree if there was an actual standard that users are being told that what they're doing is wrong and what exactly is contrary to the standards and policies of the wiki that has caused their actions to be deemed vandalism, but there isn't. Just look at some of the 'warnings' that have been given to users even in the last couple of months. If there was a modicum of professionalism and explanation in them I'd agree, but there isn't.

As the only person who's currently been (wrongly, on more than one occasion) banned from the wiki for a week I'd be wanting the section of the admin guidelines stating that sysops can't be punished for 'accidentally' or incompetently banning a user changing before the escalations system is altered in any way. As far as the IRC debate that some people don't notice that they've been banned, two things. First, might be an idea to make it policy that sysops have to place notice of bans on user pages, a misconduct case that covered Boxy's arse left the conclusion that the only thing on this wiki that you actually need to notice a ban is the 'You are banned' message while the ban is in force. Second, while some users might be away for the length of their shorter bans, there's no reason why this couldn't be the case for the longer bans either and at the end of the day UD is played daily, it is reasonable to assume that anyone contributing to the wiki will also do so while they play, meaning a 24hr ban is sufficient as the first step of the ban cycle. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:03, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Sorry, I've suddenly lost time to discuss this so I just skimmed through and I'll just quickly say ops can be punished for incompetently banning a user and we have on several occasions been done as such. The only one that didn't was Nubis because he was demoted before you revealed he'd banned you for 6 days longer than what was meant. Not only this but you aren't the only user who's been banned for a week regularly. The other was J3D, and he's so proud of the size of his vandal record he literally brags about it IRL *sigh*. --

 

 

 

 

08:10, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Its probably not a bad idea to look at the formality of warnings, and their professionalism. How long would it take to throw up some subst generic templates for the most common examples? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:00, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Upon coming back and reading Iscariot's full reply, I do agree. We already have an array of such templates, they just stopped getting used. In fact, there is a small treasure chest of unused but useful templates that haven't been used for an age. They are at Category:Administration Templates. --

 

 

 

 

12:15, 10 April 2010 (BST)

I'd strengthen it even further. I believe the idea of three months was bantered around on IRC, and I'd be in favor of that as being the last step, instead of another month long ban. I'd support it either way though. Bans happen rarely enough, and they're so short that a user could feasibly not even realize they were banned for 24 hours or even 48 hours. They need to know they were banned in order for either reform or punishment to occur. —Aichon— 07:34, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Agreed. I think my proposal was 48 hours, 5 days, 15 days and three months, then permaban voting. I like harsh punishments. I also recommend we institute flogging, but that might take a new policy. 15:46, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Meh. Would this really achieve anything? The policy seems to lack an explanation as to why we really need this change. xoxo 13:04, 10 April 2010 (BST)

I like it and I'd vote yes. In fact, I think you could go even farther, with slightly longer bans and slightly fewer escalations before a perma ban vote is available. This wiki should be for improving the community and flavor surrounding a zombie game. If people can't contribute positively to that goal, then we really aren't losing anything if they get banned.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:12, 10 April 2010 (BST)

This coming a few months after votes to overturn some permabans. Since it's clear people don't really like the idea of a perma except when its necessary and that people want to be leanient to those that have been permaed it seems silly to make it even easier to happen. This policy seems to be the sort that theres no decent arguments against it but at the same time it wouldnt really do anything. Oh noes i've been banned for another week! shock horror! whatever. xoxo 13:18, 10 April 2010 (BST)

You say there is no explanation whilst it clearly demonstrates it to stop career vandals (like yourself, o lord of career vandalling) and at the same time you demonstrate the "meh" effect of being banned for a week. What, on a personal level, do you not like about this proposition again? --

 

 

 

 

15:38, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Meh, yeah, the current system is too soft, but I don't think this will solve anything, except for annoy career vandals more. Put in something lengthening the time between deescalations, and it will make it tougher on them.

And, yes, I agree that getting rid of deescalations altogether is too harsh. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:18, 10 April 2010 (BST)

I like the idea of harsher punishments. Someone in the IRC yesterday mentioned that a 24 hours ban is basically just a cooling off period, and all that would happen is someone can't do what they did for 24 hours. The idea of making de-escalations harder is good too. Then career vandals will find it harder to clear themselves, this way they can't push a few buttons clear themselves and push on someones buttons again. I also think there should be a way to automatically go to a harsher punishment. Say someone wipes a talk page 3 times in a day and you give him a warning. He turns around and does it again, this shouldn't be a second warning he should be banned for 48 hours outright because clearly he just doesn't care about the warning. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

23:22, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Before you vote...

I'd like to contrast the following:

• They need to know they were banned in order for... punishment to occur. -- Aichon
• I like harsh punishments. -- Misanthropy
• I like the idea of harsher punishments. -- The Colonel

with the Vandalism Policy:

• The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals. The only aim with warnings and bans is to attempt to stop the vandal from continuing to vandalise the wiki. We are more than willing to let reformed vandals continue to edit this wiki, if their edits are a good faith attempt to improve this wiki.

It's a question of basic understanding of the core principles of this community. This just seems to be reactionary to a certain user that most of you would like to see removed.

I'm also regretting vouching for the two sysops I quoted above. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:48, 14 April 2010 (BST)

You conveniently pulled out relevant text from my quote. What I actually said there was, "...in order for either reform or punishment to occur," emphasis added. Essentially, I was recognizing that there are those who hold to both sides of the argument, but that I believe this change is valuable regardless of which camp you're in. I was not throwing my support behind one or the other, merely acknowledging that both views exist. Now, of course, as I stated in my vote, I don't believe that reform works, but I still believe it's the goal. Again though, regardless of if you support reform or punishment (and I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive), this change should be a beneficial one to make. —Aichon— 08:39, 14 April 2010 (BST)

My personal belief is that the majority of vandals who will get to the point of bans (still offending after the initial warnings) are not going to reform easily, if at all. Much as real life, I belief reform isn't something that is commonly occuring, nor will it be assuaged with leniency. The 'reform' period is the earlier half of the escaltions, the small bans and warnings. If recidivism continues beyond this, the harshly escalating punishments serve to ensure it's harder to prolong. You forget that in order to risk a permanent ban, a user needs to commit seven offences without having a single de-escalation. If that's the case, reform is clearly not working. That's my opinion of things, and I'll be voting accordingly, and encouraging anyone else who agrees with it to do the same. 15:32, 14 April 2010 (BST)

I'm abstaining from voting, as I don't have a preference between the current system and the one proposed here.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:00, 14 April 2010 (BST)

I am also abstaining from this vote, partially because I don't see a substantial difference between the current system and the proposed one, but moreso because I see very valid arguments in both camps yet I am not inclined to favor one set of arguments over the other. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:46, 15 April 2010 (BST)

wow.. ur so balanced and mature... Cyberbob  Talk  09:51, 15 April 2010 (BST)