This Forum has been archived

Forums: Admin Central Index General Questions Indefinite Ban Issue
Central's forums are a place for the community to help other members.
To contact staff directly or to report bugs, please use Special:Contact.
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1630 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I am currently dealing with an issue involving a previous member who decided to leave Wikia and join the Curse variant of our wiki. This was fine and accepted until he came back and made the attempt to convince another of our users to leave for the Curse variant as well. While this other user made his own decision on leaving, I took it upon myself to give the one advertising Curse an indefinite ban in response. (This judgment was also cast after taking his previous ban history into account.) I am receiving a little opposition on this manner, and so I was wondering if there are any policies or ToU/ToA that would help settle this dispute, or if I shouldn't take this recent action into consideration at all. I'd appreciate any constructive information. Thank you for reading. Dragon Skål! 22:50, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

The Wikia Terms of Use forbid editors from using Wikia to "post, upload, transmit, share, or store unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, solicitations, "spam", or any other type of unauthorized solicitation."
You could choose to interpret this member's actions as advertising, but from the little you have mentioned and that I have seen of the situation, I probably wouldn't agree with that label. Leaving messages on many editors' talk pages just to plug would be advertising, but speaking to an acquaintance and personally advocating a service that you like is not advertising. For instance, say you happen to be visiting a local movie theater with your friends, and while you are there you gush to them about why you like a different movie theater in town much better. That's not advertising: it's freedom of speech.
If the member you mention continued by trying to convince many other editors with whom he was not acquainted, that would be a different matter.
In your discussion with the banned individuals at Nukapedia (Broccoli. & Gauzz Rifle) you also mention that they posted "slanderous" remarks about Nukapedia on their Fallout Wiki user pages (example). Personally, I would never consider that grounds for banning on the wiki where I am admin. But really, the appropriate response (to ban or not to ban) should depend on the existing policies at Nukapedia (Administration policy, User conduct guideline). I don't see anything on the Nukapedia policy pages to support these ban reasons. --Gardimuer { ʈalk } 02:11, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
I know that your wiki is especially sensitised to the issue of people advertising "the other wiki" — Ausir was a friend of my wiki too — but I'd personally just let it go. I'd say don't follow in Wikia Staff's footsteps and try to ban people for talking about Remember that Ausir was a special case in that he was not just a local admin but Staff.
I strongly advise that you take the long view. In time,'s new host may do things they don't like. Wikia might introduce new features that lure some editors back. Don't antagonise them with permabans. They may well come back. They may well provide good edits for your wiki in the future. You simply don't know what the future will hold. But you do know that you have one of the best-developed, best-attended wikis in the whole Wikia network. You won't be short of editors, even if a few — perhaps temporarily — leave. Note too, as User:Sannse has tried to drill in my head at least twice, local admin are not responsible for enforcing the Wikia TOU. We're only responsible for building and maintaining a logical, well-understood local policy structure. So, as Gardimuer opined, if your policies don't include this "sin", don't punish for it. (And I'd strongly advise against trying to change your policies to allow for such punishment.)
Honestly, the best thing you could do to heal the rift is to create a policy in the opposite direction. You should advocate for a new policy that specifically says that participation in and discussion of is not grounds for blocking. Unilaterally declare amnesty. That way, people who have left will at least think that they can return. At the same time, you should create a general anti-spam policy, if you don't already have one, that prevents obvious advertisement. Thus, if anyone who now primarily identifies with should choose to leave the "materially similar" message on say, 10 or more pages, you could block them according to a defensible definition of "spamming" — not for having left your wiki and returning to badmouth it. czechout@fandom    fly tardis  <span style="">15:03: Sat 12 May 2012