Vote to create an "Ban/Unban Users" board

0

Herr keplers·8/17/2016

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

Roddy15 wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

Roddy15 wrote:

Brick425 wrote:
I think we should. Admins should listen to the community more, so I feel we should submit the idea for a user to be banned if there's good support and see what happens. If it gets passed, the admins ban that user. If not, they don't.

This is just a bad idea. Doing this basically make admins pointless and the way this could be abused is just ridiculous. The community should not be the ones deciding who is banned and who isn't since that just opens it up to witch hunting.

It's already been pointed out a million times that petitions aren't binding contracts for admins. They don't have to listen. The reason I'm supporting is so we can have our voices heard by them, and at least have them consider something. I agree that if this did let the community decide, it might lead to witch hunting. But the community isn't deciding anything.

I know what a petition is...

My response is to your post in particular which is not what this vote is on but it seems to be something people agree with.

Your post suggests admins should ban a user if the community show a level of support for it. That idea completely undermines authority.

As for the petitions and this vote, I am against any move that lets the community have any say even on advisory level when it comes to problem users.

So the admins souldn't take into consideration what the community wants at all? They should just ignore the people who voted them in to their position and make any and all decisions without any external input? It just seems like you don't want anything to do with democracy or bureaucracy for the wiki. If that's the case, you have your opinions and we have ours.

There is a middle ground between ignorance and wholesale Athenian democracy. A good admin team would be able to listen to the informal complaints/suggestions of the users and act based on that.

As has already been stated, the admins have been turned from decision-makers (the point of admins) into the dogs of the user base (halting any decision the admins make and holding it to an arbitrary vote).

Democracy is good, but there come points where there is too much democracy and it only slows down the process. Can you imagine all the citizens of a town getting together to vote on city laws? Because that's what you've done, and you're now incorporating a system where the police are forced to consider arresting a person based on vote (which is weird because you can still bring an unofficial petition to the admin team regarding a user and only waste the time of people you PM about this...).

(Edited by Herr keplers)

0

SkepticQuark·8/17/2016

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

Roddy15 wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

Roddy15 wrote:

Brick425 wrote:
I think we should. Admins should listen to the community more, so I feel we should submit the idea for a user to be banned if there's good support and see what happens. If it gets passed, the admins ban that user. If not, they don't.

This is just a bad idea. Doing this basically make admins pointless and the way this could be abused is just ridiculous. The community should not be the ones deciding who is banned and who isn't since that just opens it up to witch hunting.

It's already been pointed out a million times that petitions aren't binding contracts for admins. They don't have to listen. The reason I'm supporting is so we can have our voices heard by them, and at least have them consider something. I agree that if this did let the community decide, it might lead to witch hunting. But the community isn't deciding anything.

I know what a petition is...

My response is to your post in particular which is not what this vote is on but it seems to be something people agree with.

Your post suggests admins should ban a user if the community show a level of support for it. That idea completely undermines authority.

As for the petitions and this vote, I am against any move that lets the community have any say even on advisory level when it comes to problem users.

So the admins souldn't take into consideration what the community wants at all? They should just ignore the people who voted them in to their position and make any and all decisions without any external input? It just seems like you don't want anything to do with democracy or bureaucracy for the wiki. If that's the case, you have your opinions and we have ours.

Clearly, people have similar opinions though otherwise, the yes vote would be winning. Letting users "vote" on banning is just a completely pointless affair that as we saw with the nya carry on, only leads to smearing and arguments. If a user wants to complain about a user they can do so privately, a website doesn't need public court cases and prosecutions to ban people.

The point of an admin is they are the ultimate decision makers, brick's suggestion completely ignores that fact and this vote also moves toward that.

I don't like democracy and bureaucracy on a wiki because ultimately I feel the staff shouldn't need to be consulting and asking users to vote and petition over every single decision. Sure get feedback but we shouldn't have to be voting on things like demoting inactive CMs, that should happen already without anyone having to bring it up.

(Edited by SkepticQuark)

1

Michaelyoda·8/17/2016

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

Roddy15 wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

Roddy15 wrote:

Brick425 wrote:
I think we should. Admins should listen to the community more, so I feel we should submit the idea for a user to be banned if there's good support and see what happens. If it gets passed, the admins ban that user. If not, they don't.

This is just a bad idea. Doing this basically make admins pointless and the way this could be abused is just ridiculous. The community should not be the ones deciding who is banned and who isn't since that just opens it up to witch hunting.

