Forum:Chat Policies

I've been meaning to open this forum for some time, but I'd like to address a couple things that I think need to be changed in the chat:

1) Using chat bans as a joke. This should never happen. It makes this page utterly useless. The log should exist to check if a user has been banned before for similar crimes and needs a longer ban, it's useless if a user has been banned 50 times in the last month for less than a minute. And it's totally unnecessary since a kick accomplishes the same purpose as a 3-second ban. To me, it's an abuse of Chat Moderator privileges.

2) Known sockpuppets should be infinitely banned from both chat and the wiki. It's a violation of Wikia's Terms of Use to "Attempt to impersonate another user or person" and we must adhere to Wikia's ToU. This should only be for users that can be proven to be Socks of course, we shouldn't just go around handing out perma-bans to people we think are socks. We need to do something about the creation of all these useless accounts. It's been running rampant lately, and if infinitely banning the socks isn't enough, we should also take action against the creators of the socks. And I haven't found any examples of these not being infinitely banned, but socks who exist to make fun of our own users such as "1st Supernova" or "Betsy17" should automatically be banned for "attempting to impersonate another user".

I know there's a knee-jerk reaction against any attempts to add rules to the chat, but I think these two are just obvious rules that we should follow and won't affect the chat too much. 16:08, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
*Siiiiiiiiiiiigh* Part one doesn't bother me, it's just a mere joke, nothing wrong with that. Part two is a fact, we already do ban socks permanently from chat and if a mod doesn't, there are cases when a user with no rights put the ban template on a sock's page. See yata's chat ban log for instance.

Both of the socks mentioned are mine btw, pretty sure they are banned though and I didn't even make the second one on this wiki, but on berserk wiki. :D 16:18, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Joke bans are a bit of an issue, but I try not to do it that often. I'm still new to this mod business.

Socks - well, usually they're used for a one time joke, but I can think of an instance where they're useful. User:Roranoa Zoro II was global disabled (wrongly) because Roa complained to staff, and since Roa II hadn't done anything to actually deserve the block - he'd been a good editor for a few months before this happened - he made another account and asked a staff to rename it. That isn't impersonation. 17:39, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

About joke bans, I have no problem, in fact I enjoy them sometimes. I do believe that they are not bad-willed and if the user that gets kicked complains then it will imidiately stop.

As for the global ban of socks, I don't think that users edit with their socks ever. If you really want to fight sock creation, then make a rule that links a socks ban with their creator. For example, he who creates a sock gets banned from chat for X days.

I'm not saying Roa II is a sock. That's the exact situation where someone isn't known to be a sock. As far as I know, Roa II never existed to make fun of "Roa 1" or impersonate him. So that's the kind of situation we should avoid. But when know a user like this is a sock, we should ban them.

And can someone please address why it's ok to let joke bans ruin the chat ban log? They're especially needless since kicks exist and still allow for the same joke. 19:45, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Because they are funny. And I have the record. :D 19:56, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are so concerned about users chat logs JSD. A joke ban is a joke ban, nothing wrong with a joke between users at times. When it stops becoming a joke and more of an attack against a user, should be the main issue to be looked for. Staw you aren't helping the issue at hand, save the jokes for another time. This forum seems pretty pointless, you are basically challenging the wiki's chat moderators ability. All mods have are good at doing what do, despite certain users disagreeing because of something so minor. 20:55, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I think us chat moderators are perfectly capable of telling the differences between a joke ban and a serious ban. But if users being banned as a joke feel offended, I'll be more than happy enough to stop with the joke bans.

As for known sockpuppets, I always ban sockpuppets from the chat. I don't know about other chat moderators, do some of the chat moderators not really ban sockpuppets? If so, I wasn't aware of it.... 22:53, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I gotta agree with JSD on this one.--

^ Says the person who reported somebody for "impersonation" for no reason. SeaTerror (talk) 16:24, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

It's impersonation from the wikia's point of view.First,he'd have been prompted that another similar username exists while signing up.Second,I've told him a lot of times to change the username(with all the explanation that can be given).--


 * Uh, no, in this rare case, it's not impersonation. He didn't make the account in order to make fun of you, he didn't make the account in order to troll the chat, and he didn't make the account to make any trouble. He just happened to have no imagination at all. Therefore, it was an unjust ban. 17:14, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'd love more input on the joke bans matter. At the very least, I want to make sure chat mods never do it to new users who might not get the joke and never come back. We don't need to do that to alienate people. 22:21, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

@Jade,intentional or not,a TOU violation is a TOU violation;Remember that his account got suspended and he was given a chance to make a new account,if it was intentional impersonation it'd have been very different.--

JSD, we never do it to new users, only to the regulars and out of them, a few specific ones that we know don't mind at all, like myself. 11:59, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

JSD I can definitely see the good you are trying to do with this forum but it's not that big of a deal. With the joke chat bans I guess Nova and Jade could cool it a little, even if it is only in good fun (I'm not pointing fingers with out proof jade, it's right there in the chat ban log so don't get pissy at me. :P) In terms of socks, if they are used once and are for comedic reasons I have no problem with them, if they annoy or upset people they will be removed pretty quickly. And the only current sock that I am aware of sticking around and for good reason, has already been explained by others. 14:57, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea that could potentially diminish the number of socks on the chat. We could implement a policy where in which users have to be a member of the wiki for at least 1 month before being allowed to use the chat. We could also have a policy similar to the one that the boneheads at Bleach Wiki have, where each user has to make 10 edits a month to be able to use the chat. That shouldn't be a problem because most existing users have already made hundreds even thousands of edits. Feel free to criticize now ^_^ Supernova X-Drake aka Roranoa Zoro II (talk) 20:40, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Btw my Indian sock, stop making such ludicrous excuses for yourself. We know the truth and you're not going to reach Nirvana at this rate >__> Supernova X-Drake aka Roranoa Zoro II (talk) 20:42, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

No. That is an aweful idea. You should never need edits just to join the chat. A lot of new people join chat just to ask questions in chat too. Or they ask for help like somebody yesterday who didn't know how to properly code templates like we have. SeaTerror (talk) 20:46, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

A chat policy wouldn't work, plus we don't want to restrict people from accessing the chat new or old. Even at times like right now currently were there is no mod around to montior the chat, the system of a policy wouldn't work even if we consider it. 20:47, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's why Bleach Wikia is dead ._. Supernova X-Drake aka Roranoa Zoro II (talk) 20:50, February 7, 2014 (UTC)