Essay talk:Exploring alternate wiki punishments

I can’t comment on the latest drama, as I’ve only started visiting this place again yesterday. Personally, I support all three of the new suggestions (topic bans, interact bans, and giving moderators free reign to ban users), they seem like they’d be useful tools and are better than just banning someone.

Can sysops put people in sysoprevoke? Like I said I haven’t been here in a while, but I thought it was only techs and mods.

It is actually possible to enforce this with mediawiki, you could create an abuse filter. It would allow you to automatically detect when certain users edit certain pages, edit pages with certain words in their name, revert specific users, etc. You can then have the filter either warn the user not to follow through with the edit, block the edit, or even block the user (you wouldn’t need to go with the last one, don’t want to risk a false positive). It wouldn’t catch everything, but it could filter out a lot. Christopher (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sysops can't put people in sysoprevoke. What I meant with that is that they can remove the sysop right from a user temporarily whilst blocking them (something sysops can do, but doing it normally is grounds for rights abuse cases to be levied against you), sysoprevoke is merely preventing anyone else from granting sysop back (or making it useless if you have the right in question). Applying AbuseFilter for this purpose (we do have it) is certainly an option, but it wouldn't stop topic bans properly because of the oft-broad construed range of these subjects so I am hesistant to use it that way. I already explained why I'm not a fan of the free reign option. 15:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about an abuse filter as well. If the user can’t be trusted to respect the ban without it, then they can’t be trusted to act in good faith at all. It would probably just make people complain that they weren’t actually violating their ban, because the edit filter wasn’t triggered. I still thought it was worth mentioning, if the community decide that technical enforcement is necessary.
 * I hope we can trust mods not to have personal vendettas. I’d trust them over sysops, a compromise could be having user/topic bans which only mods can enforce. Christopher (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Free reign mods
I think you’re right that it should expire when new mods are elected. Also, one thing I’m concerned about is, does anyone (apart from another mod) have the right to question it when a mod does a block? Like, can mods be held accountable if the community thinks that the mods misused the right in a particular context? Also, another concern I would say is that, this could possibly make the user unwilling to push back on a mod in any context, for fear of pissing them off. While I do think there are situations where it could be useful, I also think that it’s kind of a concerning amount of power without accountability and that’s kinda ehhh in my opinion. 00:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki moderators are held to the same standards of conduct as any other sysop, and are not immune from their actions being challenged and sanctioned by the community if necessary. There have been examples here of a mod run amok, and this behavior was quickly addressed by the mob. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can technically hold mods responsible (as cosmik says). That said, in practice, I fear that giving mods free reign to enact a block based on behavior surviving past elections might result in a different level of enforcement. Right now, it's being proposed in the Coop, and it's literally just "if user X acts like an asshole". Now while I trust the people on the current mod team to have decent grasp of when someone is being an asshole versus just slinging an insult, there are users who really hate user X on this site who might want to run as a mod in the future who would go directly to blocking said user based on the asshole clause the moment they make the slightest slip up and tells someone a fuck you or whatever. That is mostly what makes me wary of these free reign regulations surviving past mod elections. 10:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree; I think that allowing moderators to unilaterally block problem users without discussion is a bad idea. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

minor issue
Under the discussion about IBAN, there are four bullet points outlining expectations. I believe the second two bullet points need a "not" in front of them. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. 16:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does impeachment fit in?
As per Ace's recent coop case, in which we recently voted on removal of mod powers. How does this fit in with your punishments? Kauri0.o (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We should outline whether we deal with impeachments or recall elections. Plutocow (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, this is just an essay. To properly outline mod power removal I would recommend a CS discussion. Personally I'm inclined to pretty strict rules for mod removal: 2/3rd majority, maximum vote length (14 days). 16:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Resurrection men (and others)
What is to be done with vandals and others who repeatedly sign up, get renamed and banned? Somewhat like hard work for the persons doing the rename-and-ban work.

Should there be some sort of 'mirror image-RW playpen' for ban evaders and others? Anna Livia (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)