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.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69 @Shadowbokunohero @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame @Vzearr @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Propellus @AbaddonTheDisappointment @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DMUA @TheRustyOne @Jasonsith @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Dalesean027 @DemiiPowa @Flashlight237 @SeijiSetto @Chariot190 @SunDaGamer

Do any of you have constructive suggestions regarding this?

 

[Planck69]

Your suggestion seems fine with me.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

I don't really have anything else to add, Ant's suggestion seems fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you, but I personally think that we need a bit more complicated draft than what I suggested above.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/bans-and-vandalism.169365/post-6606770

 

[Catzlaflame]

Sorry I’ve been meaning to return to this; I’ll work out a more detailed draft based on what you said.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for your help.

 

[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.

Already commented, but this looks good to me.

 

[Firestorm808]

For me personally, unless an edit was clearly malicious, I'm more liberal with slaps on the wrists. As for my limit of non-malicious edits, it depends on how annoying it gets.

 

[Theglassman12]

Ant's suggestion seems fine to me.

 

[Flashlight237]

I'm not exactly the kind of person to ask about vandalism policy as I only truly moderated one wiki and it's one for the game "Eliatopia". I'm just a beige rectangle here, and even then I have ran fades with Wiki staff enough times for my opinion to not be warranted here. But if you need my input, I wouldn't mind a stricter vandalism effort provided nuance still remains.

I do have a question. What about evident jokes? As an example, I have reported a Skateboard Jesus joke page and a CoryxKenshin joke page to the wiki, even though it is evident that they were joke pages (which I personally think would be best left for JBW to handle, but I needed that contingency).

 

[Catzlaflame]

What about evident jokes?

We’re not particularly consistent with how we respond to those (I.e., this thread exists) I’ve seen people delete the page and just move on, but also seen people apply like an insta perma ban.

Generally, what I’ve seen from unspoken, unwritten rules tho is that we should determine if the person made the page out of sheer cluelessness or out of malicious intent.

The former would only warrant minor “repercussions” (if it could even be called that tbh — probably like a warning message), while the latter would call for a ban.

This is obviously excluding excruciating circumstances like the “joke” page being filled with Nazi rhetoric or like insults to another user or sm.

 

[Antvasima]

Generally, what I’ve seen from unspoken, unwritten rules tho is that we should determine if the person made the page out of sheer cluelessness or out of malicious intent.

The former would only warrant minor “repercussions” (if it could even be called that tbh — probably like a warning message), while the latter would call for a ban.

This is obviously excluding excruciating circumstances like the “joke” page being filled with Nazi rhetoric or like insults to another user or sm.

That is quite correct, yes.

 

[FinePoint]

Do any of you have constructive suggestions regarding this?

My first post contained a proposal for some additions to your original draft which attempted to expand on more of the nuance.
What do you feel is missing and/or incorrect about it? If you let me know, I'm glad to propose further revisions.
Or are you asking someone to rewrite the template entirely from scratch?

Either way, I will repost it below, since it was embedded in a lot of other thoughts before.

---

Spoiler: Draft

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.

 

[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.

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.

As I stated earlier, I want a considerably more elaborate structure initially based on my draft above, as minor clueless vandalism should be treated considerably less harshly than many instances of vandalism, removing all content from our wiki pages, or very significantly changing tiers, for example, so sweepingly using one size fits all punishments seems inappropriate and far too constraining.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Bump. I’ll figure out a draft later on today.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[FinePoint]

Bump. I’ll figure out a draft later on today.

This is a friendly reminder that this is still needed.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, other staff members are also free to make sensible and well-structured suggestions in this regard.

 

[GarrixianXD]

This is a friendly reminder that this is still needed.

Sorry for the delay. As to why it happened, I won't delve into it.

This is what I have to say about the matter:

Spoiler

When users make sweeping changes to our pages without approval, the staff team will generally issue a warning message and guide them on how to become constructive members. After receiving a warning for such unsolicited sweeping edits, users are expected to adhere to our wiki guidelines going forward. It is important to note that these unauthorized sweeping changes are considered vandalism on this wiki.

For reference, we have general guidelines on how we give punishments for actions of vandalism. Below is a chart outlining the general guidelines for the severity of punishments for users who commit vandalism, based on prior warnings and the severity of the violations:

First Vandalism Offense with No Prior Warnings: A warning is usually issued if the user has no previous vandalism record. If the vandalism is exceptionally severe, such as a major structural alteration or drastically changing a character’s tier, the user may face a ban ranging from 2 weeks to 1 month for their first offence.

Second Vandalism Offense with 1 Warning: Typically results in a 2-week to 1-month ban, depending on the severity of the offence. If the user has two instances of significant vandalism, with the first offence already resulting in a temporary ban, they may be considered malicious by the staff team and face more severe penalties.

Third Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Usually results in a ban of 3 to 6 months, depending on the severity of the offences.

Fourth Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Typically results in a ban of 1 year or a permanent ban, depending on the severity of the offences.

Fifth Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Results in a permanent ban.

