UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/archive

Sub-page discussions

Some Discussions have either begun outside Policy Discussion, or have grown sufficiently that they deserve their own page. The following are Policy Discussions that are being displayed on sub-pages of this page:

• UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Amazing - A discussion/Petition on whether to remove Amazing from the Urban Dead Wiki community.

Insults and Language

[Regarding whether insults and offensive language should be tolerated on this wiki]

This discussion has been refactored - the original conversation can be found at Moderation/Policy Discussion/Archive#Insults and Language.

The discussion started with two primary proposals: One stating that we should take up Wikipedia's etiquette guidelines (by Chester Katz), one that stated that we should maintain the status quo, allowing users to interact as they wish (by Katthew). During the discussion it was believed that the first proposal (dubbed Clean Language) Also included restriction on language, and LibrarianBrent and Odd Starter made a third proposal that included civility but allowed the language to be as the users wished, this dubbed Clean Interaction. Chester Katz chimed in to note that Clean Interaction was what he had requested all along. Axe-man further noted that he believed that the Cons of Free Interaction were not accurate, in particular the filtering software remarks. The current state of the various proposals are listed below:

Clean Language Language is, as much as possible, kept to civility, and swearing and cursing discouraged. Further, users are encouraged/enforced to prevent personal attacks, and to respect each other's opinions.

• Pros: Provides a more professional environment. Reduces possibility of temper flares (most common reason for temper flares is when a user is insulted). Reduces hurt feelings all round. Assists in creating a welcoming environment for new users.
• Cons: Difficult implementation (How do we deal with "crime scene"? How do we punish trangressors? Not non-trivial).

Clean Interaction Language not an issue, but users encouraged/enforced to prevent personal attacks, and to respect each other's opinions.

• Pros: Keeps environment civil, encourages users to arbitrate rather than fight.
• Cons: Reduces Freedom of expression.

Locational Language/Interaction Prohibit argumentative behaviours or flame-wars on pages other than User and User Talk pages. What this consists of should, by all rights, be blatantly obvious - but, because people will contest what a "flame war" is, let me go ahead and define it:

• Personal attacks
• Belittlement of a person's opinions as being reflective of some negative personality trait
• Baiting attacks from others

When someone violates these restrictions on a public part of the wiki, whether in the talk section or on an actual page, their offending addition to that section will be removed. If they wish to contest it, they can contact a moderator to conduct the arbitration - but reverting a removal will result in a warning. Having something pulled due to flaming, however, will not; this is the Internet, people do lose their tempers, and arguments can break out. The warning will only come if someone is persistantly trying to cause problems by reverting materials deemed to be inflammatory. If the moderators feel that something which was removed as inflammatory was done so in error, it will be restored; if they feel that something was removed as inflammatory out of malicious intent, the remover will be warned and the material restored. This intentionally makes it more likely for someone to get a warning for removing something than they would get for leaving it inplace - otherwise it would be too easy to quash opposing opinions just by calling them all flames.

User and Usertalk pages will remain "private" spaces, and can be conducted by their owners as they wish, but I would hope that a system like this would result in the more publically-oriented spaces remaining neutral in POV and free from any attempts to intentionally provoke or insult people.

• Pros: Cuts down on inflammatory nature of talk spaces in "public" wiki areas, while retaining ability for all users to have an area in which to speak their minds. Permits private disagreement and chastising, if it is deemed necessary, while areas of use to common population of the wiki are given some protection to prevent potential flame wars.
• Cons: Potentially creates a steep "learning curve" for new wiki users through deletion of offending posts, may overload moderator-base.

Free Language/Interaction Users allowed to interact in whatever means they feel appropriate, from civil discourse to outright flaming, with no consequences for any mode of behaviour so long as it does not contravene existing wiki rules.

• Pros: Maintains freedom of expression. Abrasive individuals who nonetheless make good edits can continue to make good edits. No action required.
• Cons: Temper flares likely to remain a common state on the wiki. Detracts from professional attitude. Likely loss of good users who are offended by Free Language. Likely result in much of wiki being blocked by blocking software, reducing audience and possible contributor base.

Axe-man made some notes that he felt that forcing civility made him uneasy, as he felt it stifled truth of expression - Axe-man felt that if two users were angry, they should be allowed to express it as such, and not hide it, as then neither side could trust the true intention of the other. Spiro noted that this is not an all or nothing situation - one can express their anger without flaming the opposition, and that this should probably be encouraged. Axe-man noted again that this still masks the actual extent of their anger, and this annoyed him because many fights have arisen due to this. [1] Odd Starter replied that expressing true anger is not always a useful course of action anyway, and that two parties can resolve issues by working towards compromise without anger coming into the situation at all - Anger may not need to come into the situation at all if both parties are willing to communicate effectively.

[1] As a personal note and question to Axe-man, How exactly do arguments start when two people don't express their anger? In almost every conflict resolution resource I've seen, it's been stated that the best thing to do in a conflict situation is to try and cool people's emotions so that people can rationally discuss what's happening, and that two people angry at each other are almost never able to resolve a dispute, simply because they don't see it as an opportunity for both sides to win, only for the other side to lose. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where not expressing your anger actually helped defuse a tense situation. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 04:17, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I tend take what people say as a indicator to what they feel or think, Thus it tends to come out of nowhere when it builds up to an outburst. I've never had a problem with this occuring in an enviorment where people felt they could to me to "fuck off." Maybe, this experience may conflict with ones you have had. However, this has led to me being very wary of any situation where there is enforced kindness.--Axe-man 05:07, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

LouisB3 asked a question about what exactly the Cons of Clean Language actually meant, as she did not understand exactly what was meant. Odd Starter explained that what he meant was that several points of either Clean policy required some sort of intervention whenever violation occured, and how exactly this was handled was not an obvious answer - there were many solutions that each had their own pros and cons, and if either Clean Policy was enacted, figuring out what to do with transgressions was going to be a conversation in itself.

At this point, several comments were made, which have been quoted verbatim, as they were not responded to:

I think It would best to use an actual example to clear up any misconceptions. What would the moderation policy be in reference to the current arguement on the Talk:The_Gingerbread_Men page? We have Katthew which as always is very direct and rather harsh at times and then we have people like Flaunted, who are baiting her. How would moderation differ under the different systems?--Axe-man 22:32, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

An inherent problem with limiting language and interaction to "civil" standards is that there will then be an associated problem of people trying to goad others into violating those standards just to see them banned. Furthermore, what is at issue has never been how someone says something - but, instead, the intent and associated context in which they say it. Despite the obvious conflict going on between Chester Katz and Katthew, they make the inherent issue in this clear; Chester Katz may be sticking to "civil" speech, but he's still effectively attacking Katthew's person. And Katthew, for her part, is responding with rather blatant provocations - no matter whether it's meant to make a point or not, it escalates situations and motivates attacks and thus results in a less-useful wiki altogether. Hence I'd like to make an addition to the suggestions above, by adding an entry for Locational Language/Interaction. This would help keep the "public" areas of the wiki, where groups are documented and suggestions are made, to a specified standard of civility - the "private" areas where individual users talk and discuss among themselves, however, would be moderated by the users themselves to their own personal satisfaction. I think this would allow for a certain level of free expression where necessary, but would also prevent the areas which most users access often (and which the non-users would potentially browse for reference purposes) from becoming a potential breeding ground for arguments. Plus, as pretty much everyone (including myself) has had moments where they have insulted someone personally on this wiki - it institutes no punishment for simply being argumentative, so long as one accepts when an argument is called for flaming and removed. Of course, there will be those who disagree; I simply present this as a "middle-range" option for consideration. Thoughts? --Drakkenmaw 23:36, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I feel that taking the voice out of people stifles the games essence. --User:Trisw 13:26, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personally I think that for one to discuss properly, one should discuss in a civilised manner, this obviously invoves no insults or personal attacks. --Changchad 22:53, 5 April 2006 (BST)

