Guild Wars Wiki talk:User pages/Change 1

I was told to look at this because? I am truly done with this outside my talk page. Its clogging up Recent changes, and is quite ridiculous to change an entire policy over one lousy joke. To be perfectly honest it is you who is bringing more attention to the "offensive" material by filling up RC and the like with discussions about it. Seriously, stop it.--Shadowsin 06:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Compare

It doesn't seem to work. And I'm lazy. But this version is basically just adding in "sexually explicit" wherever there was a mention of offensive, racist, etc, right? Is there a way to make it work? As its not a revision of the page, does a compare work? All questions I need to figure out before I initiate my violent overthrow of the wiki (lucky for me, gww:sedition failed)... (Also, is this supposed to be lvl3 heading or 2?) - THARKUN 06:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

actually no, most of what I improved on wasnt in the original (read it) --Shadowphoenix 06:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Compare was borked because it was trying to compare with Guild Wars Wiki:User page which is actually a redirect to Guild Wars Wiki:User pages, and thus it attempts to compare with the raw redirect code and not the destination page. Fixed now. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) yes, i'd just noticed that, actually, and was going to post that you'd fixed it. Thanks. - THARKUN 06:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically not a change

All of the things added explicitly in this draft are technically covered under the following line of the current policy, specifically the latter half:

Material in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was checking other policies and wandering around confusedly wondering where this was covered.. because I found it hard to believe that these changes weren't already handled somewhere. Thanks for pointing out where, since I was too blind to find it. - THARKUN 06:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of the change is to make people aware of this on Guild Wars Wiki. I do not think that everytime something like this happens they will automatically go to the page on the GW website. Technically it is just stating it so no one can oppose the fact that whatever it is they are doing is not against policy because it is not stated. --Shadowphoenix 07:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But you think those people will come read the policy? - THARKUN 07:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit Conflict.No need to change policy on my account, this is getting ridiculously out of hand. I Will remove the page and refrain from posting it in a subspace. In all seriousness, if you dont like the sort of humor, dont read it. It's that simple. Me, I do have a thing against protecting children agaisnt this sort of material, but i dont think your 11 or 12 year old will be trolling recent changes enough to know that i even re-posted it. by bringing this amount of attention to it, you have defeated the most general statement of your argument. to put it simply, if they didnt know about it before they sure as hell know about it now.--Shadowsin 07:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If they do not want to get banned yes, people who think they are not breaking policy by doing this may often check the policy. Oh and btw it is not on your account, I have actualy been cookign this up for about a week now. --Shadowphoenix 07:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then imma get gone. Enjoy your policy making, btw to make it even generally effective, "stern warning" probably wont cut it.--Shadowsin 07:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My theory: If they're the type to come read up on policies, they won't post much that could be considered offensive. Sweeping generalization, but I believe it. Alternately, if they post something that earns them a warning, presumably the warning will explain the problem. If its unclear, they can reply and ask what, more specifically, they're doing wrong, at which point the terms of use, rules, whatever will be explained.

Not to say that its bad to have everything out there in the clear. I just have my doubts about how useful it is if people continue to act as they have and those who post warnings are halfway decent at explaining their cause. - THARKUN 07:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning posting should be up to the admins, not to general contributers. --Shadowsin 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I never specified otherwise. - THARKUN 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We do not have enough admins for that --Shadowphoenix 07:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Then get more. Users floating around threatening bans for content they deem to offensive is not my idea of an effective policy. And never said that you did Thark :3--Shadowsin 07:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the usual guideline posted on various admin pages or by various admins is that users should first try to resolve differences of opinion on their own. So while they perhaps should not be posting warnings (which imply a backing of force), its encouraged to mention content which is perceived to be offensive - rather like Wynthyst did on your talk page. As long as they're not saying "change or I'll ban," its not necessarily bad - or at least not necessarily out of conformity with the wishes of the admins/community. - THARKUN 07:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct Tharkun. If they're telling you (preferably nicely) about a problem, there's really nothing with that. If they threaten you, then they are in the wrong. -- ab.er.rant 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As for this proposal, I will have to reject this change. I feel that it deviates too much from the original scope of this policy, which is cover only user pages. The proposed changes would be better off elsewhere, since they are of a more global nature, rather than just for user pages. I would like to suggest a similar proposal be made to GWW:CONTENT instead. (Yes the policy is called "Article retention", but it's actually really more "Content retention".) -- ab.er.rant 07:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how a single instance could warrant a 15-line addition to the policy, and a separate statement on how to deal with it. And I agree with Aberrant, although we already remove such content from main space, it is a restriction that applies to all of wiki, not just user pages. If it is at all needed, this is the wrong place. - anja 08:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with that, I think this change would go to far; and I don't think this would be needed in GWW:CONTENT either, as that policy still refers to article-content and not to the global allowed things. I think it is fine as it is as we, as Aiiane pointed out, have a line which includes that issue. And imo one line which refers to the Guild Wars conditions is a lot clearer as we are (or were) all Guild Wars player so we should know those conditions already. poke | talk 10:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In total agreement with Poke, and partly with Ab.er.rant and Anja. The current policy houses this line - anything deemed offensive. Instead of policy having every example laid out for every instance, the one line should, and already does, cover it. Where we went wrong with the current events is not what policy includes, but how the users involved chose to see that event. That was not the fault of the policy. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, blame me for saying "offensive" instead of "breaks GWW:USER" XD. In any case, for what i am seeing, the agreement is that the user pages policy encourages users to follow "all" of the GW rulesetting, including Rules of Conduct and the Terms and Conditions? or just the Terms and Conditions? (as the wording could be seen as just the last one, but the link points to the whole ruleset).--Fighterdoken 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

General Discussion

Sure, I support this. Having "sexually explicit content, etc." to be allowed on Userpages makes the entire wiki community look horrible as a whole and it can easily chase away contributors who have the potential to contribute greatly. Also, what's the point of having "sexually explicity content, etc." on your userpage and such? What does it even acomplish only to annoy other users? — ク Eloc 貢 07:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

/agree ^ Poke. Freedom of expression doesn't technically apply on the wiki (or internet for that matter), but is generally expected. But when said form or medium of expression has the possibility of harm to any user, then it should be managed. Brains does give a good point as to if one line can cover it, than that is best. The users involved went straight for a "literal" meaning of policy. --People of Antioch talk 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

another agree here. i'm going back to my common sense theory: this is a place for GWW users. Although its technically a reason of free speech, I'm pretty sure we don't come here to see this. it doesnt accomplish anything but offend those that don't like it and encourage others that like it to do something similar. its a loophole that should be closed ASAP. -- Wandering Traveler 17:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To Further Elaborate......

This change in the policy is to allow people to understand what they are and are not allowed to do in there userspaces. However, I do agree that should not be limited to just the userspace; but I still think it should be in this policies content. If you notice the policy is no diffrent in any other areas, because I agreed with the current policy; but I feel that because of the more recent things that have been going on that it should be stated in the policy. That one little line is not always clear enough. As I said above people, people who post these sort of things will say they are not breaking policy, because it is not stated within the policy. If this is added it will make it absolutely clear that these type of things are by no means acceptable here on Guild Wars Wiki. I do not think that the current policy is clear enough on that. Sexually explicit content, etc. has no place here on Guild Wars Wiki, obviously some people do not understand that very well; therefore it needs to be re-stated within this policy. As Eloc said, sexually explicit content, etc. Could make potentially very good contributers leave. If you still do not understand why I implemented this change, then I do not know what will make you understand..... --Shadowphoenix 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"because of the more recent things" - there was only one issue with only one person who in the past often tries to get around specific policies. You see that as he now tries to get around his block. But just because of this one person there is no need to extend this policy so that it is less readed - because in fact, when I look at this draft now, I don't want to read it. The list of not allowed things is just too long, so I would simply ignore it until someone else notices me that I should not do whatever.