It's already been pointed out a million times that petitions aren't binding contracts for admins. They don't have to listen. The reason I'm supporting is so we can have our voices heard by them, and at least have them consider something. I agree that if this did let the community decide, it might lead to witch hunting. But the community isn't deciding anything.

I know what a petition is...

My response is to your post in particular which is not what this vote is on but it seems to be something people agree with.

Your post suggests admins should ban a user if the community show a level of support for it. That idea completely undermines authority.

As for the petitions and this vote, I am against any move that lets the community have any say even on advisory level when it comes to problem users.

So the admins souldn't take into consideration what the community wants at all? They should just ignore the people who voted them in to their position and make any and all decisions without any external input? It just seems like you don't want anything to do with democracy or bureaucracy for the wiki. If that's the case, you have your opinions and we have ours.

Just because there's not a petition board, doesn't mean the staff don't have ears. As Roddy already mentioned, a ban/unban board like this just leads to smearing and rising tensions. If there's a legimate issue, present your evidence to the admins in private. I'm pretty sure they're nice enough to take the time to consider it. It's much calmer and cleaner doing it that way.

(Edited by Michaelyoda)

0

T-007Bond·8/19/2016

B. What if these banned users created dupes to vote for their original accounts to get unbanned?

(Edited by T-007Bond)

1

KnightoftheLight·8/19/2016

T-007Bond wrote: B. What if these banned users created dupes to vote for their original accounts to get unbanned?

Dupes are not allowed, and we can tell who's a dupe. Anyways, users have to have been here a month to vote on community votes/petitions.

(Edited by KnightoftheLight)

0

Brick425·8/19/2016

T-007Bond wrote:
B. What if these banned users created dupes to vote for their original accounts to get unbanned?

Fun fact: You can't vote unless you've been here for a month at least. In other recent news, did you hear that the American Colonies might declare independence?

(Edited by Brick425)

0

T-007Bond·8/20/2016

Brick425 wrote:

T-007Bond wrote:
B. What if these banned users created dupes to vote for their original accounts to get unbanned?

Fun fact: You can't vote unless you've been here for a month at least. In other recent news, did you hear that the American Colonies might declare independence?

Well what if that dupe was disgusing as an original account and was discovered that it was a dupe this whole time? Also, I'm not an American and I'm not updated on American news.

(Edited by T-007Bond)

0

Veralann·8/20/2016

T-007Bond wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

T-007Bond wrote:
B. What if these banned users created dupes to vote for their original accounts to get unbanned?

Fun fact: You can't vote unless you've been here for a month at least. In other recent news, did you hear that the American Colonies might declare independence?

Well what if that dupe was disgusing as an original account and was discovered that it was a dupe this whole time? Also, I'm not an American and I'm not updated on American news.

Uh, you can't fake account age, and we have tools to find out what accounts are dupes and which aren't

</noscript>

(Edited by Veralann)

0

Michaelyoda·8/20/2016

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

T-007Bond wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

T-007Bond wrote:
B. What if these banned users created dupes to vote for their original accounts to get unbanned?

Fun fact: You can't vote unless you've been here for a month at least. In other recent news, did you hear that the American Colonies might declare independence?

Well what if that dupe was disgusing as an original account and was discovered that it was a dupe this whole time? Also, I'm not an American and I'm not updated on American news.

Uh, you can't fake account age, and we have tools to find out what accounts are dupes and which aren't

They have a very particular skillset.

(Edited by Michaelyoda)

0

Herr keplers·8/20/2016

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

T-007Bond wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

T-007Bond wrote:
B. What if these banned users created dupes to vote for their original accounts to get unbanned?

Fun fact: You can't vote unless you've been here for a month at least. In other recent news, did you hear that the American Colonies might declare independence?

Well what if that dupe was disgusing as an original account and was discovered that it was a dupe this whole time? Also, I'm not an American and I'm not updated on American news.

Uh, you can't fake account age, and we have tools to find out what accounts are dupes and which aren't

</noscript>

Actually, Hype, he has a fair point. You can't CU every new user, and I managed to hide behind User:MyNameIsNotBob for three months before being found out by accident. While I sincerely doubt and hope nobody is stupid enough to use a dupe for months to add one vote to something, it is certainly possible.

(Edited by Herr keplers)

Consensus