• Personally I favor 'Locational Language/Interaction'. Frankly the times which I've seen discussions get to the point where they are truly disruptive and self-moderation completely breaks down are, thankfully, few and far between. But when they do devolve they tend to have a massive negative effect on the tone of the wiki in general and on how a large number of regular users interact. While a very small minority seem to thrive on this behavior, it is counterproductive for the vast majority of us. With something like this in place there is a reasonable way to tone things down, rather than now, where I (and I suspect many others) just give up on the topic as having become pointless. I see this version as being the equivalent of 'go take it outside' - most of us go out to have fun, but there's always a few that seem to want to get in a fight, and it's usually the same ones over and over again. People can disagree, and quite forcefully, without resorting to insults and needless vulgarity. If there is a small number of people who want to continue to argue about something in an inappropriate manner, they can move their discussion somewhere private and have at it. Comments that go against the policy are replaced with a link to the policy (helps the learning curve immensely), and only the offending parts of a post should be removed. Banning should only be handed out only if the the individual insists on continuing the behavior in the same discussion after repeatedly having comments removed and multiple warnings from a mod or arbiter. --Gilant 22:52, 14 April 2006 (BST)

• We need to clarify the concept of "Freedom of Speech" here - it is not the "freedom" to say whatever you choose - it is the freedom to express your opinions without fear of retribution. They may sound the same, but you have to take it in the correct context: I expect to have freedom of action, however, I would not expect that freedom to extend to the "freedom" to murder anyone who interferes with my obtaining everything I want, at the moment I require it. Freedom of Speech is subject to the same restrictions within its own context - ie. it does not give you the right to harm (in this case this covers emotional harm and such areas as deliberately insulting/belittling) others.

--DeadMeatGF 20:37, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Definitions of Vandalism and other Bannable Offenses

[Regarding what sorts of malicious activites should be punishable by banning]

SPAMMERS AND INSULTING TITLES

Could obviously insulting titles and obvious spaming like these examples be bannable on sight and for longer periods?]

We aren't talking a great battle or use for these pages. And it leaves the ability for them to stir up drama on the wiki and vandalize pages alot quicker than if they had a longer period to sit it out.

Category:Groups_which_do_suck_unwashed_penis Pizdorvan Qolyan

We aren't dealing with anything new Col/old Col but rather if someone started a page like "THE COUNCIL OF LOSERS" and pointed it to either page. Something that no one would obviously do unless they were griefing another player/group.--Axe-man 09:34, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It's rather subjective, is all. We can say "You'd never do this unless you were griefing", but there's the possibility that hell, maybe someone might. Especially for Banning offenses, we need more specific guidelines. Of course, it'll always need interpretation, we just need to drop that interpretation to as low a level as possible.

With that said, I do agree - there should be such a thing as Page Creation vandalism. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 10:01, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I'd say that something along the lines of Category:Groups which do suck unwashed penis might merit a warning, but not necessarily an instant ban. The actions of Pizdorvan and Qolyan however should definitely mean an instant ban (and I believe this has already happened in at least one of those cases). Accounts used only for spamming should be axed on sight. Which brings up an interesting hypothetical: what should be the policy if an existing user ever starts inserting spam links like that? --Chester Katz 14:31, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

It could very well occur, if someone has their password stolen. Unfortunately, as there isn't a mandatory e-mail for the wiki, it isn't possible to contact someone and verify. To preserve the usefulness of the wiki, however, I think it'd be necessary to opt for a ban in that case - perhaps with a way of arguing for an unbanning in some way? I'm not certain how that would be possible, but it'd be a more-preferable solution than just a blanket ban. --Drakkenmaw 23:56, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

This isn't really a problem in my eyes, since the first banning period is only 24 hours anyway. --LibrarianBrent 23:59, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Do you guys think that adding the PKer group tag to a group that does not want it should be considered vandalism? Policy is currently somewhat unclear on this matter, since on one hand there's the supposed need to give factual information, and on the other there's the group page self-control issue. --LibrarianBrent 02:04, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)

My suspicion is that we shouldn't have the PK group. If it has to stay, I think that groups should choose whether they want the tag. I expect that most groups do kill survivors even at small levels, it should be up to the group as to whether they want to advertise that it's a primary focus of their group. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 01:29, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The problem is, the wiki is supposed to be informative. A lot of PKer groups out there absolutely don't want to be openly perceived as such on the wiki, and therefore that important bit of information is left out of their pages. If we did have to enforce listing of PKer groups, though, we'd probably encouter problems with groups vigorously denying that they PK regularly, and the wiki would turn into one of the UD forums, with all the bickering that comes with it. So, the optimal solution seems to be that we should drop the PKer group category, unless there are some groups who actually want to be listed in it. --Daranz|_talk| 02:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I agree with the previous statement on this. Many PKer groups openly/regularly PK, yet don't want to be put in the PK category. This is silly. If a group is openly targeting fellow survivors, people have a right to know. I realize there is often abuse on this particular subject.. But until you can magically force every group that openly or regularly PKs into putting it on their page, it's up to other users to inform. However, this being said, if a user is caught repeatedly adding multiple groups to categories they genuinely don't belong in, that user should be dealt with. --Aiden H. 12:22, 4 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Can I get a quick check on people - spambots (and they're easily identifiable) - instant ban? Or maintain three-strikes? -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 01:29, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I vote for insta-ban. There's no reason to give the bot more chances to spam. --Chester Katz 02:10, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

