Administrators have the ability to stop a user from editing for any duration. However, sysops are only allowed to block users, or ban users, if an offense is made to disrupt the wiki. The following are actions a user might perform that could result in a temporary or permanant block:
Offenses leading to bansEdit
- Page-blanking articles for no justified reason
- Replacing article content with illegitimate text or other material
- Please be patient with new users. Some may not understand the sensitivity of others about others editing their articles. Assume good faith and let the user defend himself before placing a ban, or requesting a block.
- Moving pages to innappropriate titles (General pagemove should be accepted, though if obvious vandalism such as xxxx HAS BEEN CONQUERED BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE appears, a ban should be placed)
- Creating a sockpuppet account.
- Note: We should clarify to new users with policy pages or other means the definitions of sockpuppetry, and give specific reasons why a sockpuppet should not be used. If a new user is unaware of this policy, the main account should not be banned for an extended period of time, though the sockpuppet, regardless of its intention, should be banned.
- Creating articles for the purpose of disruption
- Offensive content could be pornography, vulgarity, blatant insults to pages and/or users, or spamming
- Evading previous blocks with new account.
- This can be considered a form of sockpuppetry, but if the account is created to keep contributing, even though the user was previously blocked, it is an analogy of a jailbreak, however the intention may be.
- If you create an account to appeal a ban, the account still has a risk of being blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. You should plead your case via email, IRC, or placing an unblock template on your talk page. Please give a valid reason, and an administrator will likely notice your request and act on it.
- Suspicious username
- A suspicious username could be something resembling another user's name, though this is not always intentional. The name could also declare vandalism or offend another user. In these cases, the accounts can be assumed vandals or disruptors and should be warned after the first contribution, and banned if any vandalism comes from the account.
- In the cases that the username may contain a part of another user's name, the resemblance may be coincidential. If the usernames create confusion among one another, a message should be left on the newer user's talk page suggesting a name change. If the account is not overwhelmingly similar to another user, the suggestion may be declined, unless a significant majority in the community favor a change in a username.
- Some usernames are blatantly obvious of intentions. Account names clearly saying something offensive about another user should immediately banned.
- This is advertizing another site or page that disrupts the community. Also, advertizing a candidate for an election or a new article on an irrelevant talk page should also be prohibited, but only blocked if persistent after warnings. Blocks in this instance could range from hours to infinite, depending on the severity.
- Some users have not stumbled upon the page discussing this matter, and the first offense can be forgiven if the problem does not persist and the user apologises or justifies his mistake. Please assume good faith. Users can change in intent, and minor offenses that are not directly defacing the website should not have indefinite blocks.
Notes about America Online (AOL)Edit
America Online (AOL) is a widely used ISP that uses a special caching system to assign IPs to users. These IPs change rapidly because they are assigned per page, and not per user. Blocks applied to these IPs should be fairly short (around 1 day) to avoid potential collateral damage. It should be noted that AOL gives its service in USA, Canada and United Kingdom.