FANDOM


Forums: Index War Room A more enforced ban
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Alright, lately in this wiki a few bans have been made. Now the editor who got banned goes to another admin and asks for an unban. Sometimes, the admin(only administrators and bearocrats) is sometimes careless(no offense) and unbans the banned editor. This causes a huge problem. Here's an example: the issue between Joeytje50joe(whatever his name is) and Callofduty4(here is a link-http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Callofduty4#ban and look for the "topic ban") Now this has been an issue for a long time and I myself think that I have found a solution to it. New rule: The editor banned can only be unbanned by the admin who banned him.

  • If this has not happened before, as you guys state, let this new rule be used be used for future issues like this.

Sounds good enough, support. Sounds bad, oppose it. Don't want to be involved, be neutral. Menu mp weapons l96a1CoDE-2KGo to my talk page!02:49, January 17, 2012 (UTC)


Sounds proper. I've never seen anything like that but I've heard (read, whatever) and it kinda feeled a little wrong. That way, the admin who baned the guy will know if he actually deserved the ban or if it was too harsh, instead of the same banned chap giving a half-assed explanation to another guy, who likely will unban him. ShepardLtCommander 02:53, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

It's not like we administrators don't talk to each other. Many bans we place on users are discussed with other administrators, so we can all agree on what's best for the community. In the rare cases where a ban is placed without discussion, and it is of serious note, we will hold imprompteu conversations on IRC where we will confer and decide if further action need be taken. -- sactage (talk) 03:20, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Err...pre chat\b that's what we did, assuming no "you've been banned for x days" was present on the banned users talk page. Chat\b was supposed to make it easier to keep track of peoples ban and the reasoning behind them. Also, are we talking about Admins like Shot and myself or chatmods like Redskin and Panzer? Carb 0Stop Censorship 02:54, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Your example is wrong. I just looked at User:Joeytje50's rights log and he's never been banned. Carb 0Stop Censorship 03:05, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
Is there an example S:C related or a more recent example? Iirc this has only happened to IRC once and it happened occasionally pre chat\b to chat. Carb 0Stop Censorship 03:20, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Can I see an example? Shotrocket6 02:56, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Give me a link. For all I know, you're making things up. Shotrocket6 03:00, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I haven't noticed this, and I also haven't any trolls come up again. Conqueror of all Zombies 03:01, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

COD:AEAE? Why can't a fellow admin unblock a user depending on the situation? OpalNyx SigNyx Sig talk03:11, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Joey's ban was an IRC ban. That example itself it's flawed. Good day, sir.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo03:12, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

When has this been a problem is what i'm wondering. KUDLq.png 03:15, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Not only is this argument flawed in that it only has one example, relates solely to IRC, and is four months old, but Joey was arguing his ban directly to Callofduty4. From what I've seen, it is not uncommon to see users that have been banned from IRC/chat/the wiki combating the reasoning for their ban, and Joey's case was not different; there is no information currently available to me that would suggest Joey went to other administrators in an attempt to fight his ban, unless you would want to include Sactage's IRC conversation with him (for which I do not have logs). The only other direct attempt at retribution would be the almost-existent desysopping forum that Joey did in fact want to make for Callofduty4 (I don't particularly recall where I saw him say it, but you may see my response to it). I agree with Sactage in that controversial bans are always discussed by other administrators and appropriate action is always taken. Shotrocket6 05:51, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree with this more. We need to keep our bans if an admin bans someone as well as respecting others' bans. A perfect example of this would be about Megan's ban. Her repeated banning and unbanning almost lead to a DDOS and her 'supposed' suicide attempt. This has been getting out of hand for too long, I completely agree. _Sp3cTalk_ 06:24, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly recall Megan's blocks, but were they discussed by a number of administrators? Shotrocket6 01:04, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

I have always been of the thought that; which ever Admin banned a user for whatever reason, he should be the only one to lift the ban prematurely. The only exception another Admin should lift the ban is if the ban was purely a case of power abuse, and even then the Admin wanting to lift the ban should discuss it with the admin that placed the ban in the first place. To override another Admins ban without discussing it first is disrespectful to the Admin who placed the ban and challenges his administrative authority. Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 06:33, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with our current ban system. DarkMetroid567 07:05, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Per Sp3c and WHISKEY. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 16:56, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

As long as admins talk to each other, bans and unbans should be fine as they are now. I agree that only the admin who blocked should be able to unblock, except when an obvious mistake was made or its a case of power abuse. I know I've personally gone against what I just said a couple of times in the past, but I was simply wrong when I did that.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  18:48, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Let's take an example: Callofduty4 gives me a block. I appeal for it and ask another crat (let's say Chiafriend12.) I believe the crats now involved should look at the incident and then put in their input, maybe calling in another admin/crat to help make a decision. Also, I would like to say that if an admin bans a user (so if Eltomo85 bans me for example) only Eltomo or a crat could ban me. I'd prefer the top but wanted to input both ideas. But to be fair, the admins know the blocking guidelines so they know what to do, although still I would prefer other members of the team to be able to take part in the discussion, if one is to get what I mean. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  19:22, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I've got the image that crats' and sysops' only difference is being able to hand user rights. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 19:30, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
Tbh crats should get to do what I posted as well. Might ponder making an WR about it but probably won't need to. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  19:38, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
YR, you still seem to think that bureaucrats have some sort of power over the other sysops and users. Why? Shotrocket6 01:04, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the only difference b'crat has to sysop is the ability to give and remove some rights.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  10:30, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
They can also overrule admin's choices if they think the idea works, also as far as I can recall. My memory is really bad though about this kind of thing, but I think I'm right. Just go with whatever else I posted if you don't get it. Probably is the best way. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  16:42, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
No, that's not true at all. We have policies like AEAE that tell us that. The only difference between an administrator and a bureaucrat is what Callofduty4 mentioned above. Shotrocket6 06:24, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
So, 'crats are basically admins that can make other users admins. Am I right? Sgt. S.S. 10:52, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
That is correct. I thought this was common knowledge. Perhaps the difference in User Hilite is confusing to some. Shotrocket6 18:21, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this, as I don't see why another admin would ever make a bad call in unbanning somebody. I believe if they are an admin, that they have good judgement, comparable to that of any other admin. If an admin made a ban, I'm pretty sure no one else will remove it, as they trust each others' judgement. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 22:28, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

What if it is a controversial topic? Shotrocket6 01:04, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Then the ban can be discussed between administrators. There's no need to limit who can ban or unban who. -- sactage (talk) 14:21, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
On that I agree. Shotrocket6 22:04, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

The important thing to remember here is that bans are purely an administrative issue, not a community issue. The community should not be involved in making decisions related to bans. --Scottie theNerd 03:41, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

The community isn't involved as far as we are concerned at the moment.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  10:30, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Explain why, Scottie? I don't see a problem with it. DarkMetroid567 02:21, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
Why would the community need be involved with bans. That's for the admin team's discretion and not for us to decide. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 04:04, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
@DarkMetroid567: The community at large does not know or understand the functions and responsibilities of the administrator team. Remember, the community picks admins to carry out those responsibilities, and therefore vests trust in the judgement of the admins on wiki issues. Issues such as user bans are dealt with admins according to their guidelines and discretion. That's why we have admins.
A while ago, a few notorious users had a pattern of causing mass disruption to the wiki, turning over a new leaf and being given more chances. A large part of this was because the community wanted to give more chances and it came down to public votes. The problem? It became a personal "He's actually a pretty nice guy" and "he was really helpful to me". On the flipside, other users were publicly vilified and public votes were pretty much a one-sided affair where users got to talk **** about a user they hated and there was nothing that user could do. What's the point? Is this the environment and community we want to promote on the wiki? Would new users want to join the wiki if they see individuals being picked out and shamed in the War Room?
A particular chronic troublemaker caused so much fuss in coming back that a vote was held to decide how long he should be banned for. It was the silliest "vote" I've ever seen on the wiki and highlighted inconsistencies in the way admins handled what was otherwise a routine troll case. You break this rule, you get this punishment. There's no need to get community consensus on this sort of thing.
Anyone who has worked on the administration side on any forum or site knows that discretion is an essential part of their work. Involving the community in admin decisions creates conflicts of interest and loss of objectivity. Nothing gets done, and when things do get done, they get done for the wrong reasons. --Scottie theNerd 04:36, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
"A particular chronic troublemaker caused so much fuss in coming back that a vote was held to decide how long he should be banned for. It was the silliest "vote" I've ever seen on the wiki and highlighted inconsistencies in the way admins handled what was otherwise a routine troll case."
I've seen this forum. Suddenly, I think I agree with you now. DarkMetroid567 06:07, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Bans will continue to be discussed by administrators when appropriate. Shotrocket6 10:39, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.