Forum:Ban Patrol???

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Ban Patrol???

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6219 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Is it me, or is the ban patrol has been deserted by the admins? I haven't seen any entries over there that have been dealt with for some time now, and there are several socks and vandals roaming the place without disturbance. ~ 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. Perhaps it's time we seek more active administrators. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And the QVFD is consistently backed up. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 19:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The users listed below were checked out by: Absolutely nobody, because all the admins are lazy at 20:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC). They were either banned by the above, banned by someone else, or have been given the Ludovico technique.

• Every admin on the site (Talk • Contribs • Block (rem 1st all) • Logs • Groups) -- Unable to help with Ban Patrol as needed. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:01, Oct 31

• Y'know actually I think we could do with more Sysops...Luckily it's a new month so we hopefully should have some by the end of this coming month. Also E|M|C...See my forum post. Its a QVFD backlog prevention idea...That's getting torn apart :P (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 31, 20:05

Hold the phone

How's it we keep getting more and more sysops, and keep getting the same problem of inactivity more and more often? Maybe more sysops isn't the answer, the number doesn't seem to do much of anything. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:03 Oct 31, 2007

Well some are inactive aren't they? Plus...Where has Tom Mayfair gone?! I've not seen him in ages! (Bonner) (Talk) Oct 31, 20:05

I think he had another kid. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:07, Oct 31

So let's get more admins, that will go inactive, and then need more admins, that will also go inactive... or maybe we can solve the Mystery of the Disappearing Admins first. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:08 Oct 31, 2007

I say we just op every active user on the site and hope for the best. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:18, Oct 31

Besides, who works harder than the users? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dag, that's three more to cross off the possible-sysop list. You'd think people would have learned by now... —rc (t) 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, now I'll never get to do all that boring extra work! Why, cruel fate? Why? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:44, Nov 1

The mystery solved!

That's right, I've solved the mystery! Why are they disappearing? Because being an admin sucks, and you can only do it for so long before you decide you don't want to anymore. And so they leave. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:09, Oct 31

And it took us 100 scientists, hundreds of hours and 3 supercomputers to figure it out! - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 21:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus a couple of really long character monologues. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:13 Oct 31, 2007

Greetings from a Former Ban Patrol Admin

Hello. My name is Famine. I've spent the last two years or so being the bitch of the Ban Patrol and VFD. Lately, I've been sucked back into the real world, and I don't have much time to muck about dealing with stupid users like I used to spend a great deal of time doing.

I too have been noticing that the Ban Patrol is getting filled with shit, and nothing really is being done about it. This morning, since I have far better things to do with my time, I took a quick skim through Uncyclopedia and was amazed at the amount of stupid shit going on here. Seeing that nobody else was doing anything, I took it upon my self to kick the shit out of the Ban Patrol, and clean up a number of messes which were starting to really foul up Uncyclopedia.

This place really is starting to turn into a cesspool with nobody kicking ass on a regular basis. So, my fellow admins:

1) Can you *please* take a run through ban patrol once a day? And mark that you did so? Take the time to slap the stupid {{BPC}} template up there - it's psychologically damaging to see a couple hundred entries and wonder if you're going to have to weed through them all.

2) Would you please grow a sack and ban people flaming all over this website and stirring up shit? I'm somewhat tired of having to be one of the only bad-guys here. If I'm less than active, I worry that when I slam the ban-hammer down, it will have less weight attached than if a more active admin did so.

3) I laid the smack down on the following users today, and I'd like to tell you why, and ask that they stay banned unless you have a really, REALLY good reason to unban them:

Radioactive afikomen

Kip the Dip

Manforman

I have butted heads with both Manforman and Kip on numerous occasions, mainly because they were being unfunny shitheads who delight in harassing other users. I've banned them both numerous times, other admins have banned them, and each time they got some sort of weasely-ass probation from someone. If at all possible, I'd like them to stay off Uncyclopedia, since they are doing far more harm than good.

Radioactive afikomen I've had no real issues with, but he was a major contributor in all the recent crap between these 3 users, and was responsible for at least some of the recent flood of socks.