If it's obviously a bot, then insta-ban is the easiest solution. After all, it's not like it can complain. --Katthew 02:18, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Personally, I've been insta-banning spambots. Most of the time, they need to be banned as soon as possible, to avoid more spammage, so insta-banning is a very viable option. --Daranz|_talk| 02:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Insta-ban. --LibrarianBrent 19:48, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Very insta-ban! Really, look at these guys as possibly posting malicous code (as they easily could).--Axe-man 09:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Can we have an insta-ban for posting pornographic content? I think it's pretty clear why that kind of stuff needs to be quickly acted upon. --LibrarianBrent 02:30, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Do we have explicit rules about pornography on this wiki? I'm of the opinion that unless we're explicitly stating that pornography isn't welcome on the wiki (and I am sympathetic to doing so, considering the nature of the wiki), it should be a strike offense, not a insta-ban offense, since it's "only" screwing around with singular pages. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 06:51, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Those rules are what I'm trying to create here- nothing besides "post it and get banned" really seems required to me. --LibrarianBrent 01:33, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I think it should be a strike offense, not an insta-ban offense, but I like to err on the side of caution... -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 07:04, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I guess that's OK, most of these guys are obvious vandals anyway. --LibrarianBrent 14:03, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Page Creation Philosophy

[Regarding whether Pages should have relevance or utility now, or whether to allow a longer-term view of their relevance and/or utility.]

My thoughts on this are as follows: We, and by extension the universe, are not defined by potential. Potential, by its very nature, is only defined when it reaches a limit, and thus it isn't potential that defines but limitations. "Potential utility" in the future is a nebulous concept at best and is ill-suited to serve as reliable criteria for arbitrating what pages should be created.

Working with material that is presently useful circumvents these problems at the cost of potentially needing edited in the future; As this is a Wiki and ease of editing is a Wiki's greatest strength, the possible problems of this approach are mitigated. --Matthew-Stewart 05:57, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Without specific examples, it is hard to see the current relevance of this policy...instead it appears to be a policy of potential-future-utility (and self-annihilating).

I don't know what specific "problems" are raised by the philosophical scaffolding of the first paragraph. Current human social policy spends resources on future projections -- for example governments and corporations have R&D divisions whose work is guided and framed by best-case/worst-case/probable-outcome scenarios. If information is very likely to be useful in the future, then that likelihood yields present value. Judge the page in the present based on its costs and its benefits. The cost of a wiki page is usually very low, unless space is at a premium, or the page forces restructuring of other pages that significantly inconveniences other users. This policy requires specific cases if it is to be discussed in a constructive manner. --Tycho44 14:50, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Security Code/Preventing Bot Registrations

Ladies and gents, we have had way too many "online flash casino" spambots. Would it really be so hard to implement some sort of humans-only protection system to stop the automatic registrations? Slicer 01:17, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Any such hack will have to come from Kevan, since none of us have access to the wiki code. I'm sure there's a MediaWiki hack out there for it, but we'll have to wait and see if Kevan decides it's worth it (and considering we're only getting about 1-2 attacks per week, it's actually not that bad. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 10:57, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

All right, then how about a maximum ban for all adverspam accounts? I've seen them come back before. --ALIENwolve 00:03, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

This seems plausible, considering that most adbots really are that obvious in their duties. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 01:13, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I'm not sure if this is where this goes. If not, I apologize. I've paid the five dollars to exempt my characater 'GrayGhost' from the 160 ISP hit limitation and even got the receipt from PayPal, but after five days, I'm still locked down. I'm on a big ISP from a major university, so our hits get used up in about 30 minutes. I've emailed Kevan at least twice, but no answer and no fix. What should I be doing to get his attention? --GrayGhost 02:45, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Link on the Main Page

I recently set up an off-site resource for all Urban Dead players to use freely for game info not yet supplied on another page that I know of. Can I link it on the main page myself, or should I request a Moderator do it? I'll supply the link once I know for sure, plus I'm still adding content so I'd like to have it reasonably full before it's "Public". Thanks. -- Amazing 05:51, 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I guess I'll post it up and it can be taken down and discussed if need be. I'm 100% sure that it's an unbiased public service type thing, so I'm not exceedinly worried about it being yanked down. -- Amazing 00:22, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Suggestion Page, Daxx, and You

Hey there.

Non-Authors are not allowed to reply on the Suggestions Page.

I moved a Non-Author Reply to the Suggestion Discussion page where it belongs.

Daxx re-placed it on the Main page.

Who is in the right? Am I right for moving an Illegal Reply to the Discussion page without simply Deleting it?

Or is Daxx Right for Re-instating an Illegal Reply that wasn't even his own, on a page where its prohibited?

-- Amazing 02:30, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Found another problem. Daxx changed the Suggestion Rules to fit his own personal preference. Click Here. -- Amazing 05:45, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I reverted the Suggestion page rules back to the original version.

Daxx then reverted it back to his own edits and claimed it to be a revision to LibrarianBrent's changes. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template:Suggestion_Voting&action=history

I'm probably going to bring Daxx up for vandalism again once I hear about your thoughts on this, Mods.

Click Here to see Daxx claiming his edits were ALWAYS part of the rules. He's added lying ontop of it all. Just goes to character. -- Amazing 19:17, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I don't think I'll bother going to lengths explaining why this is ridiculous, after all there's no convincing some people and I doubt Amazing will get off my back on this one. My edits were to common practice (reasoning being: if there is a common practioe on a wiki, especially one which everyone uses and the contrary is never enforced, it should take precedence over what's formally written). Everyone who's been around on the wiki for any reasonable length of time knows what common practice here is. Everyone should know that this is how wikis work. Use your own judgements on this one, personally I would have thought it was obvious. That's all I have to say, and I really am not going to get drawn into another argument, so don't even try, Amazing. Also, I like your ah-hominem reference to my character; being that I am and have been since the start one of the most respected players in the entire community. Again, anyone who's been around for any length of time in this game should know that. But back to my main point - common practice is what makes a wiki and to cite this as vandalism is purely the act of a bitter individual with a vendetta. --Daxx 02:53, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You changed the rules to support commin rule-breaking to suit yourself and those who didn't follow the guidelines, that is all. You didn't even put it up for a vote. Also, being around a long time doesn't exactly mean anything. I must request you step back from personal insult, as it just makes you look worse. There's no vandetta, if you recall you were banned for keeping after me in a manner not allowed. -- Amazing 18:32, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

"I am and have been since the start one of the most respected players in the entire community." AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA --Katthew 15:10, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Daxx, I disagree with your opinion, and feel as if your claim that you were "one of the most respected players in the entire community", who "anyone who's been around for any length of time should know" is misleading. From what I can tell of your posts on the wiki, you're a borderline troll, and you supposedly also posted some kind of underage cybersex thing on the old forum. Hardly actions worthy of respect in my book. With that said, though, your somewhat muted tone in this discussion is at least better than your previous behavior. Keep it up, just please dump the "har har e-penis" stuff, 'k? This sort of claim really isn't helpful to the informative nature of the wiki, and I'm not sure who it was meant to convince, or indeed what it was supposed to prove in the first place.

NOTE: This post is NOT repeat NOT made from any sort of moderation perspective. This is my opinion as a user of this wiki, and should NOT be taken as a moderation action or as any sort of representation of the opinions of the moderation team as a whole. --LibrarianBrent 04:59, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Now what's the policy on this type of thing (the slander/libel crap) because I'd like to know if I should report people for it, or only in certain cases. I don't want to Over-Report -- BUT -- The minute I don't report someone, that creates a past "acceptance" of that behavior in a way. In other words you can't report the guy who posts that you are a "GRATE BIG LOZAR HOMO JACKAZZ" on some page if you let something slide in the past. Just curious. -- Amazing 06:58, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)

"creates past acceptance"? I disagree. If someone horribly vandalizes something using offensive personal attacks, and I don't notice it for a few months, that hardly constitutes my acceptance of their behavior. I don't see any wiki policy on non-reporting creating tacit acceptance.

