Forum:Chat Kickbans

Hi there. I'm a bcrat over on another wiki, and there was a disturbance today on our chat. I was not there to witness it, so at the time all I could do was question the user who was kickbanned about their behavior, as a couple other people had complained. Someone else provided me the chat log and I discovered that one chat moderator was kickbanning people for inactivity, and had apparently gotten consent from another bcrat to do this, which was what caused the disturbance, as another user had argued against this. Well this is the first I'd heard of that, and I was immediately put off. I absolutely do not agree with kickbanning users in chat due to inactivity, even if it is only temporary. I myself go inactive all the time when I am in chat, and by their logic, that is justification to be kickbanned, simply because I am not actively engaging in conversation.

Again, I do not agree with this at all, and I have brought this up with my administrative team, asking them why they thought this was a good idea. But my purpose for posting this here is because I am wondering if this is even allowed? Am I in the right for thinking that kickbanning people for inactivity is completely absurd?

Thanks! 21:01, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Edit; One of the staff mentioned ot me that apparently this was done due to trolling and theft occuring lately, but even so, I still cannot agree that it is a good idea.


 * Are you sure it's not because of their connection?? If inactive members have connection issues they tend to flood the chat by disappearing and reappearing a lot and this causes havoc with others trying to chat!! If they are inactive and causing no harm then yeah it may be wrong!!


 * I'm sure. I got a message from someone earlier asking me why they couldn't access chat, and I didn't understand it then. But now I know that they sent the message because they were kickbanned for inactivity, and when the mod saw them leave me a message, they unbanned them. 21:19, March 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * It is allowed, if your local wiki policy allows it. Even though it's most likely not the best course of action. 21:07, March 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Our policy doesn't state anything about it because it never came up before T: When I was questioning the banned user, the mod chimed in and left this:
 * "Those that come in and do not leave (camp out) do not engage after repeated attempts to get them involved and otherwise lurk for no reason get kicked, then so be it, I usually wait for a hour or more, but to be honest it is just creepy and sorry. but I just do not know what they are doing. Once I kick them out..I reinstate almost immediately or I will leave a message on their profile to let them know why and to contact me."
 * I don't see how it being "creepy" is a legitimate reason to carry out the action, though. Maybe some people get busy, maybe they forget the window is even up. It happens. 21:19, March 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you tried discussing it with the other crats and admins at your Wiki to find out who supports it and who doesn't so that clear cut rules can be established??
 * I am in the process of doing that now. 21:19, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Although it won't show entrances and exits, you might want to run a chat bot for your chat. The guidelines can be found here.


 * I will look at that when I get back, thanks. 21:19, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * In the guidelines it states the bot should be in chat all the time, is this primarily for the installation? Or overall? I just want to clarify that part, because I turn my computer off at night.
 * Never mind what I just had there before the online part, I had a complete idiot moment. But yeah, wanting to know about that. 21:54, March 4, 2012 (UTC)