User:OrenBochman/WGT/Ban Game

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Spam ban sub-game[edit]

  • Banning Vandals is a complex procedure with a protocol usually requiring about four incidents and interactions and coordination of multiple agensts.
  • In this case I'll consider modelling an incident based on the work of prior research [1] [2]
  • There are two options - developing an extensive form game for banning and developing a simplified normal form model to use as a sub game in more complex situation.
  • The extensive form of this game can shed more light on the costs of coordination and collaboration. As described in the above publication the cost have been reduced over time by improving the technology of banning.
A Banning Protocol[edit]

This is a banning protocol for an anonymous IP based vandal who does not respond to any communication notices. The protocol is motivated that a vandal could be reasoned and converted to a good faith contributor.

  1. Inciting Incidents:
    1. First round of a Spam\Ham game with an anonymous spammer interacting with Vandal task force patroller with a Robot\Tool. resulting in a Reversion\Rollback of edit + edit message (Communication)
    2. Warning level 1 at user page (communication).
    3. Second round of the above Spam\Ham game with an anonymous spammer interacting with Vandal task force patroller with a Robot\Tool. resulting in a Reversion\Rollback of edit
    4. Check user page for warning level (co-ordination).
    5. Issue warning level +1 at user page (communication).
    6. Third round of the above Spam\Ham game with an anonymous spammer interacting with Vandal task force patroller with a Robot\Tool. resulting in a Reversion\Rollback of edit
    7. Check user page for warning level (co-ordination).
    8. Issue warning level +1 at user page (communication).
    9. Check AIV notice board for warning (co-ordination).
    10. Issue an AIV board notice including Vandal' UserName + links to Diff messages for the above messages. (communication)
    11. First round of the Simple Spam Ban Subgame.
  2. Denouement:
    1. Investigation of other edits by user and reversion. (note this can be expensive is other edits had procured since then the action cannot be rolled back)

Bad Faith Banning[edit]

Most blocks can be negotiated to be lifted very quickly, very few blocks are long term. Due to the low cost of new usernames [3]

Discussion similar protocols with AWB developer and operator Marios Magioladitis I was informed that he had publicised wrongfulness banning against his user.

The two situation he expounded on were

  1. banning of an inactive user due to a third party importing importing his robot's edits followed by a ban due to an operation of a bot without a bot rights.
  2. This contravenes policy forbidding banning of inactive users.


Notes[edit]


References[edit]

  1. Ribes, David; Geiger, Stuart (2010). "The Work of Sustaining Order in Wikipedia: The Banning of a Vandal" (PDF). Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. CSCW '10 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM. pp. p117–126. Retrieved May 10, 2012. 
  2. Maehre, Jeff (2009). "What it Means to Ban Wikipedia: An Exploration of the Pedagogical Principles at Stake". College Teaching (ACM): p229–236. doi:10.1080/87567550903218711.  Unknown parameter |Volume= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Issue= ignored (|issue= suggested) (help);
  3. Friedman, Eric J.; Resnick, Paul (2000). "The Social Cost of Cheap Pseudonyms". Journal of Economics and Management Strategy (ACM) 10: 173–199. Retrieved August 18, 2013.  long term bans are not particularly significant since banned users can quickly create new identities and resume business as usual.