I'd like to set in stone that this sort of shit is entirely inappropriate, and completely counter to our mission here.

If you have any issue with this, please let me know. But unless there's a damn good reason to let major flamewarring, trolling, and sockpuppetry go on here, I'd appreciate it if you would keep them banned, ban anyone else who claims to be them, smells like them, or acts like them.

Thank you. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 11/03 16:09

I may not have the best reason, but I request the ban on Kip to be shortened from infinite to at most 1 month. He has a history, and he did make that one sock (which he regrets doing), but what happened on Ban Patrol was nowhere near his fault. He was dragged into the flamewar by Manforman, who falsely accused him of operating one or more of SmackBot/RA's socks. From what I read on BP, Kip only made one comment, and it was in defense of his remaining integrity.

If anyone is getting infinibanned, it should be SmackBot instead of Kip. Kip only made one sock as a joke, but SmackBot actively used 3 or more in the big flamewar, yet he only got a week and Kip got eternity. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, I think we should block them all for a week to a month and give all of them special rules for the next few months. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 16:45, November 3, 2007

Agree with Froggy and Starnestommy. Manforman's had a real history of flamewars, but the last few weren't his fault — he was attacked needlessly and ruthlessly by socks that took a good while to be banned, and some idiot was trying to force him into a revert war that he managed to back out of, despite the other user obviously being in the wrong. And Kip... well... I don't really know what he's done, but I've obviously missed something. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 16:57 Nov 03, 2007

We don't know for sure who did the socking, so I think we should get a checkuser on all users involved, including Manforman. There is a slight possibility that Manforman was using the socks to cause drama, although RA looks very suspicious. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 17:03, November 3, 2007

For what it's worth, I say we ban SmackBot for eternity just because he's a cunt.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)  

Hmmmmm.... I wish I was active enough at the moment to know whether you were right to do that Famine. But I do remember your previous ban of Kip, and the fact that I was one of the ones opposed to it on the grounds that he was just a little annoying at times but not particularly harmful. This time I can't in all honesty argue for these guys when I don't know what they've been up to, but I do think we could do with some rather more specific examples of why regular users should get infinibanned. I.e., reasons with names or links. At very least, I think those who are more active than me right now should take a good long look at their contributions and have a think about this. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Aw, for fucks sake Famine... if this continues I may leave Uncyclopedia forever. (No, none of you inherit my weapons.) But really, in the case of Manforman and Kip the dip, good contirbuting users, only minor problems. Too long of a ban. Sigh.... --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And yes, TKF and Starnes are right. The MAIN flamewarrior a week, a person with only one comment but a bad history he regrets a fucking ETERNITY? STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE! --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick

Although Famine is blocking users for being dicks, I honestly think he is guilty of violating the same rule that he enforces. Rather than blocking users with expiry times that are worthy of their actions (as described in UN:BAN), he is blocking users with the main reason being that he does not like the users involved. One such example is with Kip the Dip. Although Kip can be annoying and somethings violates rules, he is more of a minor problem than a major nuisance and even contributes sometimes (although not much). Manforman has written a lot of featured material, although he has messed with silly forum topics in the past and causes some minor drama.

Essentally, what I'm trying to say here are the following:

1. Admins were given their powers for a reason: to protect and serve the people, not to use their powers to gain leverage in personal disputes or rule Uncyclopedia.
2. Don't be a dick, even if you are an admin.
3. Don't ban useful contributors just because they like flamewarring.
4. Our goal is to be funny and entertain our readers, not be stupid and scare them off.
5. The average reader usually doesn't care about the internal workings and policies of Uncyclopedia.

If Uncyclopedia can't understand these rules, then it has failed to live up to its purpose and I have no business being here. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 20:59, November 3, 2007

In addition, banning otherwise good contributors solely for being overly dramatic only causes more drama. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 22:07, November 3, 2007

A message from Manforman

I got this message from Manforman about his block and what his thoughts are. I'll post it below:

I got your message and agree with what your saying. I also remember reading a while back ago the beginner's guide and it specifically says "Administrators are not above the rules[4], even though they enforce them", and also blatantly violating Rule 2. I personally think he needs to be de-opped as well and wouldn't become an admin again without passing VFS.

