NSWiki:Arbitration/Syskeyia/Policy Enforcement

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Policy enforcement proposal

Recognising the following as basic facts for this policy renforcement discussion:

  • The principles of the Final Decision in the previous arbitration case against Syskeyia
  • Syskeyia has violated, repeatedly, arbitration principles in the Christianity edit by incorporating RL references. These violations were initially responded to by discussing the matter on the talk page.
  • User did not recognise the arbitration decisions. Kept editing banned RL-references back in to the Christianity entry while showing blatant disregard for consensus-seeking principles (by deleting entire paragraphs, un-doing improvements etc)
  • User showed blatant disregard for agreements reached earlier regarding the line on the 'Dignitas Humanae' in #NSwiki and stried to use a sneaky minor edit to put his own point of view back into a line which he had accepted as a compromise on IRC.
  • User entered a reverting battle with sysops (Frisbeeteria and Knootoss) when they pointed out these were violations, resorting to re-reverting reverts and such. User persisted in doing this even after being blocked.
  • User still does not seem to have internalised arbitration policy decisions in his editing behaviour, instead showing blatant disregard for them.

Therefore, a discussion on a more effective policy enforcement for these arbitration decisions as wel as Wiki policy in general is needed, insofar as it relates to Syskeyia. General principles of importance are recognised by me to be:

  • To abide by the spirit of Wiki, as well as its regulations which we all agreed to. This includes the notion that permanent bans are extremely rare in the 'big' Wiki
  • Not to punish users retroactively, but to recognise that policies can change in the light of past developments.
  • The need for all users to work in good faith at this collaborative project; to make an honest attempt at NPOV and to be constructive in their editing so that the NSWiki can be improved.
  • The need for NSwiki policies to be adaptive to newly arising problems, especially if users do not share these very same wiki "values" and policies.

Upon deliberating various possibilities of enforcement we have to recognise, further:

  • That Syskeyia is not very active, so blocks must be of sufficiently long time for there to be any learning effect. Also in the light that 24-hour blocks in the past have prompted no change in behaviour whatsoever. (To the contrary, calls for the involved sysops to resign)
  • That this user can potentially make useful contributions to the project if he wants to, but he does not do this currently because of his preoccupation with morality-related edits. (Causing him to ignore suggestions by several sysops for improvements to his own articles, for example, while spending all his time with Christianity.)
  • That most violations of arbitration policy by this user relate to morality-related edits because user seems to be unable to accept anything less then his own (Orthodox-Catholic) idea in matters relating to morality and that his exact interpretation must be used. User is consistently not making an attempt at honest NPOV in these matters nor will he suffer others to balance out his views.

Therefore, the follwing measures of execution of arbitration policy are proposed to remedy the situation

  1. The system of 24-hour bans for Syskeyia shall be replaced by a system of succesively increasing bans, leading up to a permanent ban. The suggested length would be: three month block - three month block - permaban
  2. Syskeyia shall be barred from editing morality-related entries. This shall apply to all entries in the categories "Religions" and "Political theories" and any not yet existing categories the sysops shall deem to be morality-related in the future. It shall also apply to (sections of) articles not belonging to these categories which deal with morality-related issues including but not limited to: matters of Catholic doctrine, homosexuality, abortions, euthanasia, etc. Explicitly exempted from this are his own articles, relating to his own nation. Violations of any nature shall be reverted, and user shall be blocked on sight according to point 1).

-- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 14:21, 18 Dec 2004 (GMT)


  • I concur in general with Knoot's general recognition of principles and enforcement ideas. I'd support a slower length of time for blocks and a more gradual increase in their spans, but that's just because I'm generally more lenient on punishments than most people on this planet. However, point 2 seems to me to be dead-on accurate. --Goobergunch|? 19:02, 19 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • I concur with Goobergunch in all particulars. (I'd also like to remind ALL wiki community members that this sort of discussion is open to any wiki member. This is not a 'sysops-only' discussion.) → Fris Θtalk 21:43, 19 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • Good to hear :) -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 19:17, 20 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • I have been been watching the editing events descibed and followed your communication with the user mentioned. I have read the text above and I think it is fair and clearly explains it's points. Thank you for pointing out it was an open discussion too! --Nevareion 19:30, 20 Dec 2004 (GMT)
    • Heh - unless it says you can't, you can usually jump right in (Be bold). I would understand being a tad less bold here because it's an Arbitration header - however, it's quite unneccessary. :) --Goobergunch|? 19:41, 20 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • I agree with Knoot's statements. I'm treading on thin ice here, but it's a shame that religion, as Karl Marx said, is the opiate of the people - at times. IdioC- ðtalk 22:13, 28 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • Three month / Three month / Ban seems a bit too much a bit too quick, so I'd recommend perhaps One month / three month / ban. It could also be argued that he's already given up his one-month chance so... *shrug* Looks good to me.--Scolopendra 21:45, 30 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • While three months may look extreme, I believe that it is designed to be a deterrent more than anything else. Perhaps if Syskeyia knows that he faces a three month ban, he will be less likely to violate the terms of his arbitration. As such, I'll have to agree with Knoot's 3/3/+b suggestion. Nightbane 22:25, 30 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • Should not relaxation of the terms be taken into consideration in the event that Syskeyia complies. Perhaps: If for three months (say 20 edits at the least within this period, otherwise it lasts until 20 edits from the institution of this by User:Syskeyia have been made [or something of similar style]) no terms are breached, the terms of enforcement are rendered void, unless the decision is made to undertake the policy once more. Or some kind of relaxation of the terms, if they are not violated over a period of time. Rechze(talk) 06:34, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • I personally would not be in favour of an automatic reduction of "sentence" without some kind of review at the time. The punishment set should be binding as it is creating a precedent. --Nevareion 17:55, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT) 12:01, 31 Dec 2004 (GMT)
I would accept a review that would be considering relaxation, instead of automatic relaxation, but so long as the above terms do not permanently remain if Syskeyia chooses to comply. It could always be taken into consideration, if all goes well now, in any far later conflicts involving Syskeyia. Rechze(talk) 06:29, 6 Jan 2005 (GMT)
  • Although late to this debate, I have followed the on-going discussion with Syskeyia. I hate to see users being banned, it really is the last resort for a communally-generated resource, but I see no other option in this case. However, I think an escalation leading to a permanent ban is unnecessary and is more about some kind of punishment for Syskeyia than for the protection of the resource. I'd prefer a rolling 3-month ban. Sacco and Vanzetti 18:14, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)
  • Any chance that Syskeyia's ban time could be reduced from 3 months? I understand that he's been flogging a dead horse for quite some time now, and that he shouldn't have, but 3 months is an awfully long period of time to be banned from NSwiki. It is such a big step up from 24 hours to 3 months. Maybe a period of a few weeks or a month is more in order? Knowing that he should've been banned for 3 months before being reprieved to a shorter period would probably make him think twice about getting back on board the encyclical train. He'd know that there would be no hesitation the next time, surely. Just my two cents - I hate to see active users banned. --Pantocratoria 05:27, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)


