UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prevent Harrasment

1st

Needs a clause allowing sysops to still be able post on that page for official reasons. -- Cheese 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 18:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

2nd

You spelt harassment wrong. =p -- Cheese 18:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it

This is a textbook example of something we do based on precedent but haven't yet set forth into policy. The need is clear. However, the document itself is rough around the edges and will need a bit of revision. Namely:

• Use the word harassment less. It makes it sound like you're trying to outlaw trolling, when you're just making people the masters of their own domains.
• Don't make people "use their header" (whatever that means). Make them place the list 'clearly' on their talk page. Nothing in the style of <!--Hey, Example_User! If you post here I'll get you banned! :P--> should be allowed, for obvious reasons, but we can't force people to put something in a specific place on their talk page.
• Double check your grammar and sentence structure. My subconscious doesn't like it.

But again, it does seem necessary. --VVV ^RPMBG 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Boxy And Aichon have persuaded me otherwise. --VVV ^RPMBG 01:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it

You'll end up with n00bs banning pretty much anyone who posts something that they don't want to hear on their talk page. The requirement to go through arbitration in order to remove someone's freedom to post where they like is necessary to ensure that there is actually harassment going on before they are banned from the page. The classic example of this is Iscariot, and his long term "ban" on any sysop whatsoever posting to his talk page, despite the majority of them in no way harassing him. This would make such a ban legitimate, and mean that anyone of them who inadvertantly posted to the talk page (without an admin reason) would automatically get a warning despite their intentions (good or bad faith). There have been plenty of other examples.
The process of getting a ban approved via arbies could do with some simplifying, perhaps, and some way to kill off the "I refuse all artitrators" defense -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:33 5 February 2011 (BST)

I completely agree with boxy and furthermore think that this is a terrible abortion of a policy. There are so many legitimate reasons for using someone's talk page, and there are so many ways for prima donnas to freak out and start "banning" people from their user space. For example, someone might habitually forget to sign their posts and then get irate when being repeatedly reminded. We shouldn't encourage users to wall themselves off from others, nor should we create policies to pander to a very small minority who just can't bear to interact. The wiki is a community, if you can't deal with people using your talk page then gtfo.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with boxy and Giles on this one. First off, let me direct folks to the third paragraph here. These types of arbitrations are to be avoided, not encouraged or made simpler. This sort of thing is supposed to be a last resort, not a first attack, and making it easier for people to slap folks with a vandalism charge is bad. And, as Giles said, walling people off from the community is a serious matter. Allowing it to happen at all is something that is taken very seriously, hence why these cases go to arbitration and why only a handful of them have ever stuck.

Next, this policy makes two faulty assumptions. First, it assumes that anyone posting on a talk page who has been asked not to post there is doing so in bad faith, which is not necessarily correct. Second, I'd say that only about half of the time people are asked not to post on a talk page is it a classic case of harassment. The other half the time, it's just someone overreacting and banning anyone that they don't like. Pair these two issues together, and you'd end up with cases where new User A just doesn't like veteran User B because they got off on the wrong foot, A bans B from their page, and thus B is never able to offer helpful tips or correct A's mistakes and explain why they were corrected.

We've definitely had a few cases where some of our veteran users have made abrasive comments towards n00bs, but they'll just as quickly turn around and be more than eager to genuinely help the n00b with something when it's obvious they need help. Or they'll offer decent advice if it's obvious that the n00b has managed to embroil themselves in wiki politics with no idea of how to tread water. In the process of doing so, quite often, these people come to a mutual understanding with one another. A policy like this would make it impossible for them to ever reconcile their differences, and would set the bar so low for this sort of thing that far more people would be inclined to take advantage of it. —Aichon— 00:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

i am a meat puppet and always agree with boxy.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

While I see Trips' point of providing a shortcut of unnecessary Arbies and am a fan of cutting down on red tape, I think the potential issues far outweigh the benefits. It will make it harder to get through to thick newbs and is open to abuse. It gives also ops a strong moderator role, as they will get called up to deem talk page interaction as vandalism or not, without the chance to learn about the case and the reasons as they could in arbies. Finally, dedicated harassers will work around the policy and try to stalk their victim anywhere but on their talk page. Besides, when was the last time someone wanted someone off their talk page? Last time I remember were Cornholioo and Doodles, and both were pretty inane cases to begin with. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am starting to see the problems with this policy. Not sure if the criticisms could actually be resolved with this policy, so I'm leaning towards letting this policy be abandoned and archived, but I'll think about it before I make a decision. Fixing the "I refuse all arbitrators" loophole would seem to be more useful for if someone does want to enforce a "ban" on communication via talk pages, but again, I have to think about how to do it that way without infringing on a person's right to representation.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 01:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There actually isn't a loophole. If someone refuses all arbitrators, sysops can step in to assign someone that they deem to be a fair arbitrator. People just forgot about that rule for awhile, but it is there somewhere. —Aichon— 02:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with boxy. There are more mature ways to deal with harassment than simply telling someone to shut up, which is almost what this is. --Penguinpyro 05:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before somewhere. I couldn't find a withrdrawn or a rejected policy regarding it so the conversation itself must have been a tangent on an A/VB archive or A/PD archive. Not a good idea, especially when it as open as it is- the big reason for rejection that I remember was a simple fact that without regulating where and how the messages were put, people will try to enforce notices on their talk pages that could be hidden, hard to read or at the bottom of the page rather than the top, etc. The idea was mostly thrown out as a method for pricks and idiots to cause drama and harassment in itself. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Looked through a years worth of Talk:A/VB archives, and talk:A/A archives etc and A/PD and found nothing of the conversation I mentioned, which is a bummer because it would have been a good read. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC logs?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be strongly against this policy because of the reasons above and also because as a sysop I could not in good faith rule vandalism solely for the reason of a personal rule on one's talk page. If a user enstates these types of rules, they should be responsible for enforcing them, not rely on the sysops to enforce them with an automatic A/VB ruling. ~ 07:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

I like the idea of not requiring a full arby for these, but not the idea of cutting out any and all due process entirely. Perhaps allowing users to create an A/A case which doesn't need a full arbitration, but a neutral arbitrator to just rubber-stamp the proposed ban quickly? Any problem arising from it can be settled in a full A/A case, but this would be the sort of "restraining order" thing which wouldn't require the "hostile" party's involvement. Thoughts? 13:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So a shorthand "Quickie" arbies? Boilerplate thing "I want X to stop posting on my talk page because Y?" Runs through the same page but needs someone to confirm? Although whats the criteria for the overseer? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

On the list of arbitrators, victim agrees with them. Any problems after the fact and it goes to actual arbitrationing. 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is already in practice. See the case for Zombie Lord v Bob Boberton, where they agreed to keep out of each others hair and just had an arbitrator rubber stamp it. Doesn't need a new policy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

ZL v BB had both parties involved in an agreement, this is not the same as what I'm suggesting. 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming all such things would have to be equally enforced on all talk pages of all involved parties? I'd hate for it to be used as a tool against noobs by a flametastic veteran. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Anything achievable by the standard arbies agreement would just be the standard here too. It's essentially a fast-track method of the standard case, not requiring the offending party to be involved. The catch is that we trust the arbitrator to be sensible - and if they're not, then it goes to proper arbitration as is already the case. 20:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)