SmashWiki talk:IRC/Archive 2

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Archives
1 2

I get it now.

Couldn't someone tell me that that was banned? And I did not start that.-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 14:45, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

You should of seen the prior talk page discussion about it, as well as that rule being added. Ignorance is not an excuse. Omega Tyrant 14:46, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

It does not matter anymore. Read the message at the top here. I will still edit the wiki, however.-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 14:50, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

Rule change

Okay. I had a massive shouting match against OmegaTyrant through private chat.Then, he changes the ruleset to make it so private chat personal attacks also have an affect. This rule was added after the personal attacks and I think that since the rule was added after it occurred, that the ban shouldn't count. Could another IRC Op have a say please? OmegaTyrant would just be too biased. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 04:21, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

It's not a rule change, it's the writing of an unwritten rule. Using private chat on a SmashWiki IRC user to bypass SmashWiki IRC rules is not acceptable. Omega Tyrant 04:45, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm not going to continue the argument here. The rule was added after the PMs occurred. Do you have a log of the times compared to the time the rule change occurred? The rule was added after it happened therefore my block should be overruled. Also, PMs are not #sw! ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 04:49, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes I admit it happened after the attacks, and I added it to prevent future instances where a user would argue they shouldn't be banned for it not being explicitly written in the rules, not to incriminate you. For PM =/= #sw, I was a user on SmashWiki IRC at the time, as was you. Using private chat to bypass the SmashWiki IRC rules is not acceptable, and I'm sure other user would agree to this. However, I'll redact the ban, due to it not being clarified in the rules, and the fact it is your first offense. Omega Tyrant 05:17, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

OK, when are you doing this because I'm still banned. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 05:43, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

The unban command isn't working. Do you have a tab opened on #sw? Omega Tyrant 05:49, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes I do. Is that stopping it? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 05:50, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Try leaving Game Surge for a few minutes. Omega Tyrant 05:52, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

I've left #sw I shouldn't need to leave GameSurge... ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 05:56, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

I'm trying to log into #sw as your name, which helped me in the past when the channel refused to unban a name. Omega Tyrant 05:57, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

I've changed my nick. Now try! ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 05:59, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

The ban has been removed. Omega Tyrant 06:03, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Why?

Why am I banned from channel #sw and not written here? (°(..)°)Lucas-IV- Pigs 08:33, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

now i'm not, mustve been technical error (°(..)°)Lucas-IV- Pigs 08:39, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Must of been some sort of error, I didn't input a ban on you, and Mega nor Toomai were on IRC since you came on earlier. Omega Tyrant 09:51, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Ban extension

Urm... what gives with the extension? Pretty sure I haven't tried to avoid the ban for a few days now! ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

You were just on as Weegee.

[12:36] === Weegee <mibbit@host-92-20-133-60.as13285.net> “http://www.mibbit.com”

[12:36] === Weegee: member of #sw

[12:36] === Weegee: attached to *.GameSurge.net “The GameSurge IRC Network”

[12:36] --- End of WHOIS information for Weegee.

[13:11] === Solar_Dragon <~SD@host-92-20-133-60.as13285.net> “Death to Wikia!”

[13:11] === Solar_Dragon: member of @#Divine

[13:11] === Solar_Dragon: attached to *.GameSurge.net “The GameSurge IRC Network”

[13:11] === Solar_Dragon is logged in as Solar_Dragon

[13:11] --- End of WHOIS information for Solar_Dragon.

IPs match. Omega Tyrant 13:18, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

OK, ya got me! But can you blame me? I was unjustly banned because a stalker was given admin rights! It's not my fault your'e such a fucking cunt, is it! You know what, I'm through with acting all innocent here. You deserve to die! Stalkers should not be free to live life as they are! You should either be dead or in pain right now! And, I'm out of SmashWiki for good now, see ya guys! ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:20, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

The ban section...

...is entirely inappropriate. This isn't a wall of shame, this is a guideline on how to conduct yourself while in IRC. Furthermore, posting IRC bans on wiki is simply inviting IRC drama to beset the wiki. This section should be removed at once. – Emmett 11:11, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Uh...people should be informed whose banned, I suggest removing all the bans no longer occuring. BlindColours ...PUNCH!!! 11:15, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Why exactly do people need to know who's been banned? Also, the original purpose of the list was that other admins don't remove the ban, which presumes that other admins are either extremely stupid or extremely lazy. If a user has been banned, any admin can check the channel's ban list, find out who banned them, and then ask them to get on IRC to discuss what happened. Not difficult. PenguinofDeath 11:26, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Bans on the Wiki are public, as well as a user's block log, so why do IRC bans need to be kept private? For the list's purpose, it is there to let others know who is banned, as well as the reason for the ban, and the intended ban length (which is also there to let the banned user know of these). And there's nothing that says other mods can't remove the ban once the ban length has passed. This would provide an IRC ban history as well, which would be useful for deciding the ban length of possible subsequent bans.