Syskeyia was banned by Fris for three months a couple days ago - more details at User:Syskeyia/Ban. I've copy-pasted an IRC log from tonight (GMT-5) below. Comments on the whole situation are appreciated. --Goobergunch|? 02:54, 3 Mar 2005 (GMT)

[21:17:28] * Syskeyia [syskeyiapo@REDACTED] has joined #NSwiki
[21:17:32] <Syskeyia> Hello
[21:17:40] * Goobergunch sets mode: +v Syskeyia
[21:17:42] <@Goobergunch> Greetings.
[21:17:50] * LLCoolTH|ihategirls is now known as LLCoolTH
[21:19:19] * +Syskeyia wonders if he could have his "ban time" shortened
[21:20:57] <+LLCoolTH> I think for asking you should have it lengthened.
[21:21:21] <+Syskeyia> Oops.  Sorry.
[21:21:35] <+LLCoolTH> Not my call though.
[21:21:36] <@Goobergunch> I, however, am always interested in hearing all opinions.
[21:21:42] * @Goobergunch returns to lurking.
[21:22:16] <+Syskeyia> Well, I emailed Fris earlier today, but he hasn't responded.
[21:22:58] <+Syskeyia> My "edits" simply omitted the entire "recognition" thing altogether, IMHO.
[21:23:24] <+LLCoolTH> Well, unfortunately for you, everybody else came up with a differnet opinion.
[21:23:30] <+LLCoolTH> Majority rules after all.  ;)
[21:24:00] * +Syskeyia notes LLCoolTH is not a sysop
[21:25:05] <+LLCoolTH> No, I'm not, but as a community member of NSWiki, as Goober said, all opinions are entertained.
[21:25:17] <@Goobergunch> After a review of NSwiki:Arbitration/Syskeyia/Policy Enforcement, it seems that three months was a pretty clear community consensus.
[21:25:36] <+Syskeyia> Anything I can do to get it shortened?
[21:26:15] <+LLCoolTH> Stop asking.
[21:26:35] <@Goobergunch> I don't like to take actions unilaterally, so I'm just going by what that page says.
[21:26:54] * +Syskeyia thinks three months is excessive
[21:27:46] <@Goobergunch> You'll note that I was one of the only people on that page that also thought that three months was a lot.
[21:28:03] <@Goobergunch> I don't see any comments by you on that page, though.
[21:28:31] <+Syskeyia> Where?
[21:28:59] <@Goobergunch> NSwiki:Arbitration/Syskeyia/Policy Enforcement
[21:29:28] <+Syskeyia> URL?
[21:29:40] <@Goobergunch> http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/NSwiki:Arbitration/Syskeyia/Policy%20Enforcement
[21:30:39] <+Syskeyia> Ack!  So what can I do?
[21:30:54] <@Goobergunch> I can copy-paste this log there, for one thing.
[21:31:10] <+Syskeyia> I see the discussion.
[21:33:56] * +Syskeyia hates himself
[21:37:55] <+LLCoolTH> Why d'you hate yourself?
[21:38:10] <+Syskeyia> Because everyone hates me.
[21:38:44] <+LLCoolTH> It could be worse, y'know?
[21:38:53] <+LLCoolTH> It's just a Wiki and a game at the end of the day.
[21:38:53] * NationStates [quintucket@REDACTED] has joined #nswiki
[21:38:53] * ChanServ sets mode: +v NationStates
[21:39:19] <+Syskeyia> Yeah, but they still hate me.