This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was to (see WP:BP). –Sentry^Talk 09:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

MyNz brought this up on the Community Portal, and he has a point: there is no official policy for banning, ban times, and banning IP addresses. I thought I might as well start it here. Ideas?--Erl 13:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Looked at code of conduct. Seems nice but not detailed. Should I shift this there?--Erl 14:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• I think all bans should be permanent. No point in banning somebody for a week only to have them return and vandalize things again KEJ 14:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Wikipedia:WP:AGF should come first and foremost, as well as the "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" principle. I'd prefer "reasonable" ban periods, some users are actually willing to contribute and a temporary ban will teach them. However, I should embellish that all users whose name resembles "SuperShadow", "<name> on Wheels", or is offensive/expletive should be blocked on sight. - Sikon [Talk] 15:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with Sikon. We have at least two users (I won't name them) who were blocked early on, but have since gone on to figure out the rules of conduct and contribute usefully. On the other hand, people who are clearly here only as trolls or spammers can be immediately and permanently blocked. A sliding scale must be established. —Silly Dan _(talk) 15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • But surely, one week is not a "reasonable" period. The "first" ban should be at least one month. The possibility of the vandal losing interest in vandalizing Wookieepedia after a month of absence is bigger than after a week. Besides, since bans can be removed, banned users that feel they were unfairly banned, who want a second chance and who are interested in contributing to Wookieepedia can always contact an admin and plead their case to get the ban removed. Note that I do not argue for the banning of users who unintentionally do "stupid" things like forgetting sources, using the wrong tense, mixing up IU and OOU and all those other "rookie"-mistakes (hell, I still make such mistakes once in a while). Those people should not be banned at all, they should be given proper assistance by more experienced wookieepedians. No, I'm talking about obviously intentional acts of malice and vandalism (and fanon). KEJ 09:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a while.

• Perma-banning is an attractive option, but it's impractical in some cases and it's opposed by many people. Not me, but still many. So the default ban period should be a week. If they do the same thing after they come back, then ban them for 3 months. If they come back after 3 months to do the same thing, then perma-ban them.
• Multiple users under one username or IP should be treated as a single entity.
• Ban duration should depend on the type of offense:
  • Creation of one nonsense page (with "nonsense" defined by the judgment of whichever admin catches it) should be grounds for a warning. Creation of 2 or more nonsense pages should be instantly recieve the default ban, whether or not the second page was created before a warning.
  • "Test" vandalism should be warned. Instant default ban on second offense.
  • Insertion of fanon should be warned. Instant default ban on second offense.
  • Blanking of canon should be warned. Instant default ban on second offense.
  • Removal of offsite links without discussion on the article's talk page should warned. Instant default ban on second offense.
  • Repeated use of article talk pages like a general-purpose message board should be warned. Continued misuse should be banned.
• A few types of vandalism should be perma-banned without mercy:
  • Expletive-based, racist, or graphical (uploaded or offsite) vandalism should be instantly perma-banned.
  • Page move vandalism should be instantly perma-banned.
  • Altering another user's page should be perma-banned except under special circumstances.
  • Spamming (of any type) should be instantly perma-banned.
  • Forbidden usernames like "supershadow" or "on wheels" should be immediately perma-banned.
• For IP bans, perma-banning is generally impractical:
  • An IP address should be banned for up to 6 months if it's a semi-static IP like DSL or cable.
  • Open proxies should be perma-banned on discovery.
  • Location-based proxies like schools and businesses should be banned for 6 months or until a user behind the proxy appeals to the Bureaucrats. Repeated abuse from those addresses should result in a perma-ban.
  • Dynamic IPs like AOL or other dial-up addresses should be banned by IP range for 1 day.
  • IPs whose type can't be determined should be banned for 2 days, and treated like a cable/DSL user on the second offense.

I think that's all pretty fair. That's honestly not as restrictive as I'd like us to be. —Darth Culator (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that fanon really comes in three categories, and should be dealt with like that. The first variety, which I will call "wikifanon" is fanon invented by the user who posted it. It is present nowhere else, or perhaps on a single site, because it isn't a well known creation. Often, it is even developed here. Users who post it tend to be young or misunderstand the purpose fo Wookieepedia. The first violation should be a warning, as well as a reccomendation to the Star Wars fanon wikicity. Second should be a short ban, just to get their attention. Third offense can be a longer, perhaps permanent ban. The second variety is "popular fanon," fanon popularized and disseminated by other sites, like Supershadow or Galaxies forums. Often, users will confuse it with canon due to its widespread presence. The first violation should be a warning, as well as an explanation of reliable vs. unreliable sources. Second should be a short ban, third long one. The third variety is "malignant fanon." Users who post malignant fanon understand that it is fanon and that it is not allowed, but they just want to popularize their or other's creations anyway. They may seem at first to fall into one of the other categories, but are set apart by their persistance. They should be permabanned. If they want to contribute, come up with a new username.--Erl 16:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.