For this potentially causing drama, I don't see how the list itself would cause anymore potential drama, than just banning the user from IRC would. And I'll point out since the ban list's conception back in June, the only IRC related incident that could resemble Wiki drama was with Solar Dragon, which would of happened regardless of if the ban list existed or not. Omega Tyrant 12:10, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

You are incorrectly equating the wiki and the IRC channel. Wiki bans are publicly available on the wiki. A list of IRC bans has no place here; I can't figure out how to make the banlist viewable to all users, but any admin can view the channel's banlist. If a user really needed to know why someone was banned from IRC-- and I am quite honestly unable to think of any common scenarios in which they would-- all they need to do is ask an admin to provide them with the banlist info. If you took the time to ban someone properly (by which I mean using "!tb mask|nick (Duration) (Reason)") then the name, duration, and reasoning would be available to any admin who wanted to see it-- which is why you added the section in the first place. (PS. Any IRC op or wiki sysop who unbans someone without first talking to the banning op/sysop is failing at their job. Shitty modding isn't a reason to have this list.)

This list could generate more wikidrama because it, in and of itself, is a link from IRC to wiki. This page makes clear that they are meant to be separate-- so why integrate them on the very page describing their separation? The list is just an open invitation to anyone on the wiki to start discussion on bans of an entirely separate medium.

As for a 'ban history' for the channel... I see this ultimately as worthless. Ops have discretion to ban for the offense as they see fit, and I expect them to use their judgment to not be stupid about it. IRC is not as formal as wiki. You yourself did not follow an increased-length progression in your bans of PSIwolf-- to me that's a pretty clear indication that the value of this list as a ban history is nonexistent. – Emmett 17:21, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

I was unaware that IRC commands could be used to give a ban reason and ban duration. With that, you are right, the ban list here (and its primary reason) is meaningless for that function.

For ban history, PSIWolf's third ban was the same length as his second ban due to him committing a completely different offense, I don't believe in necessarily giving a longer ban for an offense that the user has not committed before. Which is why when he was banned for posting the link to the shock site, he got two weeks, rather than the probable month or more if he was banned again for harassment. So yes, the ban history is being utilised here (which is why PSIWolf's second ban was two weeks, as opposed to the days length of the first ban, and why PH was given an initial month ban that was later extended to three months).

For a link from IRC to Wiki, I can't dispute that. However, I believe having a ban history somewhere for IRC will be useful for reference. Perhaps there's a way to keep a ban history on IRC a mod can reference anytime?

For this inviting discussion of IRC bans on Wiki, I'm afraid that whether this list exists on Wiki or not, people will still bring up their IRC bans on Wiki, rather than attempt to discuss it with a mod in private. Omega Tyrant 17:39, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

@Emmett: I may be wrong, but I don't think OT, PoD, and Mega can use !tb. I believe an access level of 250 is required to use !tb, and OT, PoD and Mega only have 200. DokteurPain99 11:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

I just tested this, and I was told I lack sufficient access to use the command. Omega Tyrant 12:12, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

The above is no longer a problem, as all admins can now issue timed bans. PenguinofDeath 05:10, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Okay, there was one use of the ban list here. It tells the users when their ban is to be lifted. If I wasn't to have seen this talk page discussion, I might have returned prematurely thinking my ban was lifted, only to get banned for ban evading again (my IP changes every time I reset my modem). Now, I know that I'm banned until the 30th but say I didn't remember that date? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 04:57, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

I fail to see how it's our responsibility to help you to remember the date your ban expires. PenguinofDeath 05:10, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

???

Why was I banned? Avengingbandit 10:41, 24 December 2011 (EST)

Two possible reasons for the same thing. Either you were blocked for spamming topics or random things too much, or continued to discuss topics that people have told you to stop (The McDonald thing). MegaTron1XD 11:07, 24 December 2011 (EST)

How long am I going to be banned? BTW, shame on the person who banned me. I'm just some guy who likes to play brawl. Avengingbandit 11:12, 24 December 2011 (EST)

And to be honest, if the only reason you're here is to want to talk to people and Brawl, then SmashWiki isn't the place unless you're also going to contribute. Otherwise, a good place would be All is Brawl (And I just realized that this discussion is about a month old, but it's still relevant). Unknown the Hedgehog 20:02, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Voice cutoff and off-wiki stuff

The disparity between "on the user list" and "has voice" doesn't align with the current text of this page. Should voice be reduced from 150 to 100, should users automatically be given 150, or what?

