UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Permaban Appeal

This is probably being reactive but I'd love to have the discussion nonetheless. I think it'd be a neat little page if we did it properly. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Make it a sub-page of A/DE, or even a section on the A/DE page. The latter is preferable as that's a low-traffic section anyway so we won't clutter it, but we also won't need to create a whole new section and archive for something small like this. Otherwise, yes indeed. 00:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

this should be a nice can of worms--

 

bitch 08:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I like this. UDwiki is seriously in need of an appelate system. Perhaps the escalations should be decided by the current sysop team at the time of unbanning, removing a minimum of the permaban? And, as Mis, it should probably be on A/DE. Oh, and 6 months sounds like a good cap.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This. -- †  talk ? f.u. 12:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see a permaban appeal being made very often so giving it it's own page would be a bit redundant. A/DE would be fine.-- Cheese 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Its my belief that appeals should only be allowed to users who had their bans unfairly escalated and not just because now they are sorry --C Whitty 15:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make a quick point, the only purpose of this sort of thing would be to overturn correctly applied permabans, since any unfair or wrongly apply permabans should be handled with an A/M case aimed at the involved sysops (or else should be pointed out on A/VB's talk page when it happens), and shouldn't need to go through a six month wait or anything else like that. If someone is escalated to permaban status without good reason (which I, myself, have been responsible for doing), we need to fix the issue quickly and we already have a way of handling it, so we don't need any more policies or systems to deal with it. —Aichon— 17:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's call it "parole" and tie in some accountability

As I mentioned above, we already have a way to handle incorrectly or unjustly applied permabans, so we don't need anything new for them. That leaves us with users who were rightly permabanned, but now want back in. Effectively, they're asking for a parole. I agree with the others that A/DE is the best place to handle it, with a section for parole cases added. So, basically, as has been said, after X months, allow a sponsor for the permabanned person to come and make a case there, and then poll the community to see what they think. It shouldn't be considered a majority vote, but should rather be treated in a similar way to A/PM and the like. The sysops should weigh the opinions for two weeks, and then remove the perma and next highest ban if the parole is accepted. If it's not, they can reapply for parole in another six months.

In the case of 3ER vandals, I think that removing the perma and leaving them with two warnings might be acceptable, though I think we should also ask them to state affirmatively that they will not vandalize the wiki any longer.

Three other random ideas I had while typing this up:

1. Setting parole dates at the time of a permaban
2. Sponsors being held accountable in some way
3. Only allow sponsorships from good wikizens

With the first, when someone is permabanned, the sysops at the time could choose when the vandal would be eligible for parole. A standard period would be six months, but they may want to set it higher or lower than that, depending on the circumstances. It gives the sysops some flexibility in handling things, though I would suggest that if it went into policy, a maximum time was set, that way you never had a case of someone being permabanned without the possibility of parole (which would be even stricter than what we have now).

With the second, I think it's beneficial both to the community and to the vandal if the person that sponsors the vandal and makes the case for them is held responsible for the vandal's actions during a (three month?) probationary period. By holding a sponsor accountable (e.g. both the sponsor and the vandal receive an escalation each time the vandal gets escalated), it will ensure that the sponsors take things more seriously and don't just start parole proceedings for the lulz. It also should help prevent some recidivism, given that the parolee would be aware of the fact that their shenanigans would hurt someone else and the sponsor will likely be actively engaged in trying to keep the parolee on the straight and narrow path.

As for #3, it'd be necessary if we did #2 (otherwise every sponsor we'd ever see would be a meatpuppet who couldn't care less if he was held accountable for anything on the wiki), but even if we didn't do #2, we may want to consider it anyway. Basically, it'd require that a sponsor be in good standing with the wiki, with a relatively low bar for what we consider "good standing". For instance, they've been around for at least three months, they have 250 edits in the last six months, and they have no escalations from the past six months. That should help to ensure that it's actually someone from "the community" who is sponsoring the vandal, rather than some random idiot that just wants to stir up trouble and make some drama.

Annnnnd, that was way more than I meant to type. Sorry for the wall of text, but the "parole" analogy kinda struck me as being rather apt, so grabbing some ideas from it seemed reasonable. —Aichon— 17:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)