Help talk:Congress/Agree on banning

This bill, Agree on banning, is currently in committee. The Wiki's Congress Committee is deciding what to do with it.

Hi, Happyface back again with a justice bill. I've noticed admins unblocking, reblocking, changing blocks etc etc. It makes the ban log messy, which made us lose spotlight once. I think we should have a system, so admins can decide how much time someone should be blocked.

Note: ANYONE can participate.

THE STAFFERS DON'T LIKE OUR CURRENT BLOCKING SYSTEM. LET'S DO THIS FOR SPOTLIGHT.

System

After Explorer and I had a friendly debate, we decided for me to rewrite the system and restart the vote.

We decided that we should have three ban systems: strike system, immediate bans, and block votes.

---

Strike system is for petty crimes, just for a newbie who rewrote an article without permission, causing a small argument, insulting users, or minor spamming.

Immediate bans are for REALLY, REALLY, serious things, like hacking, out-of-control vandalism, and sockpuppeting (the sockpuppet gets banned, not the initial user).

Block votes are for frequent editors who break the rules, either via small crimes on a repeated basis, or one or two large crimes at a single point in time.

---

This would create multi-tiered block policy, which practically means different systems of block policies running simultaneously.

This also creates a more fair and peaceful block log.

Reasons for Using this system

For Frequent Editors

• Re-starting flame wars
• Swearing
• Uploading inappropriate pictures (like someone being stabbed in the back, not a lot of gore)
• Hate mail
• Insulting multiple users
• Abusing shout box
• Being Racist/sexist
• Power Fit

How Does this System WORK?

On the first day someone makes a forum and bans the editor who broke the rules for infinite. On the first day, people recommend blocking times. The recommendations end on the second day. Then, the users vote on a blocking time, as long as the user is not the bad user's best friend or something. The third day, the vote is decided. Their cannot be a fourth day, unless it is required.

Strike System Reasons

For Newbies

• Vandalizing
• Rewrites an article for no reason
• Minor arguments

Immediate Ban

THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!

• UNHOLY CONDUCT
• Walrus Minion....Wait, what am I talking bout?
• Hacker or old time vandal (i.e. Slow Poke, Sam Rudi)

More Examples

Scenario 1

Dude is a new user to the CPFW. Not being familiar with policies and common sense, Dude rewrites the USA article so that it is an empire over which he rules.

Dude should be subject to the Strike System, which deals with frequent or new editors committing petty (and sometimes unintentional) crime. A Strike Template will be posted on his talk and if Dude repeats the same offense, he will progress up the strike scale until he is out.

Scenario 2

Bob is a frequent editor on the CPFW. One day, he gets into a fight with Phil and starts a flame war on the Shout Box. It takes 90 minutes for the flaming to burn out.

Bob should be subject to the Block Vote system, which deals with frequent editors that commit more serious crimes as well as somewhat smaller crimes on a repeated basis.

Scenario 3

CHEESE_FTW is a hacker and member of the Nacho Cheese hacking club. He spots the CPFW, and, in an attempt to make the users BAAAAWWW, rapidly spams the site, overwhelming the rollbacks.

CHEESE_FTW should be subject to an immediate ban, which is an instantaneous block used in cases where the Strike System or Block Voting would be useless in discipline and/or the crimes committed are too severe.

What Say You?

For

--I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 00:54, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you rip off CPW's system, considering how shoddy the current one is. Just don't go nuts with the infinite blocks. --Zapwire 11:20, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

--Swiss Ninja - I place the Royal Seal on this page - 01:17, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Of course!!--{{SUBST:User:Ced1214/sig}} 01:24, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah,that sounds good.--Remember,God made you special and he loves you very much! 12:08, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Go with it.. -- ¤ (User page!) (The Cookie Master, bow!) 18:54, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Okay.-- Sanchonachos RULZ!! -- The Maple Leaf Forevah!! 00:50, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Anything for spotlight :D --E-114 I am not the robot you are looking for 01:17, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Against

• I have various reasons for this, but as this is a vote, and not a debate, I shall keep them to myself. --Sheepman (Talk page OF DOOM) 16:53, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

• No. Everything is fine for me. And we have had only two crisises (I dunno the plural to this). --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 21:33, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

• See my "neutral" commentary. --† This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending.} † 21:26, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
  
  

Neutral

Rollbacks could handle any vandals, rewrites, or such! --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 00:46, January 19, 2010 (UTC):Ummm, this is about blocking. Did you actually read this? --☺Happyface☺ ^{Iron Walrus is Watching You. Always.} 00:53, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

woops misread. --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 00:54, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure... |||~~DZGuymed~~||| 01:04, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

State a reason. --☺Happyface☺ ^{Iron Walrus is Watching You. Always.} 01:16, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Disagreed in some parts. I completely agree that complete Noobs shouldn't get annialated because they didn't know our code, but I still prefer to wipe out someone who puts "roTLFc0pT3RR {CHARACTER} is 4 sTupID [explicit] Wh00 onC3 INh4L3d SP|-|3rEZ". I think it would be more fitting to exempt Noobs like those in Scenario One, rather than rewrite a decent system into a bureaucracy-choked labyrinth that warns before blocking even the pettiest of vandals (like the CPW). In fact, I don't always wield the banhammer on Noobs. Everyone begins as a Noob, remember. If I used my normal blocking procedures on Noobs who performed a Scenario One, Swiss Ninja wouldn't exist. I think that, instaed of rewriting the system, we must define what a vandal is, what a Noob is, what a Walrus is, and such. With definitions, we would know when to kick butt, when to exempt, and when to warn. We can even give them code names! --† This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending.} † 01:38, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
  
  

• A strike system would be better. Citcxirtcem BAAAAAWW to me! ^{see my 5,674 edits!} 18:46, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Same with TS --Anniem۝۝se 23:48, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I really don't understand it and I don't find it relevant to me because I'm not an admin, nor do I plan to get blocked, so I'm not voting (unless of course I get blocked for that). SxEsinead95 13:17, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes you will. INFINITE BLOCK!!!! (SWings Banhammer) lol, jk. But really, this could affect one of your e-friends, like Coool or Swiss Ninja... Citcxirtcem BAAAAAWW to me! ^{see my 5,674 edits!} 18:46, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

*SWIMGS UNBAN HAMMER* FACE MEH WRATH! *SWINGS THE ANTI-MEC HAMMER AT DELETING HER* lolz --I miss pufflezzz....(cry) 23:51, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

It almost certainly afect meh. --Sheepman (Talk page OF DOOM) 15:21, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Simplified: We use the same system we do now, but we can ignore it and do what we like if we so cheese. I mean choose.--NAE's IP19:07, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Incidently, there is a better system then the Strike System, but alas I am banned and can't tell you about it.--NAE's IP 19:12, January 21, 2010 (UTC)