Also, I'd like to propose a rule against dragging off-wiki matters into our channel. It's rather not amusing to deal with a few people arguing about an issue that really should be discussed on the wiki where it belongs. Toomai Glittershine The Eggster 17:29, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

For the latter proposal, do you mean on-Wiki matters? I wouldn't see why off-Wiki matters should be discussed on-Wiki. Omega Tyrant 17:54, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

I mean matters that belong on a different wiki. Toomai Glittershine The Loony 17:56, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

I would agree then with prohibiting people from bringing issues from other Wikis/IRC channels into our channel, just as we don't allow on the Wiki. Omega Tyrant 19:26, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Bumping the first part, will apply the second part sometime if no one contests. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 19:36, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Voice used to be given to 100. Not exactly sure why that was changed. I vote it be changed back to that way. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 19:59, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Voice was deemed to be of value, and something to be given to trusted users who aren't admins, rather than something to hand out to just anyone.

As for my opinion on it, I support keeping it how it is now. Omega Tyrant 20:09, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Then the wording of the policy needs to be changed and some sort of precedent needs to be set for voice. One idea, not necessarily a good one, but an idea, is to give users with Rollback voice. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 20:12, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

new rule?

Are you guys serious about the rule typing in !users would result in a punishment? ..... The StarCraft 20:19, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

What just happened?

ChanServ recently left every registered IRC channel on gamesurge. May someone explain why? Avengingbandit 18:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

PoD says it was maintenance. Things are back now. Toomai Glittershine The Frivolous 18:33, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Malfunction?

Is IRC not working for anyone else? I can't even get GameSurge to load. --RoyboyX Talk 16:43, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Works just fine for the rest of us. lolgetaclient Toast ltimatum 16:51, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Deletion suggestion for overview subsections

Although IRC is less formal, most of these rules seem inconsistent with the way things appear to be handled or at least approached(1) (2), and therefore don't apply significantly enough to warrant having a rules section for IRC behavior, or at least in its current form.

Specifically, the rules state that "what is considered a personal attack are the same as the on-wiki rules," and the on-wiki rules for personal attacks are frequently violated and either go ignored or defended by notable members. For example, I joined the chat to request a change to my user page that would include Scr7. Further down the conversation, without any warrant, this occurred:

09:30:39 Captain_Falcon: Please kill this guy

09:30:42 Scr7: ^

Captain_Falcon requested that I (perhaps someone else, but few others were involved) be killed, which was promptly backed by Scr7. I ignored this until later my jokes (specifically how after my rise to power that Doctor_Doom would be the Seer or Midwife of Doom and Scr7 would get a nice office job) attracted negative attention by Scr7. Scr7 asked me to "please stop", but it wasn't clear what it was I was doing that needed to be stopped. After I jokingly asked "Who is Please and why should I stop them?" Starman and Doctor_Doom had this to say:

13:09 Doctor_Doom This is a special kind of stupid.

13:11 Starman Either English isn't his first language, or he's just dumb

Starman refused to answer. Afterwards, the conversation took a steep downturn where I was called and ass and stupid, among other things. I attempted to demonstrate there is a great dissonance between having problems with me joking about what would happen if I was in power and and not having problems with suggesting someone be killed, as Captain_Falcon did.

13:45 Quilt You don't find it in any way dissonant that I can be called out for being an ass while someone can freely suggest that someone else be killed?

13:46 DoctorPain99 No, I don't, because this isn't Super happy SmashWiki, and we don't censor opinions.

13:46 DoctorPain99 If you're being an ass, I have the right to say you're being an ass

To reiterate, these rules appears to be handled vastly different (or not at all) than those on site and there is a lot of inconsistent behavior, such as this example. The subsections for the IRC rules should be removed or altered significantly. At least the smash wiki as a whole should follow more consistent behavior.

Additionally, I think if the ssbwiki wants to work on retaining and gaining new interest in developing the wiki, then users, especially established users, should generally be more accommodating of newer members. I have witnessed several new people who joined the IRC chat not greeted in any fashion and there were several times where passive insults were made about them. To paraphrase another user, this may not be Super happy SmashWiki, but it is also not a wiki or community that should be used as a medium to berate members and handle situations with extreme animosity. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that this must either be a happy community or an aggressive one. Also, the new user greeting template typically posted on new user talk pages is not a substitute for good communication and enrollment. --Quilt (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

Okay, please stop this absurd shit. This wasn't meant to be taken seriously, and clearly no of us were ever trying to do anything derogatory towards you. Your silly behavior and fallacious arguments clearly were infuriating us all, and Scr7 stated clearly and politely that he wanted you to stop. Instead of listening, you continued head-on and started the mess that was this. Please, if you don't wish for something lie this to happen again, listen to one when they tell you to stop and abide by it. Conny 16:12, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

I am not sure you are representing this accurately. In case you didn't read the first paragraph, this is a discussion about making the rules more consistent with what is done in practice and is not necessarily a list of grievances. Additionally, Scr7 asked me to stop long after he backed me being killed. --Quilt (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

Although IRC is less formal, most of these rules seem inconsistent with the way things appear to be handled or at least approached(1) (2), and therefore don't apply significantly enough to warrant having a rules section for IRC behavior, or at least in its current form.

What does this even begin to mean? Explain further, please.

Specifically, the rules state that "what is considered a personal attack are the same as the on-wiki rules," and the on-wiki rules for personal attacks are frequently violated and either go ignored or defended by notable members.

Calling a user dumb is not a personal attack.

For example, I joined the chat to request a change to my user page that would include Scr7.

You joined the chat to ask if you could list Scr7 as a vandal on your user page, if my understanding is correct. That didn't exactly give him a good first impression of you, and can be seen as insulting.

"Further down the conversation, without any warrant, this occurred:"

They said that after you made some baseless claim about Toomai, so don't act like it was completely uncalled for. Their response was not entirely within their right, but you didn't bring this up when they made that response; you only brought it up much later when we were discussing you as a way of evading the point, so that is why this issue was not prioritized. I did say on IRC that their actions were not appropriate. It doesn't validate yours.

'Scr7 asked me to "please stop", but it wasn't clear what it was I was doing that needed to be stopped.

Everyone on IRC except you knew exactly what Scr7 was referring to. Furthermore, if you needed clarification, you should have asked.

After I jokingly asked "Who is Please and why should I stop them?" Starman and Doctor_Doom had this to say:

Scr7 clearly asked you to stop and you did not, and continued to make smartass remarks. I don't understand how that is anyone's fault other than yours.

Quit complaining about users' treatment of you, and stop strawmanning about a false dilemma. I never fucking suggested that we had to be hostile or happy. We're not being hostile toward you because you are new. A new user came on last night and asked for help with his internet and Pokémon and I helped him. We're being hostile because your words and actions have led us to do so and not for any other reason. If you want users to treat you better, say and do things that will earn you their respect, and stop being such a smartass. DoctorPain99 16:45, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

Please stay on topic, DoctorPain. Among the inaccurate statements you have made, this is not a discussion about earning or losing respect, or even a discussion about perceived abuses (although the last paragraph contained a suggestion). This is a discussion about making the rules more consistent with what occurs in practice. The above was just illustrative of what happens and how certain things, such as requesting others to be killed or calling them stupid without justifying, are generally accepted by members who are also on IRC. You asked me to explain what I meant in my first paragraph, so hopefully this is adequate. --Quilt (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

My point is that there's no "inconsistency" between the rules and what occurs and practice, and that you're just complaining because we called you out for your ridiculous comments. Even if there was some sort of "inconsistency", the course of action would be to change the enforcement to fit the rules, not the other way around, which you are suggesting. Also, what "inaccurate statements"? DoctorPain99 17:11, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

To suggest that I am complaining would have to be substantiated by me saying that offending users should be reprimanded, which I haven't and which is also a separate issue. The fact is that the IRC environment is much more lenient as demonstrated and most offenses go without enforcement anyway because of the high traffic and general attitude from participants. Even you feel a little on the fence and indifferent about how Captain_Falcon and Scr7 behaved:

13:43 DoctorPain99 Ok, they probably shouldn't have said that whatever

Which, by the way, is one of your minor inaccuracies (you didn't exactly say there actions were not appropriate, instead arguing most of the time in their defense.) --Quilt (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

I never argued "in their defense". I was only arguing against your actions, not supporting theirs. The two are not the same. And again, if you had brought that it when it happened, I would have told Captain Falcon to knock it off, but you brought it up when I was discussing you, and it was an obvious red herring. DoctorPain99 17:44, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

Once again, you're not interested in discussing the point of this deletion suggestion, just attempting to save face. I am going ahead and put up an out of date template/notice instead of a deletion suggestion. Maybe the rules can be updated to reflect the new norms. --Quilt (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

We are not fucking deleting anything. First of all, there is no issue here. Second of all, if there was, we should be talking about changing the enforcement of the current rules, not deleting them. DoctorPain99 18:39, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

How the fuck do the rules not reflect the "norms" anyway? Just because we called you stupid, as you were being? DoctorPain99 18:43, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

The general tone of animosity and accepted insulting as previously illustrated is one of the norms not reflected in the rules, although the point I used doesn't indicate in any way that I am stupid. Other accepted rule violations included links to questionable content such as EncyclopediaDramatica (which contains shock and porn elements, although that is not its focus), various users spamming (although minor spamming, such as the Nintendo in-joke), and excessive profanity (which really needs review - currently the rules state that moderators determine what constitutes excessive profanity, which is a purely arbitrary decision.) Additionally, "There is no limit on what topics can be allowed," is inconsistent with the rest of rules. Meanwhile, I would like to take a moment and suggest that you reflect on some of your own advice,

"Fighting and arguing is not the solution and when you're not in the best of moods, you tend to do/say things you regret. Just make sure to remain respectful toward each other, please." DoctorPain99 21:31, 2 August 2013 (EDT)

While I don't consider you "fighting" me, I feel like it could still apply in principle. Now, are you interested in being a productive, intelligent contributor again, DoctorPain? I suggest that you stop bringing up the issues that occurred earlier a point of contention, as bringing them up clearly constitutes bringing your personal drama onto the wiki. --Quilt (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

The general tone of animosity and accepted insulting as previously illustrated is one of the norms not reflected in the rules,

Nowhere in the rules does it say animosity is prohibited, and calling you dumb is not against the rules either.

The other examples you specified are matters of technicalities. No one linked to the pages of Dramatica with shock content that I know of, and no shock content it still fully enforced. As is no spamming, the Nintendo thing is not at all spamming. The limit on what topics can be allowed refers to the topic of the IRC channel set by the mods via /topic, not what is currently being discussed. Again, there is no issue with the current ruleset.

Also, don't make parthian comments and false accusations. I am not bringing any drama whatsoever into the wiki. However, you are by continuing to raise this false issue, as you are upset by user's negative treatment of you, which was a direct result of your actions. Drop it please, and again, if you want users not to treat you with animosity, change your attitude and don't do things that will cause them to feel animosity toward you. DoctorPain99 19:17, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

I am only interested in having some of the rules changed to further reflect the chat's apparent leniency. How would that benefit me at all? How does that imply that I am upset? If there was ever a strawman (a term you frequently abuse) that would be it: You have taken my position, misrepresented it, and acted as if you have refuted it. I am glad you acknowledge negative treatment occurs in the chat, however. You can continue to suggest that I change my own (non-aggressive) behavior, but it will not change the fact that there is general negative sentiment towards many users, and especially to those that are new.

13:27 Doctor_Doom You're like every other new user here that thinks they're random and funny, except that you've stayed here for hours while others just left after a few minutes.

13:27 Doctor_Doom Be more like those others.

Regardless, the rules need to be changed, period - too many of them are left up to simple arbitration. --Quilt (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

The rules are fine. And it would benefit you because if the rules were less "lenient" we couldn't be "negative" toward you, even though you were doing things that warranted it. Again, I'm cool with new users like the one who came on last night, but not if they say ridiculous bullshit even when told not to. So you're the one strawmanning, saying we are antagonistic toward new users. We aren't, just toward you. All you're doing here is making yourself look worse and wasting everyone's time. DoctorPain99 19:43, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

I'm an interested in seeing more leniency in the rules, not less, DoctorPain. How exactly would having rules that are more lenient protect me or anyone else from poor treatment? There is little preventing anyone from actually abusing someone in the chat - moderators can only help control the extent at which it is done. Not much would actually change, but the rules would still reflect common norms and values. There is a reason pages about communities and tournament rules are updated even though they may not actually affect any external decisions. I am aware it is not strictly the same, but there is a certain level of knowledge and expectation to be gained. --Quilt (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2013 (EDT)

We are not adding more leniency to the rules. This discussion is over, as it is wasting everyone's time. Archiving. There's no reason to "make the rules lenient" to "reflect norms". Like I've said many times, you don't change good rules to fit the bad enforcement of them, you change the bad enforcement to fit the good rules. If you wish to actually talk about improving the enforcement of the rules, then do so in a different discussion, but what you're doing here is ridiculous.DoctorPain99 20:02, 5 September 2013 (EDT)