Forum:Some bans and the need for a constitutional reform

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Some bans and the need for a constitutional reform
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2634 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

All right, ladies and gentlemen. I don't think my one-day ban due adding the 16th article to VFD was unfair. Or, better put, it was not inappropriate, as it was clearly stated at that page that "If you add you will be banned for one day". But... well, it's my second ban. The first was when I messed with some code on Ban Patrol, after adding 14 articles to QVFD. Remembering that the article I put on VFD was from 2005 and promptly deleted, that the vandal I denounced was infibanned and that most of those 14 articles were also deleted.

I am not the "exceptionist" type, who thinks that veterans deserve some privileges or special treatment. The law is for everyone. On political subjects, I am for the rule of the law. If you think some law is unfair, try to change it, not ignore it. So that's my point: I was banned two times while doing my poopsmith duty and trying to get Uncyclopedia rid from excess manure. After these two bans, what if I tell you that from now on I will just ignore VFD, Ban Patrol and QVFD? "Shitty old article? Not my problem". "Vandals at the gate? Let them deal". Is this reaction comprehensible?

Don't you think maybe - just maybe - we're somewhat becoming bureaucratic and forgetting about people's real intentions here (that is, who are vandals and who are well-intentioned users that can eventually do shit out of inattention)? This in order to preserve a somewhat (sorry, but that's it) ridiculous hierarchy and discipline. Being propositive, I think we could change this: mistakes, if repeated (which was not my case) should lead first to warnings and then bans (this would change a little the VFD rule in specific). N00b craploading is also warning-then-ban. Clear vandalism is immediate ban. Yeah, we almost do just as I said, but maybe this could be our official, even if not written, policy. For ALL admins.

No flames. Guess you know me. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  Rocket  [scream!] 06:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying you should be warned first, but you also mention that VFD warns you...? We all get banned eventually; get over it. Heck, I got banned once for being a Cleric and using a sword... /me rolls 1d20, checks tables. No, wait. That was something else. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I knew that rule so much that I didn't read it last time I entered VFD. Somewhat "nah, why this, who could be so stupid...". I just was thinking about killing a juicy awful article and forgot about this rule, as you can forget to sign sometimes. No immediate ban for errors out of distraction, that's just it. Not that much in fact. (Mordillo, if you pop out proposing a group hug, I'm out of your campaign...) -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  Rocket  [scream!] 06:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A lot of it depends on who catches your error. I would never seriously ban someone for broken code like what you did for your first ban (I looked it up in your contribs). I wouldn't even warn - I'd just fix it and move on, especially since you're helping by reporting vandals. I think that would be the case for nearly all the admins here, you just got unlucky. ;) I've always been reluctant to propose that we write out a comprehensive policy for admins, though, because the cases we get are just too varied - it's going to leave us hamstrung no matter how much we try to anticipate the problems we'll have in the future.
On the whole, don't worry about past bans. Everyone gets them eventually, one way or another. —rc (t) 06:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We should have a set of rules for admins because we're living somewhat under a random feudalism. What saves us is that the vast majority of admins are not trigger-happy powerplayers. But saying to them "try to be reasonable" is far too much subjective for such a range of people - in one way or another, competent enough to occupy their functions - and such a range of moods. Remembering that the later ban situation doesn't apply here: it's a clear rule, just that it's maybe over-repressive. The Constitution was not invented because kings were all bad, but because kings were all humans. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  Rocket  [scream!] 07:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As one of the banners you're bitching about, let me explain my motivation: If you don't care enough to check that you're not making a mess of a page, I assume you don't care enough to make a useful edit. For some random page, no big deal. For some moderately important page, like VFD, big deal.

Yes, we appreciate you doing your civic duty and submitting stuff to VFD. But VFD isn't "feel free to make shitty edits and disregard the rules and any formatting". VFD is a page designed in such a way that our process of removing articles is (moderately) open and (moderately) based on what the community as a whole wants. For that reason, EVERYONE has to do it right. When people can't do that, we discourage them from fucking it up for everyone else. Spend a little bit of time on your edits. Read first, edit second. Quality, not speed, not quantity.

However, more importantly, I did give you a warning. Your first "ban" was 14 minutes. 14 minutes!!!! Have you ever, EVER fucked up the formatting in VFD since then? No? Wow! that worked! In the time it took you to go get a drink, kick the fridge in anger, and watch a show until the first commercial came on, you became unbanned, and life went on.

What I think you're running into are two things: One, we're hardass, bastard admins, and we delight in sending in the goons with clubs and a pair of pliers the moment someone steps out of line. Two, you think that you can do whatever the fuck you want, if you do it in good faith. Unfortunately, category one is completely true, and category two is not. For the most part, we assume that everyone is out to fuck up everything. If you're perfect, you never get banned. If you're not quite perfect, you probably get banned. But 1 day and 14 minutes of banning is less ban time than MOST OF THE ADMINS have.

If you can't survive that long without editing Uncyclopedia, I am truly sorry. Have you sought help for your problem yet? Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 04/25 21:52

Now Dirty Harry himself has shown up! Tell me something, Famine, how old are you? You really could have preserved yourself from hearing this, but, since you asked... You didn't have suddenly turned into the alpha male just because you have some operational privileges in a website. That's not just my complain, be sure. And you released my one-day-ban in 14 minutes after hearing about the 14 QVFD entries in IRC and by e-mail. Which raises the very serious question if you are not banning people without even caring about looking at their contributions. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  Rocket  [scream!] 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, the reason I ban people is BECAUSE I look at their contributions. I don't ever ban people without looking first. And as for what you wrote in the rest of that bit...I do not know that it says what you think it says.... Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 04/25 22:25
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're telling me that you banned me for a day with the intention of lifting this ban within 14 minutes? -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  Rocket  [scream!] 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In matters like that, yes. I generally assume that if someone was doing something with the intention of being helpful, that they will either get in touch with me, say, "sorry I messed that up", or they'll hit IRC, and some other nice admin will unban them, and life will go on. The only people who end up with really long bans are those who are outright vandals, or who otherwise significantly damage the website.
If we want to send a strong message of "that is bad", you'll get a ban. If you take a look at the ban log, you'll see that people get unbanned on a fairly regular basis. It's rare that a "3 day ban" actually lasts 3 days if the person wasn't being a complete asshole. Get in touch, talk to someone, and if you can explain that you have a limited grasp of the english language or didn't understand that 15 was referring to a number, you'll probably be let off the hook.
It's our version of the 'after school detention' - you touch base with the teacher, discuss what you did wrong, promise not to do it again, and they let you go after 10 minutes. On a semi-regular basis we leave notes on talk pages, only to have them ignored. The nice thing about a ban is that you can't ignore it. If you want it lifted early, you have to actually talk to someone. And a good chunk of the time, that's all we really want to have happen. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 04/25 22:43

Let's talk about what matters

So, nevermind. What is done is done and discussing the merit of a single user's bans won't take us anywhere. But RcMurphy raised a very good point when he talked about a set of rules to admins. Kind of an Uncyclopedian Constitution. Let's discuss? -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  Rocket  [scream!] 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Been down this path more than once before. What it comes down to is that more rules = more loopholes to exploit. Multiple times in the last couple of years we've debated this, always started because a user or two were pissed about getting banned. And multiple times, after much discussion, we realized that the more rules we made, the less people read them, and the more rules-mongering they did to avoid the two big ones: "Be funny, not stupid, and Don't be a dick."
Ultimately, being able to be flexible, creative, and responsive trumps following a massive list of rules. Once in awhile, the innocents take a bullet. But in the grand scheme of things, the more firepower we have, and the fewer layers of Bureaucracy we have to wade through, the more efficiently we can do our jobs.
I'm not (completely) discouraging debate, but it's probably worthwhile to dig back into some of the previous debates we've had on the subject before rehashing it all over again. Unless this is supposed to be Debateopedia, where we endlessly debate the same stuff over and over. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 04/25 23:08
Actually, now we're talking about a set of rules only applicable to about 50 users. -- herr doktor needsAshuttle  Rocket  [scream!] 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually against strict rules for admins, since I believe most of them are actually doing their job in good intentions. I haven't seen anyone really abusing his powers in an abnormal way (oh damn, MO is going to rejoice on that phrasing). One of the things I found most charming in Uncync, is the fact that we have a sort of a mad despotic system, with kings, lords, villains, heroes and maniacs. THAT is one of the main things the differentiates us from that other web site. And unlike the other one, management is pretty cool, most of the time. One thing I would consider, is to consider three or four members of the adminatii as "elders of the tribe" so whenever there is a disagreement between a user and an admin, they can negotiate. One last question though, as long as we're considering that: Famine, I just realized a few weeks ago that you banned me for 2 hours somewhere around November I think, for saying that BENSON is better than Hinoa? I never said that! ~Jewriken.GIF 11:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

LIAR!!!! Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 04/26 21:10
You know what, I completly forgot about that and I deserved every second of that ban. I hereby deonunce BENSON and admit that HINOA is better than him. One time slacking. Won't happen again. ~Jewriken.GIF 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
/me rejoices. There, are you happy now? Hell, most of the time your english is better than mine. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 11:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually meant how an admin use his ban stick in an abnormal way. You know? Abnormal? nodge nodge wink wink. But thank you for rejoicing! ~Jewriken.GIF 11:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And yet you call me a "...very very sick person". You're the weirdo. Obviously. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 11:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously. ~Jewriken.GIF 11:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will just accept retreating from my (yet another) proposal/evil world takeover plan if we all sing along together now:


--herr doktor needsAshuttle  Rocket  [scream!] 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Shan't. -- Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools