Forum:10 Years on, Amnesty Once More

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → 10 Years on, Amnesty Once More
This thread has been archived.
Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.


Opening Post

Way back in the days of yore, circa 2013 at Thread:146820 in User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon II it was decided that there would be a general amnesty of every blocked account on this wiki in honor of the 50th anniversary, ~400 blocks. We are now 10 years on from this decision and it seems natural that we revisit this decision. (And, quite frankly, looking at some of these I'm unconvinced they should be blocked in the first place. Some of these users are just blocked for using numbers in place of letters.)

(But why, I hear some of you cry, don't we have more important things to do, like Forum:(SPOILER: The start of RtD2) Quickstart Guides? Yeah, yeah, I'm working on it.)

Stated simply, do I think we should completely mirror the decision made in Thread:146820 sans any changes? No. In that thread the only exceptions made for unblocking users were for violations of T:MISLEAD USER, T:OFF USER, and T:SPAM USER. We only have 500 blocks 10 years on, we can afford to be slightly more discerning in how we unblock users. Topics for discussion:

  1. If we have a rule that our spam filter automatically catches variations of a username you've repeatedly referenced to troll admins with, you should probably stay blocked. The immediate instance I'm thinking of is Doug86+1, which will remain blocked for a misleading name anyhow, but just in case, probably a good idea to say that if a filter is set up to keep you out you're staying blocked.
  2. Should the names of organizations and/or businesses be allowed? Traditionally they are not, and we've actually blocked User:Obverse as a result. I think this is a mistake.
  3. Should Youtube Channels be allowed as usernames? Yes, people were blocked for this.
  4. How do we deal with sockpuppets? I've read the ToU, sockpuppets aren't explicitly against them except insofar as Fandom can do whatever they want at any time. We have a few accounts that were locally blocked for sockpuppetry, do we just accept the people back if they say "this is the account I'll be using from here on out"? (I know in at least one instance the user insisted that they really were two separate people and they just occasionally used a friend's account - albeit, the friend did have an earlier account they forgot the password to. How do we deal with that?)
    1. And if a user was previously blocked for sockpuppetry but came back under a new account, just the one at a time, but has been editing here without issue (potentially as sort of an open secret) how do we deal with that? Do we forgive and forget so long as they admit it when the amnesty goes through? Before? I dunno. It's something we do need to talk about.
    2. Also, just briefly, do we care if global blocks exist for sockpuppetry? Would we still allow someone back under a new account even if their old one was globally banned if they admitted it?
  5. Which brings us to the issue of our relationship to Fandom ToU more generally. Do we unblock people who explicitly violated Fandom ToU but only have local blocks? We have a few.
    1. Theoretically we could go further and ask if we allow back users who violated Fandom ToU and got global blocks so long as they identified their previous accounts. The issue here is that I think we're getting into really dicey territory with this one and the last one. (Is there anyone in particular we'd be missing by not allowing this? I know some people who are historically prominent have the Fandom block/user choice notice, but I can't tell which is which.)
  6. Finally, when do we do it? The last one was done on Christmas because that's when most people would want to be editing, during the handover between Doctors. Part of why I made this thread this early is because I do think we need to think about this, but also because I'm not sure that Christmas is the right time for this year. First of all, we have the 60th, but we also have all of our decisions on the wiki leading up to the 60th. There's a fair argument to make that this should be done as soon as possible. I don't think I agree. But neither do I think Christmas is optimal.

If nobody feels that exceptions should be made and we should just follow the precedent of Thread:146820, we can, of course, ignore these points of discussion. But I at least think it's worth discussing these issues. I also think that it's a wonderful idea to do a relatively broad round of amnesty every 10 years or so. People change over time, as do approaches to moderation. How far we wish to go is up to us. Najawin ☎ 22:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Oh, I note it might be worth involving Tangerine/Czech and maybe Spongebob in this thread specifically. Najawin ☎ 00:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, and I agree with everything Najawin has outlined, but don't have any particular opinions on the things he was questioning on. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 06:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Like Ettolrhc, I agree with everything said here but have no opinions on the issues raised. Aquanafrahudy 📢 06:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
people change I am willing to forgive and forget, so I say I agree with Najawin. But have little more to add. Anastasia Cousins ☎ 14:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a great idea, and long overdue. – n8 (☎) 20:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I generally agree with everything @Najawin said.
With businesses in usernames, that does feel like a very illegitimate reason to block someone, and I can't imagine Fandom endorsing it. (And to be fair, "Obverse" is just as much of the name of the company as it is the dimension!)
I've always felt we've been generally too harsh on sockpuppets: I understand blocking those who seek to vandalise the Wiki, but there have been a few instances where a user, who generally means well and genuinely contributes to the Wiki, may have run afoul of a rule (especially in the past when this Wiki was much more strict) and got perma-blocked or left of their own accord, so they created a new account since to continue editing. These sorts of people, frankly, should be welcomed with open arms. Perhaps they should state on their user page which their previous accounts were? Not in such a way where it may feel humiliating, but more of continuity of discussion, so other users can reply to the new account about discussions the person using it participated in with their original accounts.
As for when we could do it, well, perhaps 23 November? I haven't got much reasoning behind it other than "it's vaguely between now and Christmas" and "it's the Doctor Who day!" 16:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh and Tardis:Username policy may have to be updated in light of these proposed changes. 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so back to this important and topical forum thread, I noticed that I didn't actually give my thoughts on each of these options in the OP. I'd suggest changing Tardis:Username policy as well, and I honestly see no reason why people were banned for having yt accounts as names. Sockpuppets are a tricky business. The one we've had running around has caused some tension because some people are aware of the history and others aren't, and so to some it looks like everything is about nothing, and to others it's part of larger patterns. I think the proper decision here is something like we have them announce one week prior to the actual day of amnesty that they're a sock, choose the account to use, and then leave the others blocked. Don't really care about global blocks for sockpuppetry.

I am more worried about the relationship between FANDOM ToU and our amnesty. We have people blocked, effectively, for piracy. That's a bit of a concerning one to unblock knowingly. And to explicitly allow users back who might have had a global block but not a local one... I dunno. I do think Nov 23 is probably the best bet though, and hopefully everything is finalized more than a month out. Najawin ☎ 17:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Najawin's assessment of questions 1-4, have no opinions on 5, and for 6 think 23 November would be best, because I think a lot of people will want to be editing around that time, and also it's the 60th. Aquanafrahudy 📢 18:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Najawin, that's a good idea for handling sockpuppetry. Even when not practiced for ban evasion purposes, it's one of those corrosive practices that can undermine a community. People who don't take the opportunity to own up to their sockpuppets shouldn't be affected by the amnesty. – n8 (☎) 19:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
In regards to those who have committed piracy I say let’s forgive. I am all for forgiveness. But if you feel uncomfortable about this how about a probation period. A kind of for the next six months we will be keeping a close eye on you kind of thing? I don’t know if that’s possible but you get the idea. Or a kind of temporary semi unblock in which they can do something’s but not all? Anastasia Cousins ☎ 07:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm against that, for the same reasons as in the thread 10 years ago. It's too much work for admins. Najawin ☎ 19:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now that that's out in the open, we can speak in less vague terms. Corrie was also User:DiSoRiEnTeD1. A decent amount of the OP was whether we were going to let him come in from the cold officially. Given this thread still isn't closed, and there's a month to go, almost exactly, we should come to a decision on these things. We might say he was breaking the rules too close to when the amnesty went into effect (like what happened 10 years ago, they had a set date after which rules violations didn't merit an unban), or we can just proceed as we were discussing before. Najawin ☎ 18:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, Corrie was many users; while I would not have objected to officially allowing him to contribute and forgiving the frankly-too-harshly-punished act of having more than one account, Corrie's behaviour has warranted his block, in my opinion; just unblocking him would undermine why he has been blocked, so I feel that he should be excluded from this amnesty. 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, a glance at any of DrWhoCorrieFan's talk pages shows a definite pattern which I don't think warrants absolution at this stage. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 19:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I think the suspicion is User:RadMatter as well, for more context in making this decision. Personally, I'd be inclined to give 'em one more chance on the sockpuppet issue. And I do mean one more. But that's me. I've defended DiS more than most on here reasonably would, for some bizarre reason. Najawin ☎ 01:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
See also User:FanSurfer123. DiS has made many excellent edits regarding stories and series that seemingly no one else is interested in covering. At one point an interesting idea was floated of a namespace-specific block, such as banning from Talk and User_talk pages but continuing to allow Main namespace edits. Najawin, I agree with you about another chance. – n8 (☎) 14:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of these amnesties. A block amnesty would unlock everyone, including several outright trolls/vandals. It's better to individually assess each user instead of freeing everyone, including the guy who used to regularly attack User:Doug86 or the guy who lied about being the wiki's founder so he could access admin rights.

And the problem with sock puppetry is users trying to get around blocks. It makes the block useless if someone is allowed to continue editing, though under another name. Shambala108 ☎ 01:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

User:NateBumber please remember that new comments go at the end of a section thanks. Shambala108 ☎ 15:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Re:Shambala's concerns, I feel like both of them are addressed in the OP? This isn't as blanket an amnesty as the last one. Both of the users she mentions would still be blocked. Trolls can grow and change, and the spirit of this is to give them another chance, while still having in place guardrails. At least in my conception. Najawin ☎ 15:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing to both sides of this debate. It is true that trolls can grow and change, I myself have a friend who is a kind person who has admitted to having been a troll in their earlier days. But we also shouldn’t just hand out more chances left and right and continue to do so to despite numerous times proving they have no intention of changing, because frankly that is stretching good faith way too far. At some point there has to be an ending station, so to speak, that shouldn’t grant them another chance. User:DrWHOCorrieFan, to my understanding, does not show their willingness to change and be better. And them having multiple accounts just for the use of getting around blocks is against all good faith in an attempt to evade a block. Even having one “good” account would be proof of this. Yes, they may have done valuable edits with that one account for the wiki, but ultimately is just another reason to evade a block. Danniesen ☎ 15:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Post fork

Well this seems to have largely resolved itself, hasn't it? Najawin ☎ 23:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Conclusion

As observed by User:Najawin, the fork means that our ban lists are de facto empty. I suppose there only remains to enshrine that having previously been blocked on the Fandom-hosted version of Tardis shall not be a blockable offence in and of itself moving forward, although it may, depending on context, constitute aggravating circumstances if wrongdoing resumes. If ever there was a time to give yesterday's problem-users a second chance, this is it. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://tardis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Forum:10_Years_on,_Amnesty_Once_More&oldid=3725969"