Forum:Banning

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Banning

KrytenKoro - You should have figured out whether bodies age without their hearts, Nomura. 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 After approximately two months (sometimes more, depending on apparent dedication of vandal), the ban is repealed completely.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 What should be done now Any infinite blocks that are over two months old should be repealed immediately.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 - Ṱ͐͒H̫̾̃E͈͔͍͔̾̋ͦ̕ ͇̜͖͉̘̬͙̃̇̊͜N͙͉̑̓̌ͤĬ̸͇̖͈͒̃Gͧ͊̈́­̮̠̟͖̝̩H̽͌̀T͚̹̝̐ͬ̂̔̄ ̿̈́̊̃ͦ͆͑A̘̝̖ͪͯ́̀ͣ̿̃͝I̟͑ͬR̡͎̩̚ ̠̪̈́̑̏̏̋C̯̲ͩ́͐͒͂ͪ͜Ä͍̜̣̼̹́͌̋̀͒͂ͅ­N̅͐̆ͪ̓̋ͩ ̣ͮͧͧ͌Ả̼̤̜̫̩̜̾̕L͓͓̺̤̘̠̀W̷͗͂ͦ̾͒­̭̯̼A̘͓̰̠͉͇̬Y̵̒ͧͩ̇ͅS ̦̻̯̟̮̭̟̓̒͑͋C̮̱͔͔̖̯ͦͧͨ͋̑A̤ͩ̉̅ͪR­̞͉̣̦̪̜̮͛̉̎̀ͩ̍̇R̢̥̳̝̟̺̣̈Y͗͋̅͏͇̳­̪͎̺ ̭͈͍̝̣͍̒̎̑͘O̖̗͇̲̲̖͊̈́̿ͨ͑ͅN̩̰͉͍͍͖­͙E̩̹̣̰̣͓̖̽̊͡ ̲̮͔̯̦̋̿ͧͫ̓ͅM͇̌͌̔́O̱̫̯̬̤̗̲͛R̙̽E­̥̦̫̺͙̩̏̒ͯͭ́ ̖̫̯͉̱ͣͯͩ͊͐͆ͫS̰̿̊̑̋ͩ̇ͅC̘̣̜͍̆̆ͧ͜­R̞̾͐̋̆̚Ë̡͇̓A̙͈M̡̤̙̈ 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)