Banning Reworking

[Xoid]

I'm aware that Odd hates the idea of a permanent ban, but we need to be realistic here: if someone stews an entire year and comes back to vandalise the wiki, then it should be blatantly obvious that they are irredeemable.

I think that a permanent ban should be instituted for those who prove themselves to be idiots -- even after a year off. By the same token, if it's borderline we do not want to risk alienating or exiling someone who may have learnt their lesson.

So this is my proposed reform to the system:

• Warnings will be considered null and void at the rate of one per two and a half months
• Bannings are permanent, and unchanging.
• A null and void warning will be crossed out on Vandal Data.
• Before another banning may take place, the user must have two current warnings.

Everyone see where I am going with this? There is leeway there for extended good behaviour, but if someone acts like an idiot, they can still get banned quickly enough.

[admin]

yeah, i like it. If they can behave themselves for 2 and a half months then i'd say they've reformed.

[Max Grivas]

This seems to be a good pace to wipe off warnings.

I do think there is room for some form of discipline between 2 warnings and permanent ban.
One might go stupid for a couple of days in a row then be able to straighten up in a week or two.
A permanent ban being the only form of ban just seems a little rough to me.

You seem to imply you do not want to risk alienating or exiling but the bulleted item seems to present a permanent ban as the only option.

[Xoid]

I do think there is room for some form of discipline between 2 warnings and permanent ban.
One might go stupid for a couple of days in a row then be able to straighten up in a week or two.

What? They've managed to continually vandalise the place, despite knowing that what the consequences are, enough to get banned for an entire year, they come back and fuck the place up (again) and you'd give them a 40th chance? You are kidding me, right?

[Max Grivas]

No I was not referring to someone who had been banned for a year. I may not understand where the element you've described fits into the big picture.

Where does it fit into or does it replace the rules for things like a 1 day ban or a 1 year ban?

If this only applies to what will happen after a 1 year ban then yes I agree that a permanent ban would be the appropriate next step. There is no point in adminsitering someones yearly banning ... and again. ... and again.

[Xoid]

No I was not referring to someone who had been banned for a year. I may not understand where the element you've described fits into the big picture.

Where does it fit into or does it replace the rules for things like a 1 day ban or a 1 year ban?

If this only applies to what will happen after a 1 year ban then yes I agree that a permanent ban would be the appropriate next step. There is no point in adminsitering someones yearly banning ... and again. ... and again.

Ah sorry. Seems I've shot my mouth off over something ambiguous that I'm to blame for. No, the "permanent and unchanging" bit means that they'll never be considered "null and void". Once you get banned, it stays on your record. So, lets say:

Example Vandal:

• Warning - 2005-8-21
• Warning - 2005-10-1
• Banned for 24 hours - 2005-11-19

If he does not vandalise again, then once it hits 2006-1-1 the first warning will be struck out. If he then vandalises twice again on 2006-1-2, a new warning will be added, then he'll be banned for 48 hours.

Working Together[/color][/b]
Hammero, Matt, Cyberbob and I have been collabarating on rewriting the vandalism rules. You may see what we've done so far on the page "Making the Policies Not Suck". Others are free to contribute onstructive criticism on the talk page, but I ain't 100% sure if you're allowed to actually edit the page itself.