UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Limit Ban Period

OK then.

So they're banned by one sysop. For a month. Then 5 sysops must agree with the ban? Is it a vote? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. When there is five sysops supporting the decision, the punishment is enforced, even if there is 10 others against it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats the bit i wasn't sure of. Im going to think about this. Hmmmmmm--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts: a) it's unlikely that a report will remain unruled for a whole month. b) it's hard to imagine that the decision of five sysops will be that different from the decision of the rest of the sysop team. With such a policy, cases such as Izumi could have been prevented, as the user would only have been banned after the support of other sysops. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]}

I agree, just wanted to make sure my understanding was clear.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?/Show Need

What are your reasons for creating a policy such as this? Is there a specific case where multilateral consensus would have made a difference in a decision: recent or past? If so, can you explain how this would help? It just seems like some added burecracy to a system where simplicity means ease of use and understanding. Right now, most sysops can come along and make a ruling in disagreement. It usually leads to a "mob rules" decision. --Ryiis 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Take Amazing example. He was permanently banned by a sysop who was idle for a long period of time on the basis that Amazing had warnings that were not previously registered in A/VD. He would have prolly gathered support for his action, but this system would give the user a fair chance to prevent being permaed... ok, not that fair since all sysops in that time hated him. As you can see in the current cases against Nalikill, a sysop who is not found with the user could have ruled vandalism on any of his cases, and he would have been baned for a year, even if for the smallest of the trivialities. Izumi's case could have turned a completly different scenario if he/she had a chance with this policy. And this adds few bureaucracy, as only a few users ever got to the point of having been baned for more than a month. If you compare the wiki with a Real Life scenario, being permaed is the same as being jailed for life, and such decision is reached only after a jury is assembled. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that that is exactly what misconduct exists for. Misconduct already gives the 5 SysOp review thing too but in a way that doesn't harm the purpose of A/VB.--Karek^maps?! 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct you imply that the sysop is guilty of abusing his powers and banning the user. This policy imply that the sysop is innocent, since he needs support to ban the user for longer periods of time. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what the 5 SysOp thing is there to prevent so yeah, it implies abuse of powers, just like yours implies an absence of trust in a role based completely on that. If a SysOps wrongfully bans a user the SysOp should be misconducted, it's a far less complicated system we have now and it does have ways of dealing with this already.--Karek^maps?! 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And then justify why neutering the A/VB system is a good idea, wouldn't this basically eliminated a SysOp's ability to deal with a large spree of vandalism from any one user for whatever reason? --Karek^maps?! 19:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A user who commits constant vandalism and should be banned for more than a month will be banned for a month, and further punished after five supports on the rule. If this user creates a sock account the sysop is free to execute the full punishment. This chance will only be given to long term users, therefore our General Jack Vandal will be permaed on sight. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In the future don't do that hagnat, the header was a part of my comment. Hagnat, I'm talking about people like Arihmagicks who randomly snap one day and decide "Hey, Fuck the wiki" you are basically making it impossible to deal with them.--Karek^maps?! 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Arima would have simply been baned for a month as soon his fist vandalism was spoted by a sysop, and then dealt with accordingly by the rest of the sysop team. That would even give him a chance to reform --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

And sorry about the header thing... it's just that both headers threat almost the same thing... the need for this policy. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following Hagnat. What if the user had already been banned up to the point where Nali is now, hell what if Nali suddenly decides to go on a vandalism rampage as soon as this policy passes. It would be quite impossible for him to be dealt with with the proposed changes.--Karek^maps?! 20:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this has already been added to the policy, I've got a touch of the flu at the moment, so my concentration isn't 100% but surely we could have a sort of "holding ban" of, say 2 weeks maximum. Therefore, If Nali got banned for a year as would be the case at the moment, he gets banned for a maximum of two weeks, effective immediately of the sysop ruling finding him a vandal. Then the sysop has to get however many other sysops it is to agree with him. If this happens he then serves the year ban, with however much of the two week ban he has served removed. If the sysop cannot find enougth other sysops who agree then Nali becomes unbanned after two weeks of looking. --Seventythree^Talk 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Long Term User

2 months and 100 edits is too little or just enough to classify a user as long term user ?

--People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on my understanding (Funny I know) You lose a warning for every 250 good faith edits you undertake. So any reasonable number under 250 would do it for me, as its established that 250 good edits equals a 'better' user.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives

I like the idea, in principal, of reducing the power of a single sysop to ban a user for either a year or permanently. However, I question the need for year-long or perma-bans, specifically for vandal escalations. Okay, I see why an obvious vandal alt gets perma'd. No contributions - clearly only exists for a single reason. But take the case of Nali, or even go back to Amazing. Would a year ban really reform Nali, or just get rid of them? More likely, the latter. What good does it do? It's not as if Nali is a constant vandal or anything like that. Even Amazing's perma-ban seems a bit odd in context. What was the crime, again? I suggest, and I may policy it up, that year-long and perma-bans for vandal escalations be removed from the system altogether. I'd posit a maximum punishment of 6-month ban, keeping the perma for vandal alts and ad-bots. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean just from vandal escalations, right? Just double checking. I have no idea who Amazing was or why he was banned, but I can agree with you on Nali. Although he'd probably still come back after a year. :)--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just from vandal escalations. I never knew Amazing either - but to be banned from this wiki for the rest of eternity, or even for an entire year, seems a bit extreme as an escalation and, to be honest, I've never understood why it's there (except for vandal alts and ad-bots, as I said). --Funt Solo ^QT 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive heard of both amazing and god. Who was amazing. So are we saying that before this goes to vote there is a need to formalise the banning catergories.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I created Reduce Vandal Escalations, so I'll leave your policy alone now. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have created Reduce Vandal Escalations, so I'll leave this policy alone now. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your input there is very welcome, plus this policy was the spark for mine. Thanks. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a year ban and a perm are pretty much the same thing... A ban is not supposed to be a punishment, rather it is supposed to be a "cooling off period" In most cases a week is long enough for the 'vandal' to calm down and any associated drama to die off. A month should be a last resort and a year is just totally overboard. I do like the idea that any serious ban should need the backing of more than 1 sysop, 5 sounds like a good number but even 3 would be better than just one voice. Given that sysops are supposed to be janitors trusted to do the job but having no additional weight to their opinion I think that any decision which obviously runs contrary to popular opinion should be overturned anyway so I do think this still needs some work --Honestmistake 10:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't even get 5 SysOps ruling on Misconduct cases. --Karek^maps?! 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Point well made but I am only talking about the serious bans, anything over a month certainly and perhaps even the month itself. As I say 3 would be good, 5 would just be better... 1 can/could be just a bit too controversial in some cases! --Honestmistake 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think more sysops making the decision on whether to ban someone will tend to 'average out' any unusual or extreme views of a single sysop, and so the final outcome will tend to be fairer and normaller. It also makes the process look a lot fairer by making it clearer that the suspected vandal won't be banned just because a single sysop dislikes them. --Toejam 05:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)