Bans and Vandalism

[Catzlaflame]

Ban everyone

Introduction​

I am well aware that standardizing every aspect of moderation is not the best way to run a wiki. While somethings can (and should) be left to a staff members sense of judgement, it becomes a problem when there are discrepancies.

The Issue​

As far as I've observed, we don't apply bans for vandalism based on consistent standards.

Obviously, someone who changed a character’s stamina to superhuman, and someone who added a slur on to a page are not gonna be punished to the same degree, but this isn't what I’m referring to; I’m talking about 2 people committing, relatively speaking, the same offense, but receiving different punishments.

This is an issue because it makes us appear inconsistent, and makes it seem as though the severity of someone’s punishment is determined by the individual staff member.

Proof that this is an issue? Well, all one has to do is refer to the ban log. I don't have permission to use someone as an example, but if you scroll through and look at the vandalism bans, you'll see what im talking about.

Proposal​

Now let me make sure I emphasize this. The following "standards" I am proposing are not meant to be a one-size-that-fits-all, universal, set of rules.... situational context takes priority over all else here because there are a lot of things that can effect the situation.

What I am proposing is just meant to be a baseline that ensures that all Admins and Ban-Perm Content Mods are at least sorta on the same page. I think another benefit of having this written down as a baseline standard is that users can understand what the repercussions of their vandalism will be, if they are considering it.

With that said, I suggest we add a new subheading in the Editing Rules titled "Disciplinary Action." That will state the following:

Whenever a user is found to have vandalized a page, staff members will typically step in to redirect the user, and if it’s needed, penalize the user accordingly. Below you will find a general guideline regarding the severity of a punishment as it relates to the level of vandalism.

• Violation: First unauthorized edit (Non-Malicious)
  • Action: Warning and Guideline message directed towards user's wall
• Violation: First unathorized edit (Malicious)
  • Action: Permanent Ban
• Violation: Second unathorized edit (Non-Malicious)
  • Action: 10 day Editing ban and additional guidline message
• Violation: Third unathorized edit (Non-Malicious)
  • Action: 3-month Editing ban and final guideline message
• Violation; Fourth unathorized edit (Non-Malicious)
  • Action: Permanent Ban

I’m open to discuss the nuances of the write-up of course.

But yea, let me know what y’all think.

 

[Catzlaflame]

@Antvasima @DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Qawsedf234 @Maverick_Zero_X @Damage3245 @Just_a_Random_Butler

Input would be appreciated

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do agree we should try to promote more consistency; obviously severity is an ultimate factor. But patterns are also something to look for and one can easily tell if done maliciously just for edited reasons. Upgrading some random urban levels to 1-A or above is something I'd take much more serious issues with compared to just changing some side stats to more reasonable levels; same with downgrading cosmic characters to Tier 11 or worse. Or add Joke Battles Wiki specific tiers to our profiles. More extreme examples really should just be permanent by default, but some more mid to light examples could use more case by case with some degree of leniency. I also do not like simply warning one user while giving a short ban to someone who did mostly the same thing; either both just get warnings or both get short bans. Though, I will say if someone else does the same thing shortly after a different, those could be signs of either sock puppetry or part of a group of vandals; which may extend severity to both users either way; especially if the former is more obvious.

 

[DontTalkDT]

On the second unathorized edit thing I would make that case-by-case.
If for some reason you have the impression the person didn't understand the warning, then maybe a ban for a few days with the ability to still write on the wall is ok. To force them to pay attention to it. If it's someone who contributed in a rule-abiding way before and just needs some time to cool down then a short ban is more appropriate as well.
Otherwise, I don't think 10 days is going to resolve the situation. Like, we're essentially hoping at that point that in the time of the ban a person who has no interest to abiding the rules grows up enough to develop an interest into making regular contributions. Don't think 10 days would do that. In such cases, we should go higher right away IMO.

 

[Antvasima]

I appreciate that you have made a distinction between non-malicious edits (or "clueless edits" as I tend to call this), and malicious edits, but it also depends on the severity of the vandalism, to how many pages it was applied, and how responsive and capable of following instructions that a member seems to be, which turns a strict punishment scale considerably more complicated to set up.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think 10 days is going to resolve the situation. Like, we're essentially hoping at that point that in the time of the ban a person who has no interest to abiding the rules grows up enough to develop an interest into making regular contributions. Don't think 10 days would do that. In such cases, we should go higher right away IMO.

Yes, 10 days does not seem like a nearly sufficiently long time for a clueless and confused member to familiarise themself with our rules and conventions.

 

[Antvasima]

There is also the issue of members who get banned for making serious mistakes, but then apologise in a reasonable manner and promise to never break our rules again, in which case I tend to lessen the ban times.

 

[Dereck03]

Honestly it is "easy" to verify the intentions of a user when changing certain things on a page, from that evaluation you usually decide if the edit has been clueless, in that case you just advise them and leave instructions, it can be if the edit was made with the intention of changing some stat but with a valid reason but that usually can not be so because we have rules to follow all change stats and that is to make a CRT, that's when you get a small warning and from there you can escalate the issue, usually temporary bans are applied to people who do not follow the instructions but not that you can see malicious intent in making the changes, and then come those who simply change ratings to tier 1-A or tier 0 out of nowhere, or simply delete a large amount of the profile just because they feel like it, those are the ones who deserve a permanent ban.

I also tend to be very lenient with the first examples of users as my first edit on the wiki was to vandalize a profile, and if I had been banned for doing so then I would not exist here.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I also do not think that we should immediately ban most clueless accidental vandal members, unless they make very extreme changes.

Maybe we can use the following scale as a rough initial draft?

1st clueless vandalism offence: Usually a warning, with exceptions for more extreme cases.

2nd clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 2 weeks to 1 month ban, with potential adjustments depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

3rd clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 3 to 6 months ban depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

4th clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 1 year to permanent ban, depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

5th clueless vandalism offence: A permanent ban.

 

[FinePoint]

TL;DR:
This is a good thing, but needs to define malicious/clueless.

Summary of my positive thoughts:
Having standards for punishment don't just make the system more fair, they also make it easier to use and understand.
It gives a reference to both staff and regular users how a typical offense is handled and exactly how serious it's considered.
It empowers staff to exercise their authority when needed with far less anxiety of doing something wrong.
Having this template doesn't imply it always has to be followed, and still allows plenty of room for staff to change their mind or consider the context, such as a genuine apology like Ant mentioned.

Summary of my negative thoughts:
It would be helpful if words like malicious, severity, and clueless were properly defined. Obviously people know the definition of these words and can apply them in context, but I mean examples to work off of. What does severe, but clueless vandalism look like? What do we consider minor, but malicious? Since severity can increase the punishment, just include an or in the rules.

Example of Proposal:

Whenever a user is found to have vandalized a page, staff members will typically step in to redirect the user, and if it’s needed, penalize the user accordingly. When deciding a course of action, they typically consider the intention and severity of the incident, such as if it's a major malicious edit or just a minor clueless one. Below you will find a general guideline regarding the severity of a punishment as it relates to the level of vandalism.

1st malicious vandalism offence: Permanent ban.

For example, if someone adds obviously offensive content to a page, or makes obviously nonsensical and drastic changes to a popular page such as putting Superman in 11-A because he's just a cartoon, chances are they are malicious and have no intention of ever participating honestly.​

1st clueless vandalism offence: Usually a warning, with exceptions for more extreme cases such as changing the structure of an entire page, or moving a character to a vastly higher tier. In these severe cases, a 2 week or 1 month ban may be warranted instead.

Most cases of clueless vandalism deserving just a warning will involve either a simple misunderstanding, or ignorance of site rules, such as applying a revision before it's accepted, or not knowing they need to be accepted.​

2nd clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 2 weeks to 1 month ban, with potential adjustments depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

3rd clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 3 to 6 months ban depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

4th clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 1 year to permanent ban, depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

5th clueless vandalism offence: A permanent ban.

Anecdote:
When I managed a fairly large Minecraft server with a staff team, we similarly had a policy that each incident should be handled case-by-case and using their best judgement. The reasons for this are obvious, but the problem became clear pretty soon: many staff members were actually afraid to ever issue any punishments because they held anxiety or uncertainty about exactly how harsh they were expected to be.

The solution was simple, without detracting from their freedom of a moderator to make their own decisions if they felt it was needed: we added a template, kind of like this one. If a moderator wanted, when they issued a ban, they could select a preset ban reason and duration from a list we prepared containing typical infractions and typical punishments. When this was in place, they were far more willing to actually exercise their authority, rather than just issue endless warnings, or worse: just always reporting every small thing to someone higher up, asking exactly what to do and waiting on them (which defeated the entire purpose of us hiring staff). Obviously we can't easily add a button or a custom GUI here like on a Minecraft server, but the utility of having a template or guideline somewhere remains the same.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yes, I also do not think that we should immediately ban most clueless accidental vandal members, unless they make very extreme changes.

Maybe we can use the following scale as a rough initial draft?

1st clueless vandalism offence: Usually a warning, with exceptions for more extreme cases.

2nd clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 2 weeks to 1 month ban, with potential adjustments depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

3rd clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 3 to 6 months ban depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

4th clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 1 year to permanent ban, depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

5th clueless vandalism offence: A permanent ban.

This looks reasonable to me.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Ban everyone

How about you get banned?

Yes, I also do not think that we should immediately ban most clueless accidental vandal members, unless they make very extreme changes.

Maybe we can use the following scale as a rough initial draft?

1st clueless vandalism offence: Usually a warning, with exceptions for more extreme cases.

2nd clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 2 weeks to 1 month ban, with potential adjustments depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

3rd clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 3 to 6 months ban depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

4th clueless vandalism offence: Usually a 1 year to permanent ban, depending on the severity of the offence or offences.

5th clueless vandalism offence: A permanent ban.

If we use this as intended and recognize the importance of situational context to prevent rigidity and avoid misusing the guidelines to impose inappropriate punishments, then I am in favor of a proposal like this. It allows for a range of ban durations based on the severity of the offense anyways.

Also, while I understand the original intent of "clueless vandalism", I want to clarify that vandalism is typically intentional or deliberate. Not all disruptive editing constitutes vandalism, but all vandalism is inherently disruptive editing. Therefore, if we are referring to "inadvertent" or "clueless" vandalism, it should be considered a less severe form of disruptive editing and we should likely avoid using the term "vandalism" in such cases, even if it's prefixed with "clueless". I think it's very important to make this distinction.

 

[GarrixianXD]

yeah, ban everyone.

Anyways, Ant makes sense to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I appreciate that you have made a distinction between non-malicious edits (or "clueless edits" as I tend to call this), and malicious edits, but it also depends on the severity of the vandalism, to how many pages it was applied, and how responsive and capable of following instructions that a member seems to be, which turns a strict punishment scale considerably more complicated to set up.

There is also the issue of members who get banned for making serious mistakes, but then apologise in a reasonable manner and promise to never break our rules again, in which case I tend to lessen the ban times.

Well, going by the above, we need to create a more complicated punishment scale rule draft than what I suggested above.