Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Abolishing Perma-Bans


Hello fellow Nukapedians. I would like to bring up a discussion centered around abolishing perma-bans as standard ban progression. In the majority of cases, perma-bans are handed out as the culmination of standard ban progression. This means that users that frequently break the rules are eventually subject to permanent removal from the wiki. I believe that this is an inappropriate punishment in most cases. For standard ban progression, I suggest that punishments should culminate in a 1 year ban. There are a couple exceptions, as COPPA violations should continue to run until the user is 13 years old, and spambot bans can still extend until the Great War. The full progression, which should be adhered to in most - if not all other cases - would then follow as:

Standard ban progression

  1. Warning (in chat for chat punishments, on talk page for wiki punishments, within discussion post for discussion punishments)
  2. Kick (for chat punishments)
  3. One day
  4. Three days
  5. One week
  6. One month
  7. One year


At the end of the year, the offending user is allowed to return in all cases following normal ban progression. The onus is on the staff members to prove that the user has not changed in the Nukapedia setting in order for a ban to continue, in which case an additional year-long ban will be applied. This is in opposition to our current policy (the "SaintPain rule"), where the responsibility is on the offending user to prove that they have changed. This is often a futile endeavor, as staff members are typically biased against prior rulebreakers and have the tendency to ignore SaintPain appeals and disregard all but the most influential evidence. This has the consequence of unfairly punishing people that may have genuinely improved.

While the perma-ban is an easy and efficient way to cull very problematic users, it often catches less problematic users and sweeps them under the rug, where the wiki forgets about them entirely. As such, although abolishing the perma-ban as standard ban progression may lead to more work for the current staff roster, I do not believe it will be a noticeable increase in the long run. Assuming a user even returns after one year, staff need only to reapply a ban once a year, at most, and theoretically they will actually spend less administrative time analyzing potential appeals. Only in the immediate short-term will there be more work, where staff will need to rescind current perma-bans applied more than one year ago under these circumstances.

Up until this point, I have been clear to state that this applies only to standard ban progression. Perma-bans should still be available (along with their appeals) in special cases, but these cases must be codified in an exhaustive list of perma-bannable offenses. I encourage users to discuss additional offenses to be added to this list, but I again emphasize that this list should be codified readily on the wiki and in the Discord server and exhausts the full list of offenses. If another offense is to be added to this list, it must be discussed prior to addition and cannot be applied ex post facto. Additionally, these rules can only be enforced if they occur in DMs or on the server itself. If someone breaks one of the below listed rules on another server, it is not Nukapedia's responsibility or authority to punish said user on Nukapedia.

Exhaustive permaban offenses

  1. Grievous threat of injury, sexual assault, or death
  2. Distributing information relating to another user's personal life, including addresses, names, pictures, workplace/school information, phone numbers, email addresses, and other social media accounts
  3. Uploading explicit materials directly to the wiki (does not include Discord/Discussion links)
  4. Inciting large-scale raids against Nukapedia


You may have noticed that I left out certain common offenses. I do not believe that spam, even mass spam, is worthy of a permaban as that is typically an isolated incident well within the confines of standard ban progression. Raids against other servers outside of Nukapedia is still a banworthy offense, but it can readily be handled via standard ban progression since those users still show an effort to be a member of the Nukapedia community. Homophobia, transphobia, racism, posting Nazi imagery, etc. should all remain to be handled via standard ban progression, as they have in the past. I think explicit content appearing in Discord/Discussion posts can be handled under standard ban progression. All of these are typical inappropriate posts that are quick and easy to post and similarly quick and easy to take care of. It is highly likely that the offending user will grow out of this offensive behavior after a year, without the necessity of a perma-ban. Certain steps in the progression can still be "jumped," such as in the case of mass spam or pornography, but they still cannot pass the year mark and I further opine that first offenses should not expand beyond 3 days.

That covers everything I have to introduce about this topic. Let the discussions commence! - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 20:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