All of this is rather applicative for clueless violations and we initially assume the user does not have malicious intentions, if we’re giving penalties according to the general guidelines.

There are undoubtedly exceptions to these general guidelines if the user is shown to have malicious intents and the initial assumption of them being clueless is disregarded:

Extreme cases:

• New or unknown users making irrational changes, such as assigning tier 1 to 0 ratings to characters that do not belong in those tiers, or altering a notably powerful character to an excessively low tier like tier 11.
• Page blanking or deletion upon all the page's content.
• Adding illegal or disturbing imagery that is highly unsettling.
• Inserting, embedding, or uploading malicious files and links.
• Edits that include threats or information that may endanger the safety of other users.
• Uploading or inserting coarse or obscene content, examples being any form of pornography.
• Actions that strictly violate Fandom's terms of service and consequently result in a global ban.
• Any edit that is conspicuously malicious/shown to be harmful in nature.

All of these aforementioned severe acts of vandalism will lead to a straight indefinite ban from the site without any warning set.

Other less severe cases:

• Persistent vandalism requires immediate staff intervention, especially after warnings, which may indicate malicious intent.
• Continuous major vandalism necessitates immediate staff action, especially after warnings, potentially revealing malicious behaviour.
• Inserting or replacing existing content with complete nonsense or gibberish to pages.
• Any edit that shows a user’s malicious intention but is rather mostly harmless in nature itself.

These listed cases are less severe compared to the former but will be given harsher punishment than the general guideline for penalties against rather clueless vandalism. This guideline should not be interpreted that users who commit violations that fall in these cases will be free from a permanent ban, as depending on the severity, the user may be permanently banned nonetheless if their actions are deemed as too detrimental for them to be kept on the wiki.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out.

However, please remember that edits that are clearly intentionally malicious, rather than clueless, also tend to warrant an automatic permanent ban, unless they were mostly harmless in nature.

Also, our bureaucrats need to determine if the suggested standard ban times seem appropriate.

 

[DontTalkDT]

When users make sweeping changes to our pages without approval, the staff team will generally issue a warning message and guide them on how to become constructive members. After receiving a warning for such unsolicited sweeping edits, users are expected to adhere to our wiki guidelines going forward. It is important to note that these unauthorized sweeping changes are considered vandalism on this wiki. Below is a chart outlining the general guidelines for the severity of punishments for users who commit vandalism, based on prior warnings and the severity of the violations:

First Vandalism Offense with No Prior Warnings: A warning is usually issued if the user has no previous vandalism record. If the vandalism is exceptionally severe, such as a major structural alteration or drastically changing a character’s tier, the user may face a ban ranging from 2 weeks to 1 month for their first offence.

Second Vandalism Offense with 1 Warning: Typically results in a 2-week to 1-month ban, depending on the severity of the offence. If the user has two instances of significant vandalism, with the first offence already resulting in a temporary ban, they may be considered malicious by the staff team and face more severe penalties.

Third Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Usually results in a ban of 3 to 6 months, depending on the severity of the offences.

Fourth Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Typically results in a ban of 1 year or a permanent ban, depending on the severity of the offences.

Fifth Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Results in a permanent ban.

It should be noted that there are exceptions to these general guidelines:

Extreme exceptions:

• New or unknown users making irrational changes, such as assigning tier 1 to 0 ratings to characters that do not belong in those tiers, or altering a notably powerful character to an excessively low tier like tier 11.
• Page blanking or deletion upon all the page's content.
• Adding illegal or disturbing imagery that is highly unsettling.
• Inserting, embedding, or uploading malicious files and links.
• Edits that include threats or information that may endanger the safety of other users.
• Uploading or inserting coarse or obscene content, examples being any form of pornography.
• Actions that strictly violate Fandom's terms of service and consequently result in a global ban.

All of these aforementioned severe acts of vandalism will lead to a straight indefinite ban from the site without any warning set.

Other less severe exceptions:

• Persistent vandalism requires immediate staff intervention, especially after warnings, which may indicate malicious intent.
• Continuous major vandalism necessitates immediate staff action, especially after warnings, potentially revealing malicious behaviour.
• Inserting or replacing existing content with complete nonsense or gibberish to pages.

These exceptions are less severe compared to the former but will be given harsher punishment than the general guideline for penalties against rather clueless vandalism. This guideline should not be interpreted that users who commit violations that fall in these exceptions will be free from a permanent ban, as depending on the severity, the user may be permanently banned nonetheless if their actions are deemed as too detrimental for them to be kept on the wiki.

Should this be specific to just sweeping changes? I think this should apply to changes in general, unless I interpret that specifier in a different way than intended. I would understand sweeping changes to mean changes to many pages.

And, as Antvasima said, I think a clause should be added that anything that's evidently malicious can get way longer bans then the standard.

Aside from that, I'm ok with this.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Should this be specific to just sweeping changes? I think this should apply to changes in general, unless I interpret that specifier in a different way than intended. I would understand sweeping changes to mean changes to many pages.

And, as Antvasima said, I think a clause should be added that anything that's evidently malicious can get way longer bans then the standard.

Aside from that, I'm ok with this.

I worded it off according to our site rules, as it says:

Before making sweeping or significant changes to characters or verse pages, please start a thread in the Content Revision forum first, so that the suggestions may be evaluated by our Staff and the community at large, to ensure that they are acceptable.

Of course, it applies and covers for all changes that are required for content revision threads. Anyways, I made changes to my draft and followed Ant’s suggestion, where I added:

>All of this is rather applicative for clueless violations and we initially assume the user does not have malicious intentions, if we’re giving penalties according to the general guidelines.

Right below the chart outlining the general guidelines for punishment.

Any edit that is conspicuously malicious/shown to be harmful in nature.

To the extreme exceptions section (I renamed it to extreme cases).

Any edit that shows a user’s malicious intention but is rather mostly harmless in nature itself.

To the other less severe exceptions section (I renamed it to other less severe cases).

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. I will likely have to go through and somewhat reword your draft later, but I unfortunately do not have the available time and energy right now.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Hmm. I will likely have to go through and somewhat reword your draft later, but I unfortunately do not have the available time and energy right now.

I haven’t included creation of pages that violates our site guidelines and standards into the chart for punishments. Perhaps it’ll be a good idea to discuss about that here as well.

 

[AKM sama]

I am not a big proponent of standardizing everything, but I agree with the thread. It's quite easy to tell whether the edit is malicious or not. I think we are all on the same page regarding malicious edits getting permabanned.

As for clueless edits, I agree that for the first time, we generally give guidance to them. But if they continue even after that, we generally ban them for 2 weeks to 1 month depending on the context. If they come back and do it again, I'd personally go for a year long ban and then permaban.

So overall, I agree with standardizing this while also leaving some wiggle room. But I'd say we don't have to wait for 5 edits. 4th stage is where I'd personally give up on the user.

Sorry for the delay. As to why it happened, I won't delve into it.

This is what I have to say about the matter:

Spoiler

When users make sweeping changes to our pages without approval, the staff team will generally issue a warning message and guide them on how to become constructive members. After receiving a warning for such unsolicited sweeping edits, users are expected to adhere to our wiki guidelines going forward. It is important to note that these unauthorized sweeping changes are considered vandalism on this wiki.

For reference, we have general guidelines on how we give punishments for actions of vandalism. Below is a chart outlining the general guidelines for the severity of punishments for users who commit vandalism, based on prior warnings and the severity of the violations:

First Vandalism Offense with No Prior Warnings: A warning is usually issued if the user has no previous vandalism record. If the vandalism is exceptionally severe, such as a major structural alteration or drastically changing a character’s tier, the user may face a ban ranging from 2 weeks to 1 month for their first offence.

Second Vandalism Offense with 1 Warning: Typically results in a 2-week to 1-month ban, depending on the severity of the offence. If the user has two instances of significant vandalism, with the first offence already resulting in a temporary ban, they may be considered malicious by the staff team and face more severe penalties.

Third Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Usually results in a ban of 3 to 6 months, depending on the severity of the offences.

Fourth Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Typically results in a ban of 1 year or a permanent ban, depending on the severity of the offences.

Fifth Vandalism Offense with Prior Warnings: Results in a permanent ban.

All of this is rather applicative for clueless violations and we initially assume the user does not have malicious intentions, if we’re giving penalties according to the general guidelines.

There are undoubtedly exceptions to these general guidelines if the user is shown to have malicious intents and the initial assumption of them being clueless is disregarded:

Extreme cases:

• New or unknown users making irrational changes, such as assigning tier 1 to 0 ratings to characters that do not belong in those tiers, or altering a notably powerful character to an excessively low tier like tier 11.
• Page blanking or deletion upon all the page's content.
• Adding illegal or disturbing imagery that is highly unsettling.
• Inserting, embedding, or uploading malicious files and links.
• Edits that include threats or information that may endanger the safety of other users.
• Uploading or inserting coarse or obscene content, examples being any form of pornography.
• Actions that strictly violate Fandom's terms of service and consequently result in a global ban.
• Any edit that is conspicuously malicious/shown to be harmful in nature.

All of these aforementioned severe acts of vandalism will lead to a straight indefinite ban from the site without any warning set.

Other less severe cases:

• Persistent vandalism requires immediate staff intervention, especially after warnings, which may indicate malicious intent.
• Continuous major vandalism necessitates immediate staff action, especially after warnings, potentially revealing malicious behaviour.
• Inserting or replacing existing content with complete nonsense or gibberish to pages.
• Any edit that shows a user’s malicious intention but is rather mostly harmless in nature itself.

These listed cases are less severe compared to the former but will be given harsher punishment than the general guideline for penalties against rather clueless vandalism. This guideline should not be interpreted that users who commit violations that fall in these cases will be free from a permanent ban, as depending on the severity, the user may be permanently banned nonetheless if their actions are deemed as too detrimental for them to be kept on the wiki.

But overall I am okay with this.