Forum:Banning

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Banning

KrytenKoro - "I'm the doctor, I'm the patient. Don't forget that - it's important! If you love me like I love me, everybody will be sorry." TALK - In my experience, the warning system only works when dealing with content disputes, and even then, it should only be used in the event of edit wars. So, this is going to be more about clear bad faith and extremely malicious edits. Here's my position: Which edits qualify All direct threats, whether to the wiki or to other editors, whether of virtual or physical harassment, should have zero tolerance. All obscene edits, such as uploading porn, or inserting explicit material into mainspace articles (not talk pages, or similar discussion pages) should have zero tolerance. Which edits do not qualify Unprofessional language or hurt language in edits (ex: that guy who complained that we were dissing Europe about Re:CoM) Blanking pages Random swearwords in articles What should be done in the future Editor receives immediate infinite-duration ban. They MUST be allowed to continue editing their talk page. Editor receives Template:Ban on their talk page. After approximately two months (sometimes more, depending on apparent dedication of vandal), the ban is repealed completely. This prevents IP editors from being blocked just for sharing the account. What should be done now Any infinite blocks that are over two months old should be repealed immediately. The user talk page should be archived, in order to provide a clean slate. Any blocks, whatsoever, that block use of the talk page should be modified, and a note left on the user's talk page that they are now able to use their talk page. All bans that are still active after this should have the "ban" template placed on their talk page. Thoughts?

maggosh The steel is forged... — "Souls as far as the eye can see..." "If you want light to rule over all, then you must rid the world of everything else." That's a sound position, Kryten. I concur. I'm assuming "Which edits do not qualify" refers to bans and not warnings, correct?

KrytenKoro - "I'm the doctor, I'm the patient. Don't forget that - it's important! If you love me like I love me, everybody will be sorry." TALK - Right. All of my experience on this and other wiki's has shown me that absolute malignity of this sort can not be assauged with the warnings, and as we saw with that European Re:CoM guy, it only gives them a target and gets them to personalize the conflict - he started off with minor vandalism at first, but once you added the warning, he saw it as a challenge and began making direct threats towards you and the wiki. Content disputes, however, survive because you have two people who care much about the wiki, and want what they think is the truth there. Warnings are absolutely useful to calm down those disputes before they get "violent".

We also gotta see the intention behind blanking the pages. If say a user was blanking pages just because he did a test edit, we can revert and let him off. Especially applies if he's a newbie. If he's regular, we can just tell him nicely and revert it. But if he maliciously did it, then we'll have to resort to warnings and bans. I'm good with the standards you set, though sometimes we'll have to see it from case to case. ^_^ Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 09:11, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

The Inexistent - All the world's a puzzle, and I the one who made it so... TALK - EVIL has come... at last... I assume the stand on sockpuppeting would stay the same (but if all permabans are repealed, then what of users like Amy Cotton?)

I have a feeling chaos is going to begin all over again on this matter... Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 01:57, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

KrytenKoro - Most bears were content to live their lives, mauling and eating one, maybe two humans at most. "Mass-murder," as the bears always said, "is for the sharks." But not Barry. Barry was different. He knew that one day, he would kill ALL of the humans. This is the inspiring, tear-jerking story of one bear and the dream he dared to dream. TALK - No, this would not include sockpuppeting. This is purely for destruction, not just trolling and vandalism. Sockpuppeting would retain the present policy.

BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...03:21, September 15, 2010 (UTC) I just want to be clear on what you mean by "banning". I've always understood it that a block is a temporary measure that keeps from someone from editing for a time, while a ban is more of a NEVER RETURN situation. If that's the case, then in the first two instances (threats and explicit material), I absolutely agree. In the other cases, bans should only be applied after multiple warnings and any resulting temporary blocks. I'm a bit curious why you think our past bans should all be reinstated, though. We really don't have that many, and those that have been banned were usually banned for a good reason. Also, I am fine with a banned user having access to their own user page, but considering some of those banned carried out their offenses on their own talk pages, I'm a bit remiss to let an editor that disruptive continued access to such things.

The criteria sounds about right. Just be sure to administer the right dose of discipline; too much will make your fellow users resent you, while too little will make your fellow users treat you with nothingness. In other words, learn when to give a warning, and learn when to use the ban hammer. Don't get too itchy of a trigger finger there.--Pkthis 03:31, September 15, 2010 (UTC)