Uncyclopedia talk:Ban Policy

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See Uncyclopedia:Ban_Patrol, Special:Ipblocklist, Special:Log/block for a current list of existing bans.

Categories[edit]

Vandalism[edit]

Blanking (articles)[edit]

  • No ban (if it looks accidental, only edit for user, etc) to 1 year, depending on nature and severity of blanking. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking (userpages)[edit]

  • Userpages shouldn't be "popular page" with number of bans warnings. But I agree with 1 Week to 1 Month. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ban Patrol Disruption[edit]

  • 1 week minimum, 1 year maximum. If you're messing with the Ban patrol, a page designed to point admins to people abusing this website, you're asking for a long vacation. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

VFD Disruption[edit]

Voting page disruption[edit]

Edit / Revert wars[edit]

  • Warn both parties with a 2 hr ban. Often more words, even from an admin, just fan the flames. Once they know you're serious, and have some cool-off time, they should be ok. Days to weeks after if they keep it up. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Recreation of Deleted Articles[edit]

  • Isn't the text at the top of every blank page stating "If you just created this page, wait a few minutes and reload in case of database delay. If this page has recently been deleted, check the deletion log and ask the admin who deleted it before recreating it in the same form." warning enough? If users already can't read, how will a warning do any additional good? Ban 1 day as a warning, then one week for every repeated offense. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Racism/hate[edit]

  • Uncyclopedia is a spoof encyclopedia, and as such reflects certain "realities". I think we need to maintain the same even hand when dealing with some issues. This is traditionally an area where humour has relatively free reign. Making fun of the issue (always subjective) is fine, but we need to make a line in the sand that people cannot cross. Again a judgement call. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me) 13:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Potty mouth[edit]

Posting spoilers[edit]

Making paragraph-length RECENTNEWS/DYK entries[edit]

Signing random pages[edit]

Spam (Categorization)[edit]

Spam (Commercial)[edit]

Shock images, tubgirls, goatse links and the like[edit]

Yes, you can. :) --T. (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I say permban. Honestly, this isn't ordinary vandalism (or "experimenting", as Wikipedia likes to use for giving newcomers the benefit of the doubt), this is stuff that indicates that the person has nothing worthwile to contribute and only wants to cause trouble. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Spambots[edit]

Sockpuppets[edit]

  • As I've said elsewhere, I'm less concerned about sockpuppets than I am about disruptive personalities. If someone wants to start over again and try harder after being kicked out under a previous name, should we really want to stop that? And if someone wants to divide their time by pi to create several personalities to vote for each other's crap or to prove their ability to do so to themselves.... well that's just sad. Mental masturbation is pathetic, but it isn't crime, is it? --T. (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that in many cases it can be relatively harmless, but I think it will need to come down to a judgement call based on the actions of the sockpuppet (or information about the sockpuppeteer, and their motivations). -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me) 12:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that's what I said. Or at least what I meant by "disruptive personalities". :) --T. (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the sockpuppet is being used for a "fresh start", I have no problems with it. We all make mistakes, and if someone genuinely wants to put the past behind them, fine. What I don't like are multiple socks created for the purposes of vote-rigging, or when the sockpuppet has been created specifically to vandalise or disrupt the wiki. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • However, I look back to all the "Splaka Sucks his Own Dick" sockpuppets that we had flooding the site before. I think if it takes a poke at existing users, it should get the ban stick pronto, and permanantly. Even if it's not used to edit anything. I guess that's one motivation that I feel should be gone as soon as it's spotted. Agreed that if someone wants a clean slate, let them have it. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Aaah, see that covered below. Pretend I posted there. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What if the user finds it funny/doesn't mind? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Heck, if a User:Sp1aka pops up, ban on sight. Same with User:Chronarian or anything else that blatantly copies an existing username. If they want to post, they should nonetheless remain more than welcome to pick themselves another username. Carlb 03:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

Insubordination[edit]

