Forum:Proposed ban policy (IRC)

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Proposed ban policy (IRC)

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 23:00, March 17, 2010 (UTC) Over the last few weeks, the spam, flaming, aggressive behavior, immaturity, and complete disregard for the rules on this wiki's IRC channel (#wikia-kingdomhearts) has gotten to be out of hand. The problem is that these offenses are done by the same few users over and over, no matter how many times we channel operators kick them out of the channel for their actions. On the channel, we operators are very, very seldom with banning nicks, idents, or users. I have only witnessed one account in which we finally banned a user. However, the ability to ban a user for their behavior on the channel has become one that we wish to use more often. Super Sword-chucks (SSC, OP), Cloudofdarkness (CloudofLight, frequent user), Gamer2127 (Gamer2127, OP), many other frequent online users, and myself (DTN, OP) met on the IRC to discuss the creation of a ban policy. We have created the following ban policy for #wikia-kingdomhearts, and we wish to have it implemented as soon as possible. I have shown this policy to two other channel operators, Xion4ever (Xion4ever, OP) and Yuanchosaan (Yuanchosaan, OP), and they both have given their approval as well. This policy is formatted as a list of instructions for a channel operator to follow once a user breaks a rule. Step 1: A user breaks a rule. Step 2: Query (PM) the user with a link to the rules and identify what rule they have broken. Step 3: The same user breaks a rule again; tell the user in the query (PM) that they are being given their last warning. Step 4: If the user breaks another rule, proceed to activating your channel operator functions and kicking the user from the channel. Step 5: Next time the same user breaks a rule, they are to be banned from #wikia-kingdomhearts for one day; they were told to stop. Step 6: If the user returns to the channel after their ban, they are on a thin leash. The user is only to receive one warning. If the user breaks a rule again, they are to be banned for a longer amount of time, according to the ban progression below. Ban progression: (one day) → (three days) → (one week) → (permanent ban) This plan is also flexible in the cases of extreme offenses that we do not cover in the rules section of the IRC guidelines, such as spamming with racist or pornographic material on the channel. In these cases, a channel operator should proceed immediately to banning the user for one day, and continue from there with the ban progression if the user persists. Please leave your comments on the ban policy below. A list of the rules for #wikia-kingdomhearts can be found by following the link that is used for the second step's foot-note. You may also add your name to the list of users who agree to and support this ban policy.

Users who support the proposed ban policy

1. DoorToNothing
2. Xion4ever
3. ENX
4. Redeemer & Destroyer
5. Kingdom zachdawg
6. ZTG
7. Sapharus
8. JFHavoc
9. BebopKate
10. Super Sword-chucks
11. LapisScarab
12. LevL
13. Terra Fae Odosson
14. Ultima The High Seraph
15. KKD
16. Master Boye

Comments on the proposed ban policy

Eternal Nothingness XIII - Ven, Aqua... I'll find some way to make things right. TALK - This light... it's so warm. — 23:07, March 17, 2010 (UTC) I'm all for it. However, we must make sure the Ops don't get carried away with the policy, while at the same time don't become slackers with it. What is to be done if an offense takes place, however, and no one with Op rights is online? Allowing a "get-away" would only encourage the behavior further, defeating the purpose, and a truly adamant offender/rule breaker wouldn't necessarily listen to a "warning" from a "regular user."

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 23:09, March 17, 2010 (UTC) A channel operator should always be online. If the last channel operator on the channel must go, then it is their responsiblity to assign a responsible temporary channel operator before leaving. Once another channel operator comes online, the temporary channel operator is to be de-OPed immediately.

Kingdomzachdawg Come on Sora, I thought you were stronger than that. — 23:12, March 17, 2010 (UTC) Sounds fair enough to me.

TheLunarEclipse - "Then I shall make you see...that I am the cutest thing since the kitten!" TALK - My cuteness is overwhelming! Personally, I like it. I agree with the temporary op thing (Make sure it ain't me!). I think this can do some good (for me too)

Sapharus - Con Air TALK - {{{time}}} completely agree with the policy. It's about time we had some enforcement in there; and it also helps deal with the recent spamming/trolling incidents we've had (I know that I can leave names out of this, we all know what happened,) and I want them to stop. Even though we have our times on there where we act crazy and fun is had, but there's always a point where it gets completely annoying. Hopefully the issue will be resolved with this policy. The nonsense needs to stop; the IRC channel isn't designated for immaturity and spam. That's all I have to say on this for the moment.

TheLunarEclipse - "Then I shall make you see...that I am the cutest thing since the kitten!" TALK - My cuteness is overwhelming! I know for a fact one of those names is me, and I am going to work really hard to change that.

BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...01:51, March 18, 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me. As always, I remind the channel ops (I guess that includes me, though I never seem to be needed) to use good judgment and good faith to see the rules are enforced. That means that ops must set examples and follow them; exceptions should not be made for friends and so on, etc, etc. Seriously, I do not want to come in and see seven messages on my talk page that "Sora_iz_Awesome_443" kept kicking out "I<3Kairi", but not "~Riku~LOL~", even though the latter was violating the rules as much as the former. Ops who abuse their power will not remain ops for long. Even though I'm not on as much as I'd like, I can assure you guys that chats, particularly those of an unkind/inflammatory nature, do have a way of getting back to me and other admins. If we have serious violations of these rules, that may mean further action on the wiki, such as temporary bans.

Nitrous X Talk! — Nice to see you, too, Vexen. It's such a shame. The Organization used to be the rope that bound us together. See my illusion! I agree, but I think one thing should be made clear: OPs are NOT above the law! Not naming any names, of course, but this had to be said due to previous occurences.

Wolf - ... TALK - ... I agree nx that should be something to note.

Dan - I wanna line the pieces up... yours... and mine... — 20:29, March 18, 2010 (UTC) I agree with the proposal, and I strongly agree with BebobKate on the matter of assuming good faith.

Terra Fae Odosson - Too much hope is the opposite of despair. An overpowering love may consume you in the end. TALK - Where can I buy a phone? Seems fair enough. I shall support this as long as every one is treated equally. Ops and such. Personally I am almost never on the main IRC page because of these issues. So I think a ban policy will help and encourage better behavior.

Pokhmon - I'm so FLATTERED! TALK - But you're TOO LATE! — 20:32, March 22, 2010 (UTC) i completely agree spammers and sutch need to be taught a lesson

Kingdomzachdawg The truth is, Ansem, I just can't stand your foul stench. — 00:48, March 23, 2010 (UTC) Yes, I also agree that the spammers and randomers need to be STOPPED, but like Saph said, we sometimes have fun being (slightly) random, so let's not let it get TO out of hand.