Forum:Banninations 'Я Us!
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Banninations 'Я Us!
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6830 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.
Am I imagining things, or is the quantity and nature of banninations on this site growing out of control? The special:ipblocklist should be a last resort, typically used in instances where it's the only way to stop vandalism in progress, halt a spambot attack or refuse edits from an open proxy server. Most often this is how it is being used, but with no clear guidelines as to when to ban nor for how long the field could be left wide open for bans on any arbitrary basis ranging from user called me a poopyhead to user said the emperor has no clothes to user actually complained in Uncyclopedia:Complaints Department to just plain just because. It's a disorganised hodgepodge; with no concept of guidelines or precedents, one admin might be banning page blankers for a day while another bans the author of some useless substub for a year. The tendancy to boast in userboxes or sigs about the number of bans issued by any one individual admin could come back to bite us, if only as a flag that some of the bans may be handed out a bit too arbitrarily. --Carlb 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- *coughcoughcough*--[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- And don't forget, bans also cause Wikiphrenia! --Some user 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- So why don't we collaborate on an actual ban policy? Something comprehensive and consesus based. We can use the Uncyclopedia:Policy page (minus the lame jokes) as a starting point. Input is welcome from everyone, but final decisions could be based on admin consensus? I'll draw something up at Uncyclopedia:Ban Policy / UN:BAN. Pitch ideas on the talk page under the relevant heading. --T. (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed so far—Carlb, Algorithm, Mhaille, and especially Elvis—and ask that others give their input. At some point, I'd like to see this introduced as actual policy, so disciplinary procedure is obvious to users and admins alike. Chime in at Uncyclopedia_talk:Ban_Policy. --T. (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- need policy that way if I get banned I can read in site policy exactly what I done wrong so as to not do it again. --Nerd42Talk 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Except we typically DO explain why we ban you. You just don't listen, or change for that matter.--
Sir Flammable KUN 
(Na Naaaaa...)
20:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Except we typically DO explain why we ban you. You just don't listen, or change for that matter.--
- How does leaving comments like "Reading time", HTBFANJS and the like explain what specifically a user has done wrong? These tags always did seem a little long on let's-talk-down-to-the-user but short on actual specifics as to why a user was banned. --Carlb 20:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to be here? Meh, Nerd Was. Anyway, I disagree with a policy, if the ban is too long or too short, then why don't you just adjust it yourself. You are an admin. If someone needs to be banned than they get banned. personally i think there are alot of crimes commited that get less punishment than they deserve. You have to control spam, blanking, and vandalizations some how. And this seems like the right way. This way they never know what they're gonna get, if you had a policy on all of it then they would know exactly when to come back. And if you were to have a policy, what would happen if somebody had 10 1 week bans, would you just continue banning him for a week for the rest of your life? What a waste of time... Anyway, i see no problem with how things are, and I agree with random Banning periods.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to be here? Meh, Nerd Was. Anyway, I disagree with a policy, if the ban is too long or too short, then why don't you just adjust it yourself. You are an admin. If someone needs to be banned than they get banned. personally i think there are alot of crimes commited that get less punishment than they deserve. You have to control spam, blanking, and vandalizations some how. And this seems like the right way. This way they never know what they're gonna get, if you had a policy on all of it then they would know exactly when to come back. And if you were to have a policy, what would happen if somebody had 10 1 week bans, would you just continue banning him for a week for the rest of your life? What a waste of time... Anyway, i see no problem with how things are, and I agree with random Banning periods.
- Is the objective "punishment"? Methinks the original purpose of blocking users/IP's was to stop vandalism (spam, blanking, whatever) in progress, rather to serve as a punishment or as an "hey everyone, look at me, I'm so important, I'm an ADMIN and can BANNINATE your sorry hide!!!1!" exercise. Banning a vandal just long enough that they get bored and go elsewhere usually suffices. The full perma-ban treatment usually is needed only when an address turns out to be an open proxy or a spambot - the sort of problems that don't go away anytime soon. Besides, is a user going to stay at the same IP for 24 years just so you can perma-ban them? --Carlb 16:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Look, I am going to get banned for this response because I can't edit wikis for crap, but bans remain an integral part of uncyclopedia. I mean, bans are a lot of the humor. I was pretty sure that my friend got a 24-year ban on uncyclopedia on December 25h with a tag that said, Merry Christmas. It was freaking hilarious. --User:TwoHalfMoonTable 7:26 6 March 2006
- Yes, but I'm sure that wasn't very funny to your friend. I got a month's ban for putting a template on Euroipods saying that it wasn't funny. A FREAKING MONTH, OVER ONE LITTLE TEMPLATE! Seriously, we need ground rules of what can be considered a bannable offense, and average punishment lengths for such things. I do understand that we'll need to leave some room open in case someone gets creative and comes up with something horrible that no one would have ever thought to specifically mention in the rules, but some basic ground rules are better than the ultra-inspecific "Don't be a dick". What, exactly, constitutes being a dick? And couldn't it be argued that a lot of the best things on Uncyc are results of dickery? WikiWars? Rumble in Euroipods? Dickery can often be very funny. Honestly, "being a dick" can be argued a lot. With one admin's interpretation, it could apply to 99% of Uncyc's users. But another admin might interpret it as just petty vandalism and that which obviously warrants a ban. Which, on another respect, means that bans could vary widely depending on which admin sees are particular Act of Being a Dick. One might give a year ban, another might say a month, a week, or even no ban at all, depending on what the occurance was. If two people make the same offense, they might not necessarily recieve the same ban. Setting up some basic rules to keep all admins on the same page is a good start in order to prevent problems from arising. There. I'm done. I'm going to go take a moment and inhale. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 21:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- He brought it to my attention and drew the most hilarity from it. Oh, and maybe you should try not inhaling, that might work. Here, don't inhale for 10 minutes, and if your problems don't go away I promise no one will be banned unreasonably again. --User:TwoHalfMoonTable 8:42 7 March 2006