Editing Forum:Banning

{{Forumheader|The Realm of Sleep|The World that Never was}}
<!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ -->
{{KrytenKoro|emotion=murder|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*After approximately two months (sometimes more, depending on apparent dedication of vandal), the ban is repealed completely.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*Any infinite blocks that are over two months old should be repealed immediately.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|nathan=That's a sound position, Kryten. I concur. I'm assuming "Which edits do not qualify" refers to bans and not warnings, correct?}}
{{KrytenKoro|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".}}
{{TNE|time=09:11, September 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=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. ^_^}}

{{The Inexistent|KRCCFNF='''I assume the stand on sockpuppeting would stay the same (but if all permabans are repealed, then what of users like Amy Cotton?)'''}}
{{TNE|time=01:57, September 13, 2010 (UTC)|text=I have a feeling chaos is going to begin all over again on this matter...}}
{{KrytenKoro|No, this would not include sockpuppeting. This is purely for ''destruction'', not just trolling and vandalism. Sockpuppeting would retain the present policy.}}
{{BebopKate|time=03:21, September 15, 2010 (UTC)|text=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.--[[User:Pkthis|Pkthis]] 03:31, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 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.--[[User:Pkthis|Pkthis]] 03:31, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
-:Most IP addresses get recycled. The ban dismissal would only be for IPs, to allow those who were blocked because they shared an address with a troll.
-::The talk page thing - based on my own experience, in which I was blocked from a wiki and even my talk page due to a content dispute with an admin, I absolutely do not agree with blocking access to your own talk page in any case. A user confined to their talk page is no longer a danger to the wiki, so if they continue to perform user page vandalism, it can easily be policed. However, if an admin for some reason decides to abuse their power (unfortunately, I've seen it happen on this very wiki, with admins who left before we got here), the wrongly banned user's talk page allows them to state their grievance. It also allows them to discuss their problems with an admin if luck strikes and they want to fix their mistakes.[[User:KrytenKoro|<small>Glorious</small>]] [[User_talk:KrytenKoro|<small>CHAOS!</small>]] 03:51, September 15, 2010 (UTC)