Forum:User block policy

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > User block policy
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 July 2009 by Azaz129.

I would like to clarify a couple of points about the User block policy. It says: "A user may be permanently banned from editing the wiki, in part or in whole... Users who attempt to evade their ban are blocked from editing the wiki." I think these two points should be expanded to include "entering the wiki clan chat", the rules of which state: "All RuneScape Wiki rules apply." As it is, it is not explicitly clear that users banned from the wiki should also be banned from the wiki cc, even though I suspect the consensus would be that they should be. To use a specific example, Blankothe3rd is using various accounts in the cc periodically, and I haven't been kicking him (except where he is clearly disrupting), as the policy in its current form does not necessarily advocate this.

On a related note, the current policy states that blocked users "cannot edit any pages other than their own talk page". However, Blanko cannot edit his own talk page, since it is protected. He did express a wish in the cc to appeal his current infinite block, though he may not have the right to do this, since he is infinitely blocked (permanently banned from the wiki), and not temporarily blocked. Again, the policy as it is does not make clear whether permanently-blocked users have (or should have) the same right to appeal that temporarily-blocked users have. If they should have this right then their talk pages should remain unprotected so that they can add Template:Appeal block to it. I'm not saying I would necessarily support unblocking any particular user, I'm only talking about their right to appeal and state their case - they would still need community consensus based on policy, not a vote.

I've also reorganised the user block policy page, without changing the meaning of the content (I hope), so check it and make sure I haven't unilaterally changed the policy.  ;-) Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And for that matter, should temporarily-blocked users be prohibited from entering the cc too? I ask because this applies to Stinkowing for the next month.  :-| I'm not talking about people who are actively disrupting the cc (who would be kicked anyway), but those who are enter the cc when they are temp blocked from the wiki. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 16:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have given this a lot of thought and I have just one small problem. I do not want Stink blocked from the CC. I would like to propose that temp banned people are not banned from the CC until/unless they give us a reason to in the CC. I don't know how fair that is but there is my 2 cents. --Degenret01 06:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Clan chat should be free! - I think that even temporary blocked users shall be able to visit the cc, as long as they are civil about it. This also helps them reintegrating with the community and learning from their mistakes, and perhaps returning to future editing on the runescape wiki mainpage. Now, if a user uses the cc to troll, then that is a different matter, and we have all the policies we need in case that particular situation arises. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Degen - I believe second chances should be given and even if they have managed to do something bad enough to get a ban (on the wiki), as long as they follow clan chat rules they should be welcome there. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 05:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wejer - I see no problem with blocked users being in the CC so long as they aren't being disruptive. If a blocked user is there, but not causing problems, all the power to them. And if they become a problem, it's not a difficult task to kick/ignore (in R S Wikia's case). --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 00:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Degen and Wejer - Per the Degen and Wejer above. I see banned users in irc and in the cc and they are usually fine. Besides, the clan chat is not just for wikians, it is for everyone, although mainly wikians. The chat is free to everyone and should be kept separated from blocks on the wiki except in cases where the banned users cause problems in the chat. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 04:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Degen and Wejer - I believed they summed up everything that needs to be said about this matter. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - As long as they are civil and polite to other users and give no reason not to allow them to join the cc, I don't see why not. C.ChiamTalk 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - As we agreed, the CC is open, meaning anyone on the wiki can join, registered or not. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. Allow them to join the Clan Chat - If they vandalise the wiki, block them there. Unless they flamed or did anything bad on the R S Wikia Clan Chat channel, I see no reason why they should be blocked there too.
  2. Unprotect all banned users' talk pages - How can they appeal their bans if their talk pages are protected?
  3. Question - Why are banned users' signature templates always deleted? This has been done with several users (ex. [[User:Total Rune|Total Rune]] or Dootdoot). I see no reason to do this. All it does is create redlinks all over talk pages for us to clear the wanted pages for. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 14:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
All good points, C Teng. You have my support A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 13:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: Per above. Statistics.png Lvl 3 skils3 Choice! Talk~ Holiday Signup ~Hiscores 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support unprotected talk pages - I find it quite unfair to any perm-banned users that they cannot appeal their offence. Also, once again, we need to keep consistency. For example, the talk pages of [[User:Total Rune|Total Rune]] and Blankothe3rd are protected and redirect to their userpages. However, Earthere's talk page isn't protected, and his request for his ban to be appealed has sparked a YG discussion. If we are going to protect the talk pages of perm-banned users, let's at least be consistent about it. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  07:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now archived and unprotected those two users' talk pages so that they can appeal their ban if they wish. That doesn't mean the appeal will be successful, but we must allow them to appeal. I agree with Telos, we need to be consistent, and have a policy that reflects practice. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How many appeals and for how long will it be allowed? Really, killer seems like he will never ever stop and if we leave it open he will just whine and cry forever. We went through merry hell getting people to realize just what a negative person he is, and a continuous appeal will just be more negativity on the wiki. --Degenret01 09:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)