And that is exactly the point in the "recent issue": People went immediately to the noticeboard without contacting the person who acted against this policy (as that one line contains exactly what is added in this draft). What would you think if you act - mistaken - against one policy and people would immediately go to the noticeboard and ask for a ban? It would be really unfair, because it is not possible to know exactly every policy and so minor mistakes are normal (imo). So just because someone acted against that it does not mean that the policy is bad or missing some points because I believe that most contributors do not read the policies completely. poke | talk 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you did not look at the diffrences with the current policy; "Absolutely no sexually explicit content of any kind should be added to your userpage or any user sub-pages. The first time that this is found in a userspace it should be removed and the user should get a stern warning. If the user refuses to allow the content of the page to be removed and/or reverted, administrative action should be taken. If the user repeats this offense, more extensive administrative action should be taken. If the user continues and will not stop, action by the Arbitration Committee may be necessary.". I am not asking for a bann for them, as you can see. Oh, and it was two people; I do not want it to happen again. --Shadowphoenix 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should avoid making a "Raptor" (one issue -> policy change chaos) out of this. It was one or two minor issues, which has mainly been resolved now (except some trolling). If this becomes a returning and big issue, I might change my mind and see that this is needed, but so far I've not seen a need for a change. The two cases were solved fine, were they not?
Btw, I think Poke was referring to what actually happened, not what the policy said/says about what to do. - anja 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A policy, that defines what is allowed and what not, should generally not contain the things, that will happen or that administrators (should) do if the policy is violated. That is part of the Adminship policy; and note that in general every violation of any policy includes a warning and not directly administrative action. poke | talk 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And yes Anja, I was referring in my whole comment to the quote at the beginning. poke | talk 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Then what is this? "If a user page is found to be in violation of this policy, a notice should be placed on that user's talk page explaining the violation and requesting compliance. That user is expected to comply with the notice within a week. Failure to comply would warrant a subsequent warning notice on that user's talk page. Further ignorance of the warning after 3 days (especially if that user was seen to be active on the wiki after the warning) may be construed as purposeful defiance of policy and administrators are then allowed to remove or change the offending portion of the user page. Any repeated violation of a similar nature is grounds for a stern warning and a subsequent ban if that user persists in defying policy." --Shadowphoenix 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about the policy as the whole but when we start to add those things to specific elements of a policy exactly that, what I said above, that nobody will read it, will happen. poke | talk 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your contradicting your self....."A policy, that defines what is allowed and what not, should generally not contain the things, that will happen or that administrators (should) do if the policy is violated" --Shadowphoenix 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and that is my opinion about that. poke | talk 17:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that paragraph you quoted Shadowphoenix (I phrased most of it), it should be considered legacy now since it was put in when there was a strong sentiment that sysops should not hold discretionary powers and should follow guidelines on how to act. I believe we have already moved quite far from that belief and if anyone proposes to remove that section, I wouldn't object. -- ab.er.rant 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Do you believe the situation was handled well? Do you believe, if it was, that it would be handled better with this new addition. If you don't, how do you think this addition would help? Do you think it will prevent people from doing such things in the first place, or just that it will help administrators deal with it better? (That was for everyone.)-- Brains12 \ Talk 18:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said uh, somewhere around here, the issue was handled under existing policy, and as long as you aren't an absolute literalist who denies sysops the freedom to interpret and have judgment, existing policy can cover such cases. The only reason we'd need every eventuality and the resulting administrative action spelled out is if we want to take the human element out of administrative action. Sure it might be nice and predictable and we can point to a line somewhere as "see, you broke that"... but I don't think its necessary. Being an admin on another community, I prefer flexibility and judgment, with the tradeoff being that sometimes you have to explain circumstances and reasoning more to violators. So again, I think these changes are superfluous. - THARKUN 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just a wiki

For the most part, I support the changes in this policy.

This wiki is unlike other wikis (even GuildWiki and PVXWiki) in the sense that it is an official wiki that is supported and hosted by ArenaNet. This means that, regardless of whether it has been officially stated or not, anything posted on this wiki, be it on the main space or even a user talk page, is a reflection on ArenaNet itself. You can argue that this, in fact, is a wiki and therefore ArenaNet has no control over what or how the users edit pages, but the fact remains that many, many users, both anonymous and registered, believe that much of what is written here has been done so by ArenaNet itself.

The other fact is that the game has a rating, and this website is accessible from inside the game. Content that would be unnacceptable in the game because of its rating should, I believe, also be unnacceptable on the wiki. Sure, there's ArbComm etc., but often there's too much back-and-forth arguing, even within the admins, about what is offensive and what isn't. Why do you think the game has the chat filter turned on as a default? Why are certain character names restricted? Because ArenaNet has decided that some words are patently offensive, and does not want such words used in their game. Why should the wiki be any different? ArenaNet has been known to ban accounts because of the use of profanity or offensive content, so why should the wiki be any different?

There's obviously a list of restricted words in place in the game, so couldn't we, theoretically, either compose our own list or acquire that that ArenaNet uses in game? I mean, even GuildWarsGuru has a word filter in place. Kokuou 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:No profanity has shown that the community did not want to place a boundary on the language people used. Any offensive (offensive - not anything people may happen to find offensive, but what people are actually offended by) language is covered by Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks. I'm of the opinion that policy is what the community want to make it - not what should be or what is right. If you honestly think the wiki should filter all discussion for bad language (not necessarily offensive language), then sure, go ahead and put your voice forward. However, I don't think you should do it because "it seems the right thing and ArenaNet do it". Personally, I don't care about bad language as long as it doesn't truly offend anyone.

Of course, if you think No profanity should be revived, go ahead - policy, proposed policies, and rejected policies aren't set in stone. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying no profanity, you can use it but in a joking or between friends sense. Things that could generaly offend people (such as sexual content) have no place here. --Shadowphoenix 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor do project pages about real life pets. It has nothing to do with Guild Wars, so why keep it?

And, in general, using "generally offensive" as a punishable term is a very bad idea. People get offended by the most mild crap, people'd be screaming wolf more often than they already do. -Auron 19:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wolf!

On a more serious note though, I've said it before and I'll say it again; I personally am against enforcing censorship in the userspace, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue. I do think some serious consideration is needed before this goes through though as with every rule we add to the policies, the harder it gets to draw a solid line between what is allowed and what isn't. — Galil 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually; wouldn't this policy make your own image disallowed, due to the "sexually explicit language"? — Galil 19:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Galil has a point. And I fully agree with Auron. --Lemming 19:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, as you never NEED to venture into userspace to find a use of this wiki, I think it should be as unregulated as possible. And there is no "generally offensive," in my book. I think people claim offense at what I find the silliest things, and I very very rarely take offense to anything. Whose standard do we use? You're getting into really awkward situations trying to enforce policies based on "general offense" when there's no definition for that. The current system works fine: personal complaints, inaction can lead to escalation, but the end result may still be inaction. Or maybe admin intervention. But don't require it. - THARKUN 20:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to galil about my image, that would be a no. "Bitch" is a term that can mean several things see this which entails that bitch is not always sexual and is not always an insult. --Shadowphoenix 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bitch is still "generally offensive". Granted I don't personally find it offensive, but I guess you see where I'm going with this. — Galil 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I use a slightly different dictionary Shadowphoenix, specifically this one: here. (Please note I am not Maddox, I did not write this)

Noun: Bitch (bich): 1. A miserable person who sucks all joy and happiness out of life, and makes life a little less worth living by her consistently shitty attitude. When not complaining, her drama and gossip will fill the void. He or she (but usually she) refuses to do something with a group, and will forego hanging out with said group unless they're doing something she wants to do. She will put her interest ahead of others every single time, just for the sake of being a bitch. A bitch hates fun.

-- scourge 21:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)