: - Adds an indent for replies. Include multiple colons to add longer indents.
# - Adds a numbered list.
* - Adds a bulleted list.
~~~~ - Adds your signature, be sure to include this at the end of every comment!


I think there should be a pathway and process for immediate appeals, allowing those banned an opportunity to share their side right away or at any time instead of waiting a year, but what you have proposed is most assuredly not the way I would navigate. Pickman heart kdarrow take her for a spin! 20:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I’m of the same mind. This is undoubtedly the worst idea I’ve ever heard. Sure, let’s let back in people that solicited adult content to minors, have sent s*xual assault threats, and regularly vandalized the wiki - and still try to with sock puppet accounts. Like you really don’t see how terribly that would go? Frankly, I think this ideology is very out of touch with the community, and your lack of involvement in it, even before you relinquished your rights, only helps to prove how out of touch you are.
Permabans and SaintPain exist for a reason. If someone really ‘’has’’ improved, let them prove it publicly in a forum. This is the one and only comment I will make here, as I feel any retort would be jaded and biased given your attitude towards anything I have done during my time as a chat moderator in the past.
Katy Webb Icon vaulttec A better future, underground! 21:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
If you read the forum in its entirety, which I'm not sure you have, you would notice that threats of sexual assaults are still included as warranting a perma-ban. In fact, I included it in an attempt to dispel some of the negativity I received when I originally brought this idea up in the security desk. Ironically, I actually received support from another user (I shall not divulge their name if they do not wish to be associated with myself or any of my discussion), so maybe I am not as out of touch as you insinuate. As a former chat moderator, I do not believe that allowing vandals back in after a year has passed to be a terrible idea. As for the "soliciting adult content to minors," if you want to add it as a discussion point for the permaban list, go ahead. I just think it ought to be formally spelled out when dealing in such permanent matters. - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 22:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Permabans are applied very rarely (not counting spambots) and always with a very good reason. Allowing users to return after one year like nothing ever happened is guaranteed to cause problems. In fact there are users who are currently permabanned and still causing problems by circumventing bans with socks and editing by proxy. Rewarding this kind of behavior is the worst thing to do, and putting the burden of proof that a user has not changed on staff is absurd. I am however in favor of making the appeal process easier so users who have genuinely improved don't have to wait for an entire year, as Kate suggested. The Appalachian Mandalorian insignia 21:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Stating that permabans are applied rarely is simply untrue. If you look at our own Discord ban log, you would see that there are just as many permabans from 2021 as there were unique temporary bans from 2021. As for the currently permabanned users that are causing problems...there is one, and continuing to act as if he is the devil himself only serves to embolden him further. Quit bringing him up in every single discussion and maybe the wiki would be better off. As for making the process easier, by all means make a suggestion. I made my suggestion here and I've mainly just caught insults for it. - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 22:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't quite get over the optics of this in particular, given that it follows an insistence that Standard Ban Progression should no longer include permabans:

Homophobia, transphobia, racism, posting Nazi imagery, etc. should all remain to be handled via standard ban progression, as they have in the past. I think explicit content appearing in Discord/Discussion posts can be handled under standard ban progression.

I'll say that I sort of understand where you're coming from in that a permaban with potential to appeal after a year is, arguably, just a year long ban with extra steps, but I cannot begin to express how bad it would make us look if we had it specifically outlined in our rules that bigotry, hate speech, and open distribution of phonography are considered "insignificant" or "harmless" enough that they're explicitly exempted from our highest level of punishment.

I'm personally of the same mind as Kate in that I think the solution o misapplied/unjust permabans should be an earlier and easier-to-understand opportunity to appeal. Abolishing the use of permabans for anything except explicit death threats, doxxing, and "large-scale raids" (which is a somewhat vaguely-defined offense, frankly; what constitutes a "large-scale raid"?) seems like a step that is both too far and in the wrong direction. DirtyBlue929 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Homophobia, racism, Nazi imagery, etc. are all behavior that people can grow out of. In the past, they were treated the some as every other minor rule break. None of them are explicitly outlined as being insignificant or harmless, they simply aren't included in the list of permabannable offenses. If you think they deserve to be there, by all means go ahead and suggest. I personally disagree, and I have discussed with one bureaucrat that they have and should remain to be covered under standard ban progression. I specifically asked them, in fact, because I have seen instant permabans be applied to those rules recently and I needed clarification. - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 22:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the basic idea of this forum isn't a bad idea. If nothing else, listing offenses that can cause a jump straight to a permanent ban is a handy thing to be able to point to. I would also point out that this by nature of the Terms of Use, this would not apply to offenses that violate those, additionally the current proposed list includes threats of sexual assault as instant permanent ban offenses. I think things such as ban evasion would be something that could lead to a permanent ban as an example of something that could be added to the list. This might not be the best solution to the problem but it an attempt to address an issue that Kate herself pointed out in that the current banning system is not ideal and can be improved. Ban duration has historically been largely at the discretion of the banning party with guidelines for duration vs offense number, letting folks know clearly what is going to jump you right to a permanent ban makes sense to me more things might need to be added to the list but that's what discussions are for. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it's at least something that can cause discussion and we can improve upon the list. Or it goes no where and we keep things as they are til the next proposal comes along for a suggested change. Richie9999 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna add something onto this as well cause I worry I'm failing to get my point across adequately or express myself fully. I'm not a huge fan of taking tools of enforcement out of the toolbox of those enforcing the rules, but if nothing else I think having a comprehensive list of the kind of stuff that can warrant an instant permanent ban is a solid idea, and if nothing else, we might just be able to make one of those through this discussion to post alongside our rules so folks know where the lines are. Richie9999 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I think your points are clear to follow, though that probably doesn't mean much considering my own points seem to be getting misconstrued at every angle. I agree that ban evasion ought to be included on the permaban list, at least for the evasive accounts. For the original account, I think increasing the standard ban progression is all that is necessary. I am glad that you can find at least one worthwhile point from this forum. It seems many other users are quick to insult and slow to rationally discuss. - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 22:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, going to say no to this one. People are usually permanently banned for good reason. The only tweak I think the progressive ban scaling really needs is having seperate types of offenses to have their own scaling separate from each other. Great Mara (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


I cannot disagree emphatically enough.

As you stated in the majority of cases, permas are issued as the result of a pattern of behavior which has resulted in multiple bans and warnings over the course of at least 2 months, assuming all of their violations of the rules are standard enough to follow the ban scale. Otherwise, the perma is issued for a users whose behavior is flagrant enough to have circumvented the norm, resulting in them receive longer bans a faster rate. The only person who is responsible for these users, who can control the behavior of these accounts and the disruptions caused, is the account holder; the responsibility to prove growth, the onus, is on that user to be able to prove that despite a having caused numbers disruptions, despite the warnings, or despite their past behavior being so severe that it necessitated accelerated bans, they will be a productive or at least cooperative person when returning. The responsibility of staff when faced with a troublesome user who cannot or actively will not communicate with others in an acceptable manner, is to ensure the wiki (be it in editing, discussions, or discord) be able to continue to function without disruption, undue hostility, or griefing.

"While the perma-ban is an easy and efficient way to cull very problematic users, it often catches less problematic users and sweeps them under the rug..."

This is a gross misrepresentation of the user who has earned a permanent ban. The ban is not an "it" which acted of its own accord to chase down and do harm to some otherwise innocent, unsuspecting user who was never afforded any chances. A user behaves poorly, violates the rules of the platform, and does so in fashion displays such persistent defiance of basic user conduct, that it merits staff action.

  • The user violates a rule and is warned.
  • The user continues to violate the rules and is banned. (3 days)
  • Having returned, the user has learned nothing and must be banned again. (1 week)
  • This is still not enough, the user will not cooperate and continues to be a problem, so they must be banned again. (1 month)
  • Despite all of this, the user refuses to learn. The user refuses to be mindful of the community members whose experience they ruin by way of terrible behavior. The user is given the one ban they cannot ignore. (Perma)

There is no "less problematic" user here. This very much is a problematic user, whose behavior over a period of time is indicative of either willful ignorance for the rules, no concern for their fellow users, or an active desire to cause harm to a fan community and volunteer effort. "Less problematic" here means only that they did not perform an act so egregious that a permanent ban was issued more quickly. No one deserves a pat on the back for being mildly less of a problem.

If you want the onus to be on staff? At the end of the bans length, I then submit that the exact behavior displayed to earn the permanent ban is sufficient enough evidence to maintain the ban. The due diligence that need to have been done is in the proper documentation of the banned user's behavior through the ban logs and issues of notice. That work done by staff to maintain the good the community stands firm, and any staff member who points to it as a reason to maintain a permanent ban, would have my backing that the ban remains valid based on the evidence we have available. The permanent ban is a final step, or near enough, that the staff uses because a user is the problem.

"theoretically they will actually spend less administrative time analyzing potential appeals"

This is untrue. Appeals are made so very infrequently, that it would be difficult for less time to be spent on. What will happen in its stead, is the evaluation of every perma, to see the user's continued ban. If you want to make the argument this is a beneficial for staff efficiency, that could not be less accurate.

As far as offering up an exhaustive list of offenses? You make an exhaustive list and draw the line which cannot be crossed, and troublesome users will take that to the limit. Who push as close to the point as they possibly can, but never cross the threshold, not out of any sense of decency, but because it will prolong the overall amount of time they can continue to troll and damage the community. Maybe it was never an issue which you faced as a chat moderator, but I can tell you, as I am sure both Sax and Aish can, that this is a more common theme encountered in discussions than it should be. Folks get a rise out of pushing buttons.

"It is highly likely that the offending user will grow out of this offensive behavior after a year, without the necessity of a perma-ban."

So next year we can look forward to the end of all homophobia, transphobia, racism, and Nazis? One year, that's enough time for the problem to go away, so the whole world will be better, right? So strange that last year bigotry existed, but did not go away at the end of the year. Weirder still that I remember those being problems the year before that as well. It's almost as if this is baseless, bullshit claim which cannot be substantiated in anyway and runs counter to whole of human history. Want a more dignified response to this talking point, punctuate your argument with a claim which is not insulting to the intelligence of every reader who passes through.