  • Warn, 1 hour to 1 week, although this should be avoided, I'm starting to get slightly worried about the hollier than thou attitude of admins --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This shouldn't even be on here. An admin is not a boss (I don't write your paycheque, schedule your tasks or find clients to purchase whatever gets manufactured here) but is just another user with a few added responsibilities. Save the banninations for those who are actively defacing Uncyclopedia in some way (page blanking, spambots, vandalism and the like - and then when lesser measures could not resolve the problem); I really couldn't care less whether User:So-and-so thinks that I'm a poopyhead. I'm just the janitor here; I try to clean up or prevent vandalism, take the rubbish to the kerb and do what I can to keep this place from turning into a dustbin, but I'm not anyone's "boss" and as such should not be whining about insubordination per se. The "hey, everyone, look at me, I'm an admin and I BANNZ0RZ your arse. Infinite ban for Dissing Scousers!" mentality (and it has become a running joke among our admins, sadly) needs to be abandoned. It's doing more harm than good. --Carlb 15:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can I just repeat that the "Dissing Scousers" ban (see below) was actually for a collection of random vandalisations by a particular user (one of which been a Liverpool related article - hence the comment). As much as it has become a running gag, it is important to note that the reason cited was not the sole incident for the ban. Thanks. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
  • Only worth a ban if it is unreasonable and consistent or done as vandalism (i.e. blanking a page with "CARLB IS A POWER-HUNGRY MANWHORE!"), same as with hounding other users. --—rc (t) 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I now feel the need to blank pages with "CARLB IS A POWER-HUNGRY MANWHORE!" I agree that it must either be malicious, unreasonable or spammy for a banning. I've been featured in a couple of "admins are jerks" articles now, but since it's been done moderately well, I've let it go. But I have to say, CARLB IS A POWER-HUNGRY MANWHORE! Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ban should not be longer than 30 minutes. I can understand longer bans if it's vandalizing articles or whatnot. But a simple comment about abuse of power on a talk page should not be bannable. Actual insults should be treated like a flame towards any user, regardless of admin status. If the user is truly being stubborn and problematic, I see nothing wrong with a short, 15 minute ban as a way of slapping them on the wrist and reminding them who has the final say over things. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Creation of Insulting usernames or usernames based on that of an existing user[edit]

  • This smells like vengeful sockpuppetry to me. --T. (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends. Decide the maximum ban that could be given, then see how much the user is offended. If he/she is only offended a little, then make the ban a little shorter. If he/she doesn't mind and in fact finds it funny, let the person go. If it's a sockpuppet of the user him/herself... Uh... I dunno... --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Posting complaints to Uncyclopedia:Complaints Department[edit]

  • This is a bannable offense? --T. (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope that this is a joke. In fact, I'm sure it must be. It's a take on rounding up dissidents and sending them to the gulags. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If it were a joke, the bans would be for 1 second or 1 minute, not hours or days. --Carlb 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A motorway? We had to live on a muddy dinosaur path, get up before we went to sleep, and clean up hundreds of tonnes of dinosaur poo every morning. You'd think we would've been glad when the dinosaurs finally went extinct, but hey, we had it good. --Carlb 15:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dissing Scousers[edit]

Insulting an admin[edit]

Recreating Nuclear bombs[edit]

Posting "Uncyclopedia sux!"[edit]

Adding additional images to AAAAAAAA![edit]

Messing with Vagina[edit]

Creating unfunny articles[edit]

  • This is a bannable offense? --T. (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Again a judgement call. If someone (usually an IP account) creates several one sentence "articles" (invariably questioning someones sexuality or making some other witty social statement), then a timeout is usually a good thing. I will sometimes do that and leave a message on the their talk page for when they've calmed down. Gives them the opportunity to go an read funny articles and the guides. Or to visit IRC to learn the errors of their ways. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me) 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mhaille, it's a judgement call, but usually a warning before a ban unless it's out of control. --—rc (t) 19:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Template spam[edit]

  • Delete and warn, else treat as vandalism

Creating useless redirects[edit]

Creating useless templates[edit]

Spoofing official templates (e.g. NRV)[edit]

(This only applies to spoofs intended to deceive at first glance. Obvious parodies are ok.)

  • Spoof templates should be deleted immediately; any placement of such templates should be treated as vandalism. --Algorithm (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tampering with mattress tags (NRV, VFD and the like)[edit]

  • The normal standard I've seen applied is a revert and warning, followed by a ban on the second offense for the relevant duration (i.e. until the issue indicated by the tag has been resolved). Hence, the stanard NRV ban would be 14 days, etc. --Algorithm (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism and copyvios[edit]

Slandanity[edit]

Posting B's or a's to AAAAAAAA! articles[edit]

  • Seems like minor vandalism to me. Not worth 24 days. --T. (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Being 12[edit]

  • This is a bannable offense? Sounds like the person was described, not their behaviour (which I assume was bannable). --T. (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mandatory chemical castration! Whoops... that slipped out. 0_o Seriously though, I think that this comment (made by me, I think, on UBP) refered to the multiple grade-school slander articles about teachers/classmates/dragonballZ characters/imaginary sex that this particular user had created, had huffed, and recreated in rapid succession. So yes, it did refer to their behavior (which was on the level of a 12-year old male crack-addict) and was not meant to physically/chronologically describe them. Sorry for the mix-up, but as I'm sure you've seen, I try to make my comments interesting. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For the re-creations? QVFD, huff-on-sight, NRV and the like were originally intended for cases in which some fine piece of huffable rubbish was undisputed - so no point in even voting on it, just delete it. Once these are disputed (and re-creating them would qualify), just move them to regular VFD. Carlb 15:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't ban. I used to be 12 once, and I was using the internet, spelling fine, and all that perfectly well. We don't need any stereotype-based bans. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Being from AOL[edit]

  • They deserve our sympathy, or at least our pity... but a ban? Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you—using AOL is punishment enough. Bonus: they're torturing themselves. --T. (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue with AOL is that service's use of proxies, causing all users to appear to be coming in from a small set of addresses. This makes things awkward when issuing bans in this range - they tend to hit more users than intended. --Carlb 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ban all of AOL. For 24 years. And magically we'll have 10-20% less idiocy on this site. We'll also lose some good users, but I think it will be a net-gain. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It'll be a lot more than 10-20%. Or at least we can only allow logged-in edits (Does mediawiki allow that?). If someone wants to edit, they have to stop hiding behind the proxy and log in. Some people actually use AOL specifically for the proxy so they can fuck up wikis and the rest of the internet! --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Being "an idiot"[edit]

  • As a special:log/block comment, completely useless. Uninformative as to why a user was banned or which edits were somehow objectionable, also just plain insulting. The special:ipblocklist should not be used as some sort of privileged forum in which admins can call users nasty names, while permabanning any users who call admins anything not nice. It should be used to provide specific information as to why bans are being handed out in quantity - specifically, what did the user supposedly do?
A comment like "19:52, 13 December 2005 Nytrospawn blocked 206.82.16.35 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Block (rem-lst-all) • Whois • City • Proxy? • WP Edits) with an expiry time of 24 years (Someones gonna unban you. In 24 years)" tells me nothing. Be specific; if you mean "n00b test, blanked Template:Recent once" by all means say so. Without that info, how is one to determine whether 24 years for a first offence is reasonable or is a bit over the top? --Carlb 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
While I do agree that we should be more descriptive, part of the urge to paste in a snide comment stems from the sheer level of idiocy that some users show. And frankly, checking a user's edit history should give you an indication of why they were banned. I wouldn't use the ban comment to determine the fitness of the ban - the only real "proof" of their actions is the edit history. If Nytro above had commented "deleted the Main_Page and blanked the Ban Patrol", it wouldn't have given any additional merit to the length of the ban, based on the user's actual edits. What would be more beneficial would be if bans were given out with a little more consistency, methinks.
But also, it's harder for the clueless to know what they did wrong if the ban message is not coherent. However, I see us ban the clueless fairly rarely - usually it's the intentional vandals and utterly careless users, who a nice statement of wrongdoing wouldn't help anyway. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 17:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I'd expect that if a User:JoeN00b were to see a ipblocklist log entry of "banned 24 years for being a snotnose" or "infinite ban for calling me a poopyhead", he would be more likely than not to presume that the Uncyclopædia is indeed being run by some megalomaniac on a power trip at the users' expense. As much as the original poster of these comments may have thought it funny to write "banned for being an idiot, i pWN3D u!" instead of "Vandalised [[this]], [[that]], [[th'other]]. Ignored warnings (if any).", it may well be a minority of non-admins who would bother pulling up the entire edit history to see if this is a power trip or just a dumb joke at the expense of some petty vandal. --Carlb 22:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - as I was driving about this afternoon I was thinking about this - I now agree that we need more clearly stated ban reasons. The problem is that smart-ass comments generally keep us in a good mood as we deal with stuff we'd rather not have to deal with. Still, as much as it will crush the admins' spirits, I vote for having clear, coherent ban reasons. As you eloquently point out, regular users probably won't check edits, and would think that we're a bunch of asshole admins (and we really should do a better job of hiding that, at least at first glance) based solely on the comments we leave. While it takes the fun away, I see the utility in it. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Creation or recreation of useless substubs[edit]

Recreation of constantly-vandalised pages[edit]

CAPS LOCK[edit]

Posting "I rule!" or a one-word article[edit]

Creating/adding pointless categories (Category:Terrorist, Steve Ballmers hitlist...)[edit]

Creating Category:Frequent Users Who Aren't Admins[edit]

Pointless page moves[edit]

Double redirects, circular redirects[edit]

  • In my experience, double redirects can be created inadvertently (or at least without the intention of being annoying), whereas circular redirects are often mistaken by their authors as humourous. --T. (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding facts or crossposting Wikipedia text as-is[edit]

Adding content to Euroipods[edit]

  • This is considered an offense? That article desperately needs content, since the admins refuse to let it be deomcratically voted on at VFH or even VFD. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Userpages in mainspace[edit]

Recreation of Ballmer killquotes and templates[edit]

Uncyclopedia:Special Rules violations[edit]

Open proxies[edit]

  • Is the use of an open proxy the issue, or the behaviour of the person using it? I'd lean toward the latter. And aren't we permablocking these? --T. (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Carlb has already perma-blocked a bunch of them. If we see more, no reason not to keep up that tradition. There is no good reason to use an open proxy, as we already discourage slander, and that's about the only thing other than vandalism I can see needing to hide your IP for. If it's a case of your ISP not allowing access to Uncyclopedia, that's a your problem not our problem. Does AOL count as an Open Proxy? Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from non-admin: As the Internets become more heavily surveilled and rogue malware proliferates some users may set up their browsers to use a proxy all the time. A no-proxies policy may end up banning perfectly normal three-headed schizophrenic psychopaths from the site at some point in the incontinent future. Sorry to interrupt, O Holy Ones, I go now to slave in the content mines.----OEJ 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
What? People are going to worry about being under survelance, and....use a proxy to visit...Uncyclopedia? I can see if you're posting anti-government propaganda while inside China, but....on Uncyclopedia? And I have absolutely no idea what malware has to do with using open proxies. We're not talking about ISP proxies - we're talking about open ones that allow people to choose to hide their IP address by re-routing their traffic through those proxies. I fail to see how an open proxy would help with malware - get a decent AV scanner, don't use IE, and get some common sense and you should be good to go. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, just turn the proxy-plugin off. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • History behind that one incident: A spambot was coming in from multiple addresses, replacing articles with linkspam. Ban one address and it would move to another. Solution was to do a Google search on the offending addresses, which found some nice li'l lists of open proxies posted openly, and then ban every address on the list. AFAIK there was one recurrence of this incident, but as an open proxy is one that anyone on the Internet can hide behind (as opposed to the infamous AOL proxies, which are only available to AOL users) the potential for abuse is severe enough that if one or two are abused, entire lists of them must be blocked to prevent the problems merely shifting from one open proxy to another. --Carlb 19:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We should also block the big proxy called "AOL". It's the most common proxy out there, and sends out the worst edits in the history of mankind. Nobody using that proxy has anything worthwhile to contribute. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be easier just to ban the open proxies before they even do anything? I found a giant list of over 1000 open proxies in use, over 99% of them aren't banned here - The admirable Lord Frosty the Snowman 21:38, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Taking a dump in DUMP[edit]

  • Seriously guys, that's not what it's for. - Nonymous 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So basically[edit]

I don't follow any of these guidelines. Sweet. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I strongly feel that there should be different rules for established users (with edit history, user page, etc) then for ip addresses. As an unregistered user, every time you log on you may have a different IP address. Therefore any warning or notice left on the user page for the previous IP address is completely pointless.

While I give tacit support to these policies for logged in users, I feel that anon-ipers should never get a warning - because warnings rarely seem to work for them. This is for a couple of reasons - if you're not logging in, you don't care to be a "person" on this website - it's more akin to writing on a bathroom wall than writing a novel with your name on the front and your bio on the inside flap. In addition, as mentioned above, there's a fair chance that leaving a note on the user page for an IP address will never be seen by that person.

To be a member of a community you need a name and a face - I treat members of my community different than I would treat a nameless shadow in the dark, slinking through town. I would like to encourage people to be members of the community, rather than treat members and non-members alike. And I think that this will help our site - the more of a sense of community this site has, the better we'll all get along. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment regarding anonymous IP users. I have left countless messages on the talk pages of anon-ipers, the majority of which are never replied to, or probably even viewed. People who have signed up for an account are more likely to be approachable over "quality" issues, etc. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)

Warnings and talk page comments[edit]

Unless an address is an anon-dynamic-IP, AOL proxy or some other sort of moving target, perhaps we should at least be making the attempt to post some sort of explanation to talk page (even if it's just "Please don't vandalise Uncyclopedia") when banning? --Carlb 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Long bans[edit]

If a user or address is banned for more than a day or two, we do need the information somewhere as to who (or what) was banned and why - enough to be able to re-examine these and determine whether they all still need to remain blocked. No point in blocking an individual dynamic-IP for 24 years if the address changes the moment the user loses the connection for even a second. --Carlb 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Something I pointed out a few months ago, which I think got swept under the rug. Any reason to not treat IP addresses as generically dynamic unless they prove otherweise? By which I mean we should probably cap ban-lengths on IP addresses at 1 month or something, unless we get repeated vandalism from an IP address month after month.
As you said, no reason to ban an IP address for 24 years, only for them to get another one tomorrow. A month is long enough that a static IP will probably forget about the site, and for a dynamic-IP to be long gone, and thus no longer worth banning. I think the longest I've ever held onto a dynamic IP is a month or so. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

FFS[edit]

can i (or someone) add ffs to the bottom of the list, so it's included but clearly for jokes, to stop new people confusing themselves? thanks - jack mort | cunt | talkKodamaIcon.jpg - 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Redlink fix[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please remove the wikilink to Uncyclopedia:Templates/Deletion process from the word "Tag" (as in "Tag tampering"), or find a better place to link it to. This was a link that I made a long time ago, before Uncyclopedia:Templates/Deletion process was deleted or this page was protected. (Note that we might want to wait for the discussion at Forum:Question about deleted template listing pages‎ to finish, just in case that redlink turns blue...) --Pentium5dot1|t~^_^~c 21:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I have no idea how to "disable this template" though... MrN Icons-flag-gb.png HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 00:13, Aug 3
I think "disabling" the {{editprotected}} template means replacing it with {{tl|editprotected}}. --Pentium5dot1 t~^_^~c 18:42, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

No lip[edit]

This page was recently deleted, and I notice there is nothing here that mentions recreating deleted pages, or creating offensive usernames such as "<Insert Admin Name Here> is a PooPoo Head". I would like to see some mention of those offenses here. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 03:07, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Anything else? Whu?[edit]

Main article: Forum:Ban-O-Mania Must Stop

I think "Anything else" is too broad. Please be a little more specific, because it makes it seem like admins get to do whatever the hell they want here. Thank you for your consideration. Qzekrom sig trans.gif Cute Zekrom! Use Fusion Bolt NOW!! • It's super effective!21:41 09 Mar '12

Block evasion and Recreation of deleted content[edit]

  1. They're not listed here. (See also: the PuppyOnTheRadio incident.)
  2. These are ill-defined offenses.

--Clicky! Sir CuteKyogreOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 22:08, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Template warnings[edit]

We ought to have something like Twinkle or RedWarn to warn users and leave banning as a last resort. We have the template messages {{Welcome}} and {{Oh Dear}}, but nothing for petty spammers, and it's often unclear how close a user is to being banned.

I might set something like that up later. It's more involved to setup and localize than just copying the gadget from Wikipedia, but the Fork has RedWarn, so it's obviously possible to make happen here. Dark Web, White Hat (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to. Me, I am less interested in letting obvious vandals down gently than minimizing distractions and time-wasting to all of us from users who clearly are not here to contribute. The only current impetus to revise our ban policy is a single user whose actions are so consistent as to make it clear he is evading a previous perma-ban. If a lousy first edit might reflect ignorance and not malevolence, I use {{Oh Dear}}. If it requires anything more firm, I use the ban-stick. Spıke 🎙️12:59 25-Feb-22
Retrieved from "https://uncyclopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia_talk:Ban_Policy&oldid=6155020"