UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Combative External Links
Great Idea
Excellent proposal, Rueful. Kudos. Cyberbob Talk 14:49, 25 August 2006 (BST)
Clarification
I'm not quite sure if I fully understand this. Are you saying that we remove all external links that reflect badly on urban dead? I don't see why we need a policy for that. We can already remove the links so just do it. - Jedaz 14:55, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- This is more of a preventative measure. If a user shows enough contempt for the urbandead user base, they may change their site at any time, and it may go unnoticed by a moderador for weeks. Also, for more dynamic sites(such as forums), it may not be outwardly apparent that the combative user is creating problems. As mentioned in the policy, we should remove these potentially problematic links from areas of authority *before* a problem starts. -- Rueful 15:01, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Unh... so in other words we are just removing the links that Amazing has placed onto the wiki hey? - Jedaz 15:07, 25 August 2006 (BST)
And how exactly are we to determine whom a 'combatative user' is without going through a clusterfuck of Misconduct and Arbitration reports? – Nubis NWO 15:11, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Yeah, thats what I was thinking. Everyone is a potentialy 'combatative user' and thus by this logic all links should be removed. But think about it, this is just more or less something to get rid of Amazings links. I bet you that if you removed them no one would notice. - Jedaz 15:14, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Come on, guys. It's called common fucking sense. There shouldn't *have* to be a set amount of arbitration rulings or whatever to make someone combative. We've all been on the wiki for a while; we know who's trouble and who isn't. Isn't that why we were promoted? People believed we were able to make good judgemtent calls? Let's start showing it for once. Cyberbob Talk 15:31, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Except that common sense isn't that common these days. I'm too tired to think about this properly, but I guess you are right. But when it comes to matters such as this an average user has just as much of a responsibility and duty as a moderator. (With the exception of the protected pages). But go right ahead, as long as you don't break any rules then I probably won't mind. - Jedaz 15:42, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Common sense isn't common, but neither are our moderators. We all can edit pages and revert them, which usually will result in content that is a consensus. Moderators have tools to deal with vandals, otherwise. I don't think we need a rule to get rid of links to jerks; we just need mods that are willing to back up the community by banning, locking, or doing whatever is necessary. --otherlleft W! 00:23, 29 August 2006 (BST)
- Except that common sense isn't that common these days. I'm too tired to think about this properly, but I guess you are right. But when it comes to matters such as this an average user has just as much of a responsibility and duty as a moderator. (With the exception of the protected pages). But go right ahead, as long as you don't break any rules then I probably won't mind. - Jedaz 15:42, 25 August 2006 (BST)
- Come on, guys. It's called common fucking sense. There shouldn't *have* to be a set amount of arbitration rulings or whatever to make someone combative. We've all been on the wiki for a while; we know who's trouble and who isn't. Isn't that why we were promoted? People believed we were able to make good judgemtent calls? Let's start showing it for once. Cyberbob Talk 15:31, 25 August 2006 (BST)
What the heck is an "enemy" of UD? --Cartoonlad 08:52, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Please provide 2 examples of enemies of the urbandead community, and 2 seperate examples of "combative" users. If this is a significant problem, there should be abundant examples. --Kiki Lottaboobs 12:43, 26 August 2006 (BST)
- In response to Kiki: Amazing, PQN, 3PWV, the meow guy, and every other returning vandle. I think these would all count. But only Amazing has a website. This policy would be crediable IF we had had problems in the past with Amazing putting things on scroll wars that people outragiously did not like. But that has not happened yet so until it does it is not a problem. The Devil 17:06, 26 August 2006 (BST)
- I guess I'm just trying to get a handle on what this policy is targeting. What problem is it trying to solve? The IP blocker program, which I think has recently been implemented should take care of returning vandals. Deletions and speedy deletions should take care of off topic pages, and graphics. Is this trying to give people the right to eliminate any links they don't like? What is the target? --Kiki Lottaboobs 18:00, 26 August 2006 (BST)
- The target is Amazing and Amazing only. Because Rueful hates Amazing and will do anything to discredit him/ make his game do worse/ and whatever else is not in the favor of Amazing. The Devil 18:06, 26 August 2006 (BST)
- I guess I'm just trying to get a handle on what this policy is targeting. What problem is it trying to solve? The IP blocker program, which I think has recently been implemented should take care of returning vandals. Deletions and speedy deletions should take care of off topic pages, and graphics. Is this trying to give people the right to eliminate any links they don't like? What is the target? --Kiki Lottaboobs 18:00, 26 August 2006 (BST)
This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Allows for clear trolling and relies entirely on judgement calls. "Enemy of the community"? What the hell? It's a game, guys. A game. Come on. --LibrarianBrent 18:40, 26 August 2006 (BST)
Again, there is an issue of identification here. People who strongly oppose PKing in the Urban Dead game could argue that, for instance- Red Rum are ruining their game experience, and so links should be removed. Think very carefully about the implications of this. -Dog Deever T•Nec 21:09, 26 August 2006 (BST)
This policy seems to be an amazing (no pun intended) case of overkill. Combative user? Come on! This is a wiki, if you hate this "Amazing" user so much, just delete the links - no need for a formal policy. Thouhg I wonder what is so bad about his links anyway? Honestly, I came after he was banned, and I am curious what could focus so much hatred on someone. Did he try to crash the wiki server or something? --OmegaPaladin 00:32, 1 September 2006 (BST)
- For the most part, it's because we don't want to see the community get siphoned off into a project made by someone who said that he intended to destroy Urban Dead through absorbing it's player base. There are also more than enough of his pals here who'd be all too willing to replace the links should they ever be removed. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:25, 8 September 2006 (BST)
In other words
Remove the links to Amazing's shit. I agree. Let's do it. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 18:26, 26 August 2006 (BST)
- Whatever you did also removed the links in responsible user's pages like Technerd. What about that?--Gage 00:22, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- What? I haven't done anything. What are you talking about? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:51, 27 August 2006 (BST)
This is an interesting policy
This policy is very interesting I have to say. Just interesting. That is all. Nothing more nothing less. It should be improved somehow. Merlin 07:19, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- Stop pretending that you are a useful user. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:21, 27 August 2006 (BST)
- Yes, I agree with Bobs sentiment. If you don't have anything constructive to say then don't say it. - Jedaz 11:45, 28 August 2006 (BST)
Summary so far
So the consensus thus far seems to be that:
- Amazing's external links are the only ones that would be affected by this change
- There seems to be some justification for removing the links
- There is moderator support for removing the links
Rather than make this a policy(since a policy about this definitely could be dangerous), are we in agreement that we should remove the links in question? -- Rueful 22:23, 28 August 2006 (BST)
- No, we aren't. --Darth Sensitive
W! 02:19, 29 August 2006 (BST) - We most certainly are not, the whole point of the "Related games" section is to link to related games, End of story. Anyway, it's not as if it's the first page which people check. Remove the "related games" page from the policy, and i'd agree with you.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:07, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Too vague
Provide a good definition of "combative users" ("permabanned users" would seem to fit the bill), and you've got my vote. As is, this is just a formula for more contentious witchhunting, and that's gotten pretty damn old. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 20:00, 8 September 2006 (BST)