Richie said he does not like taking tools out of the tool box for those who need them. This goes beyond just removing tools, and it emboldens and enables users who can and have, for no reason other than their own interest, disrupted or harmed the community. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I have seen more than enough applications of permabans being used as the first step rather than the final step that I felt a need to call the permaban's usage out here, in a public forum. In most cases, they have fallen under the derogatory language/imagery umbrella, which I again stress should remain to be enforced according to standard ban procedures. No one should be instantly permabanned from the wiki because they uttered a slur or admires the history of a highly-decorated tank commander whom just so happens to be a Nazi.
I very specifically said "theoretically" because no one makes any damn appeals. I wonder why. Maybe the process is too difficult or unknown, or maybe they (rightfully) fear the higher-level staff will not be unbiased in their review, or maybe they don't even want to return to the wiki. In the third case, brilliant. No harm, no foul. In the first two cases, there is a problem with Nukapedia that ought to be fixed. THEORETICALLY, if every permabanned user made use of the appeal that they have available to them (even just the ones that actually do desire to return to the wiki for one reason or another) rather than being automatically unbanned after a year, the staff would have less work to deal with. Theoretically.
I never said that the whole universe would grow up as a collective after one year. That, of course, is as impossible as it is for human beings to peacefully negotiate important policies. On the individual scale, you can bet people grow up after a year or two, especially if they are teenagers or young adults, as most of the wiki visitors likely are. Who knows what will happen a year from now. I have an open mind, so I like to believe that on the individual scale, humanity gets slightly better with each year.
Sorry if this comes off poorly, but I've been on the defensive all damn day and my nerves are running thin. - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 23:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to need to check the Security Desk logs to be sure but I'm relatively certain the user you're referring to who themed his profile around a Nazi Commander was globally banned by Fandom for that, and the ban he received from us just before that was because he had been told to change it by a moderator/admin several months beforehand due to people complaining about it, and had ignored the request. DirtyBlue929 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I was unaware that they were globally banned. Personally, I still disagree with the result but that's a Fandom issue at that point. That guy did come across as a younger fellow (though I do believe he said he was in his 30s or something, so maybe just a socially unaware fellow), and he'd be the type of guy I would hope would be able to reflect on that behavior over the next year and return as a healthier individual. Aside from that, he seemed like a nice guy based on the admittedly few interactions I had with him. - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 23:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that user isn't banned, their account was. After being asked to change their Discord profile, which they did, they asked for help renaming their Fandom profile, but were unable to because they had already renamed it once (and Fandom only allows for one account name change). They're currently an active member of the Discord, and while I'm unaware of if they have done so, they were intending to make a new Fandom account with a less contentious name. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I concur with others in that this is a bad idea, for the reasons previously stated in this thread. A system that relies on the better nature of troublesome users and human beings is simply folly, whichever way you want to cut it, someone will always seek to push their luck. I also believe (and this is just my opinion) that you are downplaying the severity of the offences needed to merit a permaban. They're not handed out like candy and if you look at them on a case-by-case basis I think you'll find that the frequency of them is irrelevant and only indicative of just how many users are willing to mess around and end up permabanned despite ample opportunity to stop, and in some cases this includes socks and alt accounts, a consistent problem, that would be exacerbated by a similar system made legitimate for their primary accounts. The figures actually support the notion that permabans are necessary and an essential tool in keeping our wiki a less toxic environment. I also believe your notion of allowing permabans for "special cases" sets a dangerous precedent, even with your proposed system for it.

People may improve beyond their past behaviours, but it does not change the fact that those behaviours were committed, that a suitable punishment must be rendered, and the wiki makes it quite clear in it's rules and guidelines what is and isn't tolerated (which is understood better when users bring some common sense along with them when they read it). I believe that permabans are those suitable punishments in pretty much every case. So, these users may change their behaviour and become decent human beings in a year's time? Then they can look back on their permaban as both a regret and a life lesson that certain behaviours have consequences and it's not the responsibility of others to tolerate them.

If we were to use the system you propose, there would be no deterrent, and it encourages a hypothetical reality where the community suffers the behaviour of hostile and antagonistic users whose only limits will be how far they can push the rules, and even if they pushed too far they'd be able to return. What you're suggesting is a revolving door where those unfit to follow the rules and be decent human beings are slung back into the face of those that wish to enjoy the wiki and it's community in relative peace. It becomes a permanent punishment for bystanders and a constant burden on staff. I don't believe that's how we improve or treat our community, it's also not how life works outside of the wiki, either. Similar to a quote from Harry Day, rules are for the obedience of fools and guidance of the wise. If you manage to get permabanned and it was just, the only person you can blame is yourself. TechnoCrusader (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement