Difference between revisions of "User talk:Quebrada/Ban"

Revision as of 21:24, 22 November 2004

After discussion with other users, I have taken the following actions against User:Quebrada:

• Quebrada is banned from editing NSwiki for a period of 1 year. Per Wikipedia precedents, this ban will reset any time Quebrada makes an edit. Any edits by Quebrada should be reverted on sight.
• Any IP used by Quebrada to edit NSwiki will be blocked for a period of 6 hours. Since Quebrada uses AOL, a more lengthy block is not appropriate.
• Any new accounts created by Quebrada to edit NSwiki will be blocked indefinitely.

Since I don't like taking these kind of actions unilaterally, I'm opening this page up for a discussion and referendum on my action. Feel free to add options to this quasi-poll.

Quebrada's contributions are difficult to trace, as the user often failed to log in. However, more evidence can be seen at Talk:Quebrada and Talk:Rejistania.

--Goobergunch|? 02:19, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT)

1-year ban, 6-hour IP block

1. Goobergunch|? 02:19, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT)
2. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 04:32, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT) (See other arguments at User Talk:Quebrada)

No ban

Comments

Does this refer to all editing, or only of articles? ie. are discussion pages, sandbox, etc allowed. [[User:Cacobellum|Cacobellvm|✐talk]] 04:53, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Given the argumentative nature of the Talk pages above, and a general unwillingness from this user to listen to the wiki community and sysops, I'd say discussion pages are also under the ban. → Fris Θtalk 05:20, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT)

How was the ban period of 1 year decided? (As in what's the sliding scale of misdemeanours?) His misdeeds really focused around an utterly fantastical military history for a fantasy nation, an unwillingness to log on properly and goading sysops by being perpetually stupid. As utterly annoying as this obviously was, how much of it was a genuine threat or vandalism to the wiki? I'm asking not to imply an answer, just to ask. If he's real rather than just a wind-up merchant he's certainly a godmoddery felon of the highest order. But isn't that just a link?

(Also - I use Netscape Navigator and am frequently logged out between a preview and saving. However, I don't believe Quebrada is for real - but what could be real is that a precedent for banning periods may be set which may be inappropriate in the future) Sacco and Vanzetti 18:49, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT)

It's a fair question, one that should probably be discussed at greater length at NSwiki Talk:Why we blocked. This is a new wiki, and as such policies aren't etched in stone. One of the principal factors is that User:Goobergunch pays for this wiki out of his own pocket, and wiki users who use the site as their own private home page (with associated bandwidth expenses) have a more direct impact than it might on the foundation-supported Wikipedia.

Many of the admin decisions, including this one, are made after extensive discussion on the #nswiki channel. Knoot, Goober, Defaultia and I have all crossed paths with Quebrada on multiple occasions, and he has been a frequent topic of discussion. The ultimate decision and length of sentence came from Goober, with Knoot and I in agreement. We didn't discuss the length of sentence as such. In every other blockage so far, we've resolved the need for a block via other channels before the 24 hours had passed. In this case, blocking was pointless, as the user came in through so many of the public channels, so we communicated via Talk pages in an attempt to resolve the issues. None of our attempts to clarify NSwiki policy seemed to have any effect on the user, so we went for the policy of blocking.

The standard for a first block is 24 hours or less for a first offense, less if it's a shared IP address. Blocking a named user account is somewhat more difficult (for reasons which aren't clear), but for now only Goobergunch can do so. Perhaps you could start a consensus discussion on the blocking page, and we can work it out from there. → Fris Θtalk 19:34, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT)

I think I've fixed the account-blocking problem. I essentially commented-out the entire code block that checks whether IPs are valid, and it seems to work. --Goobergunch|? 21:27, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT)

On further research, it appears that Goobergunch is considering this a ban, per Wikipedia Banning policy. As site owner/creator, he holds the same position as Wikipedia:User:Jimbo Wales with regards to being able to unilaterally ban someone. User:Quebrada also meets several of the other criteria for banning long-term or permanently. → Fris Θtalk 19:46, 22 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Thanks, that's a very comprehensive answer. Sacco and Vanzetti 01:24, 23 Nov 2004 (GMT)