Forum:Banning: Difference between revisions
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(Moving to realm of sleep; old forum) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader|The World that Never was | {{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 ~~~~ --> | <!-- 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: | {{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: | ||
Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
{{TNE|time=01:57, September 13, 2010 (UTC)|text=I have a feeling chaos is going to begin all over again on this matter...}} | {{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.}} | {{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) | |||
: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) |
Latest revision as of 03:52, 30 June 2014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
- 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.Glorious CHAOS! 03:51, September 15, 2010 (UTC)