(1) I understand that if something sits for months and months, there should be some sort of statute of limitations on punishment (i.e. reparations are simply removal of the vandalism). That way, a user receives timely constructive feedback that they are headed down a bad path, without being stealth-bombed by a collection of ancient mistakes. For ancient out-of-date stuff, corrective action could probably be limited to removal of the offending material.

(2) On the other hand, the fact that those ancient violations have not yet been addressed does not change the fact that Grate Big Lozar vitriol on the public pages hurts the wiki and is against policy. The wiki should not be dragged to the lowest common denominator of what-we-let-slide-in-the-past. There is a middle road between "because of your past unremarked vandalisms, that's six warnings and two bans we're slapping on you today" versus "because of your past unremarked vandalisms, we've decided it is now okay for you to delete our pages and replace them with all-caps insults." How about: "we're warning you about your current vandalism, and if past unremarked vandalisms are equally inappropriate, we'll remove those as well, without further punishment." --Tycho44 15:14, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Organization Pages

I'm referring to this page, http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Category:Organizations. Why exactly should groups that like to feel self important be able to post mistruths? Unless they actually do organise groups who organise other groups which I doubt. The Malton Confederacy has 5 groups under its control, that doesn't mean it should have a sub-category under organisations. The Dunell Hills Police Department doesn't control any other groups therefore it should not be under Organisations, it has simply split itself into subgroups. I propose that the Organisations page is moderated so you don't have groups with 1 member popping up on there (BRS&D) and to remove Subcategories from the Organisations page. --Qwako 20:05, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Wow, I am editing the title so it isn't so jumbled. --Matthew Stewart 20:11, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'm editing for brevity :)

With that said, I think I should hasten to point out that, well, all of the wiki is "moderated", since all users have the ability to moderate other users. If you feel strongly about this section, you yourself should moderate the section.

Remember this is a wiki - Moderation is the responsibility of all, not just the Moderators. All we do is do the stuff that regular users are incapable of doing. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 00:25, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

True, but consider this: It is established precedent that groups themselves, and only groups themselves, have the right to edit their group pages. For a non-mod user to go after Dunell Hills- which I agree is utterly excessive- would lead directly to revert war and claims of vandalism. I think I'll try and find out. --Slicer 01:30, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderators here aren't supposed to have any more authority than anyone else. This isn't a forum where Moderators are the hired godlings of the God-King Administrator. We're intended to be regular users who are trusted enough to use the more potent wiki abilities, at the behest of the wiki community. Thus note that we're reactive people here - with the exception of banning vandals, all our activities come only after other users request action. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 02:07, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I'm pretty sure last time someone removed a group from a sub category there was a huge ruckus about it and votes and calls for banning due to vandalism were thrown about etc. Besides that, the fact that I can't see a way to remove sub-categories of organisations from the page doesn't help. I was just wondering would it be within the wiki rules (or whatever) to remove the sub categories from the organisation page (As they don't exist) --Qwako 16:38, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Subcategories exist because the subcategory has a category tag to the higher category, so the easiest way to remove them is the remove the category tag from the subcategory page. So that's how you remove a subcategory from another category. As for the whole ruckus thing... Typically it's best to talk with others if it looks like it may be a controversial change. Talking tends to cause less ill-will than just doing. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 01:04, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Procedures for new Moderators

Since Kevan has accepted a request to make a moderator a bureaucrat, I think it's worth a discussion on how we're going to assign new Moderators. There's probably some logic in not quite going so far as Wikipedia's policy (basically give it to anyone who seems trustworthy and asks), but I personally would like the policy to have more community participation than "The Moderators give it to people we know and trust".

So, I'd like to propose a first draft of a possible Request for Moderatorship policy.

A new Moderation page is opened up purely for new Moderator requests. Call it, for now, Moderation/Promotions. On this page, we place down some guidelines on what potential Moderators should possess. A reasonable list to me would include:

• Significant time within the community (Possibly around 3-4 months)
• Significant activity within the community (Possibly around 200-300 edits)
• Prior interest in maintaining the community (defined as performing maintenance and leadership tasks within the community prior to making the request)
• Desire to become a Moderator (possibly defined as simply putting one's name down)
• Indication of trust in the potential Moderator (defined as 3-5 nominations from respected community members in order to be considered). All Users are welcome to nominate.

