Forum:IPblocklist

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > IPblocklist
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2467 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I hate to have to say this, but looking at special:ipblocklist on en: is like looking at a train wreck at the moment. It's a mess of users blocked for arbitrary periods such as "until the year 2034" or infinite (until the end of time) with no warning and no explanations.

Worse yet, comments like this are turning up increasingly frequently:

  • 05:34, 14 October 2007 Tom mayfair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 70.127.16.156 (contribs) with an expiry time of 27 years (Get Out of My Store!)
  • 19:26, 12 October 2007 Tom mayfair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Snoopdadoggy (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (ALLAH AKBAR)

or:

  • 21:13, 12 October 2007 Mhaille (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 72.148.41.192 (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (this user is a cunt)

Very unprofessional. An admin is a user who has been entrusted with a few extra tools to deal with some very specific problems - vandalism in progress, page blanking, open proxies, spambots and the like. There is a certain level of responsability that goes with the use of these tools.

Holding these tools does not make Uncyclopedia "your store" nor does it make you "Allah". If anything, it's a rôle of janitorial drudgery, cleaning up messes that have been made by others. A thankless task, not a "I've been handed the keys to the building and can do as I please" spree.

I realise the issue has been raised before, there are countless "who admins the admins" and "who uses the users" threads in the archives, but the situation appears to have gotten worse, not better. There are too many long bans handed out with no explanation whatsoever. Infini-bans may be justified when dealing with a spambot behind an open proxy, but individual users often get a new IP every time they connect. And, if you must ban, explain why - otherwise it becomes difficult for anyone examining the log afterward to see if what you've done makes any sense at all.

For instance,

  • 20:00, 4 July 1776 GeorgeIII (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 12.34.5.6 (contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (section-blanking England and United Kingdom articles, ignored repeated warnings on talkpage)

would at least tell what this was about and why the admin tools were being used this way.

As a log entry, this is worse than useless:

  • 16:51, 11 October 2007 Tom mayfair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Rakatak!1 (contribs) with an expiry time of 27 years (I forgot why I'm bannin' you)

much like this isn't terribly helpful:

  • 05:27, 8 October 2007 Mhaille (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 216.197.254.36 (contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (dick sucker)

I have no idea what these users have done, they may well be Satan incarnate, or they might not. Who knows?

  • 13:07, 6 October 2007 Tom mayfair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 195.175.37.70 (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (Shhhh! This is a library)

But no, this is *not* a library. Try dir *.lib /s or its *nix equivalents if you're looking for one of those.

  • 04:46, 6 October 2007 Tom mayfair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 65.163.112.187 (contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (Go Play Doctor Or Somethin')
  • 04:46, 6 October 2007 Tom mayfair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 65.163.112.225 (contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (Go Play Doctor Or Somethin')

Very poor taste, given that "playing doctor" is a term with sexual connotations. You do realise these logs are rather permanent, short of intervention by whomever owns the servers? Putting this sort of content there isn't a terribly bright idea.

And:

  • 21:59, 5 October 2007 Tom mayfair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 71.195.30.13 (contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (I Expect A BJ When You Get Back)

Demanding sexual favours in return for being unblocked? I'm not sure if I even want to comment on this one!

I'm posting this here because I believe the issue is more than a question of one individual - special:ipblocklog in general seems to contain a majority of comments which either don't say what the user supposedly did to be banned or which merely serve as taunts and insults. Please... if you intended to have (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 1.3.3.7 (contribs) with an expiry time of 2 days (blanked Runescape and Latvia) then *say* so, leaving nonsense like (Go Play Doctor Or Somethin') only makes Uncyclopedia and its admins look bad. --Carlb 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle
Is this better?:
(Block log); 20:12 . . Tom mayfair (Talk | contribs | block) (blocked User:24.121.141.65 with an expiry time of infinite: I'm sorry, but we don't not accept vandalism at this time. Please try again when your ban is lifted. Thank you. Good day.) SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle
Well, I'm not an admin, so keep in mind that what I say is completely worthless. However, I disagree completely with Carlb. Our sense of humor is what makes us an uncyclopedia, and keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously. Besides, when a user is blocked with a reason like that, 99 times out of 100, they know what they've done. You're sort of reading it like QDB, with no context. I'm betting that if you looked through the banee's recent contribs, the block reason would make perfect sense. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:27, Oct 14
I totally disagree with Carlb here as well. Carlb, the point of those ridiculous ban summaries is to make jokes! We trust our admins, and you're the first person who's ever complained, or cared, about admins writing ridiculous things when they ban people. Reading those preposterous ban summaries is part of the fun of the site, and as ledballoon said, 99% of the time all you need to do is glance at a banned user's contributions, see that they replaced 7 pages with "Boobs lol", and you'll know why they were banned. --THE 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. I think banning vandals until 2034 is hilarious--Sir Manforman CUN 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
*cough* Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If I may comment a little furthermore: "Holding these tools does not make Uncyclopedia "your store" nor does it make you "Allah". If anything, it's a rôle of janitorial drudgery, cleaning up messes that have been made by others. A thankless task, not a "I've been handed the keys to the building and can do as I please" spree." Carlb, admins don't really think they're Allah, nor do they think it's "their store". You seem not to grasp the fact that these ban reasons are jokes. They aren't "doing as they please", they're doing their dreary job of banning asshole after asshole, and trying to lighten it up a little by joking about it. --THE 20:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And, for the record, not every ban is like that. Most "first-time-offenders" get a day or 2, a warning, and a referral to HTBFANJS and/or UN:BGBU. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:55, Oct 14
I agree mostly, in that a lot of the sweary block reasons are bad when just looking at them in a list (though it was worse when Olipro was a new admin). But most are a response to what the blockee was doing, and though this isn't useful to anyone the ban was not intended to get, it is at least a little uncyclopedic I think. Maybe put a "Do you think you got this message in error? Complain here" link in the block message. Spang talk 21:15, 14 Oct 2007
As a couple of my comments were highlighted I may as well add my two-penneth. The comments that are above are, as Spang mentioned, a reference to what they were banned for. One went around adding the User tag "is a cunt" to articles, and another was a delightful young chap who made comments about dick sucking to articles. Its simple when you look at it.
For what its worth, I don't actually give a rats ass about what an Admin puts in the box, I trust their judgement, and the few who are trawling thru the site day after day, dealing with the morons that we seem to draw to us like moths to a flame, have probably got better things to do than to fill in detailed reports of exactly why they are banning someone. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
Plus, I never said I was Allah. Allah akbar (or Allāhu Akbar/الله أكبر) means God is great. The statement was primarily for this act & that act or any act to where they are banned for "27 years™" or for infinity. I guess if you can do a better job then you should take part in the effort of cleanin' this place up. As time goes by, more & more people come here. So this "back in my day" crap doesn't cut it with me. The strong contributors have spoken. They feel that the job is bein' done. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle

I say we ban everyone who whines about offensive ban messages with something like "fuck off, cunt". -- Prof. Olipro Icons-flag-gb KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 02:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If i may say something: banning someone because he/she goes around calling people cunts would be the reason to ban yourself for calling the cunt-caller a cunt. I agree with Carlb. Banning is a serious matter and it looks like shit to see all those comments. They are not funny and give a bad picture of the admins' attitudes. Maybe some people trust admins just because they are admins. I don't, (as they are still human.. ehm... i think...) and would like to see the reasons of a ban in the summary. Like it says somewhere in the policy: Joking is serious business, and i think the line has to be drawn somewhere to not let EVERYTHING fall into chaos. For what it's worth: D.G.Neree 10:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
BOOOOOOOO!!! XD SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle
The thing is that all, or roughly 98%, of bans are for the exact same reason. Just take a look at the block log. I can guarantee you that 99% of the users were banned for glaringly obvious reasons. If admins did give actual ban reasons they would all be the same: "Blanker. Blanker. Blanker. Blanker. Blanker." How boring would that be? --THE 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this is still here, my opinion: if the banned people have a problem with our ban summaries, let them complain. Oh wait... --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what IRC is for. --Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us (TalkContribsCUNCapt.) 23:19, October 17, 2007

Keep the funny bans. They're... funny. 27 years is as good as infinite, you know. And if you want to know why they were blocked, the (contribs) link is there for a reason.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 23:20 Oct 17, 2007

In 27 years Uncyclopedia will become the most vandalized site on the web. Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In 27 years? Whatever someone didn't like of their edits won't even be on (contribs) as the original article will have been deleted long ago. We'll have no idea why they were banned, much like we have no idea now. And no, there is no point banning an IPv4 address until 2034, as we'll be IPv6 by then. :) --Carlb 05:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, we have ideas why they were banned. We have the logs, Ban Patrol, & history. I help the sincere users in their time of need to the best of my ability. I couldn't give a rat's arse how the users that fuck up the place feel when it comes to their ban or its summary. Regardless, all they have to do is get a new IP & they'll be back doin' the same crap. Whether I was up front with the reason or not, they know what they did & probably planned it. Why ban 'em at all if these are the cases? All you have to do is ask the admin who banned 'em as to why they were banned if you can't figure it out. If the admin is inactive, then just do the lookin' up yourself in the vast archive of logs or use your best judgement. Pretty simple. I believe this site should be 'bout humour & havin' fun creatin' articles. If a handful of useless gobshites get their feelin's hurt then I don't care. We have real users here that are active on a regular basis versus some random IP that just comes here to call their arch-nemesis gay in a violation of the vanity policy. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle
Admins can check deleted contibutions too. I agree there's enough records.---Asteroid B612B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Down with the system! Users for the Protection of Admins from B-crats! Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In Conclusion

Ban reasons make me lol. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 02:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Carlb seems to be not informed, but just opinionated. And it's sort of satisfying to see a sock get blown up with the reason, "Get out of my store!!!". --SPY Administrator (Complain|I rock|In memoriam) HMRFRA Bluegarrisoncapsig.png 30px-Sucrose_b.gif WH 02:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I totally see what he's saying, ban reasons are supposed to let us know if you can unban someone. Still, that having been said, it is fun to give an IP the death penalty with witty banter.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 13:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects