Template talk:Ban

I made a couple of changes - linked the word "history" to the history, and made the second variable into an auto-link, that might break a couple of past instances, but it will be easier for the future 08:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a new bit, a direct link to the ban page for admins =) 05:27, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * I'd say that's potentially abusable by someone copying the actual template source but inserting whatever value they want for the ban target. They can wait for a real vandal and possibly get some other IP banned, though at least it would be hard to get a user account banned that way (unless the admins really don't pay attention).  --68.142.14.111 05:34, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * The admins usually are pretty good about double-checking. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 05:54, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * This template is a ban request, not a ban verdict. :) It's good to draw our attention when we are scanning the recent changes. Personally, when I see such a request, I go check the claimed violation and the history of the article and verify. I do not take anyone's word, even if it's on an article I KNOW gets vandalized a lot (like the first edit section of the Main Page talk). --Karlos 08:28, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Ditto for what Karlos said. I check the contributions of the user that this template is put on, and then if a ban is warrented ban them.  --Rainith 08:35, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * The issue isn't whether the user you slap the template on is a vandal or not, but the link within the template. If 1.2.3.4 is a vandal and I copy and paste the template source to 1.2.3.4's page, but make the IP in the link 1.2.3.5, then that's another thing to double check.  I think it's bad for the link to be there at all.  --68.142.14.111 10:26, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * I don't get you. The template is put on the user's page.  So the only link there is, is to teh vandalized page.  The whole "double-checking" the admins do, is to 1) see if a vandalism occurred, and 2) see if the person with the ban tag was the one who vandalized the page.  If not #2 then they might as well remove the ban tag and ban the proper vandal.  Evan The Cursed (Talk) 15:26, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * I think what 68.142 is saying is that someone could edit the template to instead of pointing the "admin ban" link to the ip address of the user who's page the template was put on, to instead ban another ip altogether. That is a possiblity, I suppose, and I've protected the template from non-admin edits to guard against it.  But I don't think the average vandal knows enough wiki-code to do this.  --Rainith 15:32, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Ahh, I guess... though I would think that having every ban tag show the same IP would clue them in... Actually, I think he's referring to this line: [ (admin:ban)]  And since the source is still viewable, a vandal could just copy paste the template (instead of including it) and swap " Blockip|ip=}} " etc. with someone else's IP.  Which is a good point, indeed.  Evan The Cursed (Talk) 15:40, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Ouch didn't think of that! 16:29, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Yes, that's what I mean. Sorry it took so long (and took another person) to get the point across, heh.  --68.142.14.8 17:37, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * Still not that big of an issue because I DO check that the IP in the history page is the one that is being banned. Basically, I go back and find the edit and click on the "block" link next to the contributor's name. So, I know I am blocking the guy who did the infraction, regardles of where the ban template was placed. --Karlos 18:22, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Protection
Why is this template protected? 08:28, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * While we're at it, can we fix "canditate" to say "candidate"? Typos in templates make me sad. --130.58 09:04, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * Typo fixed and read the conversation above you for the answer to your question Stabber. --Rainith 09:47, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * Guess I wasn't clear enough. I think this template should not be protected. It has never been vandalized, and the above conversation says nothing about why the template itself needs the protection. 09:58, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * Also, it should be noted, a truly malicious user can still take the template source, paste it onto a page, and then edit it there. --130.58 10:00, 24 March 2006 (CST)


 * I agree. Nothing should be protected unless: a) It's repeatedly vandalized or b) It's Site related fairly static statements like the License Agreement and what not. It's un-wikilike to protect for "fear" of a possible malicious edit. --Karlos 10:44, 24 March 2006 (CST)
 * Also, (statistics pulled out of my ass) 99% of people being banned have less than 30 seconds of wiki experience. So there's a, let's say, 1% chance of a really knowledgeable person exploiting the wiki, probably a 10% chance that person would opt to do it by messing with this template, and a 10% change that an admin would actually ban someone else without noticing. Looks like a 0.01% chance of someone being accidentally banned for a day or so, if those figures are anywhere near close, there is a 1 in 10000 chance someone will be incorrectly banned for a few days. I think this is probably less likely than an IP address collision. --130.58 10:59, 24 March 2006 (CST)

(temporary) blocking
Spambots = permanent 22:53, 27 March 2006 (CST)


 * The consensus opinion in GuildWiki talk:Penalties for abuse seems to be that the risk in permanent bans isn't worth the reward. 17:03, 28 March 2006 (CST)