Famine said on the ban patrol forum page "I have butted heads with both Manforman and Kip on numerous occasions, mainly because they were being unfunny shitheads who delight in harassing other users. I've banned them both numerous times, other admins have banned them, and each time they got some sort of weasely-ass probation from someone. If at all possible, I'd like them to stay off Uncyclopedia, since they are doing far more harm than good".

My reply:

Kip the Dip was mainly banned by Famine, he got a few joke bans from other admins, but nothing compared to Famine. I don't see how he was harmful and did anything worthy of an infiban.

I've written a number of articles in the past two months, more than Famine has and saying that is one of the most rediculous claims. I do not delight harassing users and I do not do it.

As much as I am pissed of with Radioactive afikomen for creating some of the sockpuppets, infinite is a bit over the top. He just wrote a featured article which proves that he is a good contributor, his ban should've been much shorter (i.e. a week or two).

I also recall Matt lobster was temporarily infi-banned, but I didn't see him do anything wrong besides his questionable revert.

I have other problems with Uncyc as well which include, extensive whoring, articles getting featured because of their author, not the actual content, and civilty. I do not have an interest in contributing to Famine's personal "website", and until things lighten up and idiocy ceases, I won't be on Uncyc (if unblocked).--Manforman 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly agree with him here, although he has been somewhat of a dick in the past. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 23:30, November 3, 2007

Good Lord. Is Uncyclopedia always this dramatic? Jeez, I came here to have a little fun with my writing, and I'm smacked with all this fucking drama. About two more strikes and I'm out. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:10 Nov 04, 2007

From what I gather, Uncyclopedia has only been this dramatic on two occasions:

• When Nintendorulez was around and
• Since Manforman was nominated for UGotM.

I know I'm a tad extremely biased against Manforman (I'll admit), it seems there's a pretty strong correlation between Manforman and the drama. He's gone to the office but his aura of discomfort persists nevertheless. Maybe banning is the only solution, but not infinitely. If he wasn't contributing, I'd say unload an entire damn arsenal on him, but he is (or was) contributing, so I'd also support a ban shortening. Maybe 1-2 months for both Kip and him? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so...

Is this what we're talking about? Because yes, I think everyone got a bit carried away here, no-one was entirely blameless, although I don't yet see how Kip was involved except to get accused on Ban Patrol. But, I wouldn't say this is grounds for an infinite ban, yet, so long as we can get those concerned to make a public promise to stop with the dickery and the accusations of same. Like in a post on this forum, for example, if I unbanned them? Thoughts? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree, since Manforman was given plenty of chances in the past and is already in Flammable's Office and RA/SmackBot did engage in some heavy duty sockpuppetry/flaming. Some sort of chastisement is definitely necessary for those three; a simple "I'm sorry" post shouldn't redeem them entirely. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was kind of thinking maybe an I'm sorry then a reban for a while actually, just to make sure they know they done wrong. Although I still haven't seen what Kip's done recently. But maybe I'm getting too complicated now? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really have an argument for or against this proposal, but I say Kip should be unbanned immediately. All he did was post in the war, once, to defend himself. That's not even excuse enough to give him a warning, much less an infiniban. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 15:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto that. The evidence against him is negligible and relies entirely on past mistakes. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I can tell, he's done nothing wrong. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:57, Nov 4

Also agreed on Kip. I'd reeeeeally like M4M to stay gone though.....please? -RAHB 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if we do unban Manforman, he doesn't plan to come back. I say we unban him in case he does come back, although it's unlikely. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 19:57, November 4, 2007

The problem I, and I'm sure many others, have with unbanning Manforman, is these two things:

A) He's been warned, banned, slapped on the wrist, etc. so many times that when I get back to my computer from taking a minute long break to go to the restroom, I expect to see some brand new conflict to have erupted with him and some other user(s), that wasn't there when I left. He deserved the banning a long time ago, and the fact that he's written featured material, and contributed, doesn't change the fact that he's an irredeemable dick, with the incapacity to take anything lightly, and is a repeat offender.

