#ubuntu banlist

Robert Wall robert at rww.name
Tue Nov 18 06:51:36 UTC 2014

> Is using +q an option instead of a ban?

For the avoidance of confusion: when I refer to the banlist having a
maximum of 500 entries, I mean that the total number of +b (ban), +q
(quiet), +e (ban exceptions), and +I (invite-only exceptions) has a
maximum of 500 entries. We have a handful of +e and +I, and the total
of +b and +q is what's concerning (not just +b).

While using +q instead of +b is a good conversation for us to have, it
will not by itself solve our current issue.


On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:33 PM, José Antonio Rey <jose at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Hey,
> Even though I am not an op, I would like to pitch in a couple
> suggestions for discussion.
> I understand that the banlist is set to be able to host more bans than
> usually. But this should not be a factor why every disruptive user
> should get banned - as we have seen now the banlist may get full at any
> time, preventing ops from setting further bans.
> Is using +q an option instead of a ban? I, personally, believe that a +q
> would be enough in some of the cases where I have seen a ban in place.
> This would also be a more polite way of saying 'Please, stop being
> disruptive' after trying to be a catalyst, and after the +q the ban
> could be set if necessary.
> What do you think?
> On 11/18/2014 01:21 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
>> Hello folks,
>> The banlist in #ubuntu is getting rather full. If you're an #ubuntu
>> op, please take some time to look in Bantracker *as soon as possible*
>> at the list of bans and quiets you have set. Please clean up any that
>> do not need to be set, and comment any that do. I have provided
>> details in #ubuntu-ops-team, and can provide assistance with BT
>> searching and other such things by email or in PM if needed (or ask in
>> #ubuntu-ops-team if you'd prefer).
>> While the banlist is not yet full, it is important that you look into
>> this *as soon as possible* to avoid us hitting limits.
>> As a reminder, the current total maximum number of bans, quiets,
>> ban-exempts, and invexes we can have set is 500 (this is increased
>> from the normal limit of 100, and we have way more bans set than most
>> channels our size). That we are hitting 500 bans (and not for the
>> first time) reflects badly on our banlist management skills, and is a
>> problem that needs to be fixed.
>> Once you're done cleaning up, I would like us to consider methods of
>> avoiding this situation in the future that do not include "one or two
>> ops get fed up of the banlist being almost full and spend hours
>> aggressively pruning it by themselves".
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
> --
> José Antonio Rey
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc

Robert Wall <robert at rww.name>

More information about the Ubuntu-irc mailing list