B) Unbanning him, whether he returns or not (which I honestly think he will, for two reasons, the first him returning hours after saying he was done once before, and the second that Uncyclopedia is an addiction that nobody can testify to satisfying), will cause more of this shitty "drama" we hear so much about. Now I for one don't see why people (especially uncyclopedians) can't just get along and live in an environment where every fucking thing doesn't have to be a conflict, and I'm sure you agree. But this will only happen again and again, with little progress made, except the hope of Manforman getting infinibanned again in the end.

As everyone else says, I don't see what Kip has done in this conflict to deserve the banning, but Famine is right in saying he's made previous offenses that were ban-worthy. Maybe shorten Kip's ban, it doesn't seem one-hundred percent just to unban him altogether. -RAHB 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, shorten his ban, and when he comes back, perhaps a trip to the Principal's Office? --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a possibility... if he wasn't already there. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think Capercorn was talking about Kip. Second, chill the fuck out. Most of us dislike Manforman, but this is a question of whether the bans were fair, not whether we hate the users involved. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 22:09, November 4, 2007

Uh, Kip isn't there. We are talking about Kip, right? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:08, Nov 4

I thought we're talking about Manforman... Kip already served his time, IMHO, when was was banned for 3 months that one time. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I was under the opinion that both Kip and M4M were maturing, and honestly trying to get better. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:13, Nov 4

Kip is back by popular demand (sorry Famine, but the case against him this time seems kinda weak - maybe next time, eh?) - I'm guessing we're still thinking about the others? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to propose a vote, but perhaps that may bring a bit more certainty to the issue at hand. -RAHB 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainty is good, but in the end the admins are the judge jury and executioner. We could be like witnesses though. I want to be the scientist with big graphs that sounds all smart-like with his "forensics" and "blood spatter patterns". -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody would have to kill Manforman first for that to happen....hmmm....ahem, anyways, so why not have a vote then I suppose. Though being in a jury with a group of uncyclopedians is a bit a scary idea. Locked up in that room, deliberating the fate of another mortal soul, until our decision is made. For the love of god, somebody bring some donuts. -RAHB 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I be the rape victim, TKF? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:43, Nov 5

"Would you mind telling the court, using this doll, exactly where he touched you? Here? What about here." - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:50, Nov 5

I'll do the vote. It will be the beginning of a new day on Uncyclopedia. The UN:ARBCOM. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Only I remember the Uncyclopedia:Arbitrary Committee. Oh, and there were elections at Uncyclopedia:Arbitrary Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave Famine be, admining ain't easy

Just like pimping, admining ain't easy. All of you regular users giving Famine a hard time and complaining about abuse of power haven't seen the other side of things. The nature of the job is so subjective (and no, rules to follow just makes it harder) that there is no way to make everyone happy and you really have to go with what feels right. Most of us that made it to admin level did so by proving to the bureaucrats and other admins that we have the right sense and style to get things right most of the time. We are human, so we're not infallible but most of the time we try as best we can. Sometimes somebody makes the mistake of breaking a rule when we're having a bad day and that's unfortunate but it's very rare that somebody is dealt with in a totally unreasonable manner. Personally, I can attest to Famine's character as an admin and unless I am presented with compelling counter-evidence, I will stand behind his decisions.

As for Ban Patrol, I'm trying to make myself active again so I'll add it to my freshly cleared watchlist and see if I can try to stop by periodically. --Sir gwax (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the problem was pretty much solved, at this point, no need to start up the fighting again... it's sorted out, ban times have been reduced, stupid spin-off forums have been created, and all is right with the world. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:36, Nov 10

Except for Cajek. He never did give you back your pants. ~ 00:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What pants? --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 00:46, November 11, 2007

Actually, I did get the pants back, I just had to... convince him. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:37, Nov 11

Do we really want to know what form this "convincing" took? Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 07:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, are you into bondage? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:04, Nov 11

No. But I hear the Jews were really into it, at least until they left Egypt. Mordillo? Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)