As guidelines and not hard-and-fast rules, any one of these may be disregarded if the candidate is an exemplar in some other guideline.

Once the candidate has met these guidelines, the general community is then solicited for comments. This is not a vote. Instead of an election system, we are instead looking for community feelings surrounding the candidate. We encourage discussion of the candidate amongst the community, as well as the community asking questions of the candidate. We allow any user to change their minds at any time as the debate goes on.

After around 2 weeks of discussion, it should be reasonably clear whether the candidate is suitable for the position or not, and if it seems that the community is willing, the candidate is promoted to Moderator.

In this way, we build several important steps - before the community is involved, we vet the candidate on a set of reasonably objective (or at least objectively measureable) criteria. Once those criteria are met, the community gets a chance to vet the candidate themselves, ensuring that the candidate and the community are well-matched.

Any comments? -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 04:26, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I do have one question, by community do you mean this wiki, or other parts of the larger UD community (such as forums?) Other than that, this looks like a very good policy for selecting new modererators. --RedKnight 07:12, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

The wiki community, in specific. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 12:20, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That makes sense, since the moderator's powers would only extend to the Wiki. --Unsigned comment

That's what I thought you meant. Thanks for the clarification. --RedKnight 01:30, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I think this seems fine...more mods might be a good thing, but we'd get chaos without an ordered system for making them. Although all that happened to me was getting an email from Kevan in my second week of editing--essentially a brevet promotion, as this was while Katthew had declared war on the Suggestions page.--'STER-Talk-Mod 18:43, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT) keep: That is all. shadowmimiiru

"Since Kevan has accepted a request to make a moderator a bureaucrat" Hmm... turning people into zombies without killing them first. Is that legal?!? --Gene ^{W! - Talk} 03:09, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Policy Overhaul

Due to some serious factional fighting and inane revert wars, I'm going to be pushing a policy overhaul here. Stay tuned and please chime in, this might concern you in the immediate future. As soon as we have a fair amount of feedback on each point I'm going to start a vote. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:14, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Group Page Control

I'd support a 100% "Group's Call within reason" on the main page and 100% "Archive or Leave it alone" policy for Talk pages. Just sayin'. We also need a stern definition of "NPOV" since "I have screenshots that show Bob120 killed me!" is just complaining, not NPOV commentary. -- Amazing 06:19, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

I favor carte blanche group control since the entire "evidence" system is highly dubious. I can whip up all the "evidence" I need in photoshop in about 5 minutes, and nobody would be the wiser. Most of it doesn't even get that far though, its just he-said-she-said. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:24, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Exactly. Thank you. -- Amazing 06:33, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

I'm not sure if I like carte blanche group control, while, for the most part, group control if great, if a group gets together and starts speading lies, and they have complete power over both there group page, and it's talk page, there will be nothing that can stop them from doing it. Balance in talk pages is particularly important--Bermudez 20:27, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

These situations always remind me of a story about the Flat Earth Society member, whom after being shown a picture of the earth from orbit replied "I can see how, to the untrained eye, one could be fooled into thinking this proves earth's roundness...". I would be perfectly happy to maintan carte blanche, with the possible exception of placing a clear group disclaimer box effectively saying that all information on the page may be the fabrication of the group and should not be taken as gospel. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod | W!} 21:41, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

The NPOV definition, sure. The group's call bit, sure, just so long as it doesn't include the NPOV paragraph. I'd say talk pages should be delete, archive, or leave it alone--why should groups have to make new pages for stuff they don't care about or have any reason to keep? If anyone really needs it, it'll be in the history. If you want people to read it, copy and put it on your own talk page, which it has been established you can do whatever the hell you want with.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:31, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Giving a group complete control of its own page can lead to horribly inaccurate things being posted on the page as though it were fact. Having a NPOV section that is open to the whole community is very important. I think Katthew put it well in her comment on the Vandal Banning page.

• ...last I checked groups aren't supposed to throw hissy fits and start yelling about how THEIR page is THEIR property and only THEY can edit it. If such a thing were true, then we'd have a lot of hyperbole and pretty much zero accurate information. Since apparently what we want is accurate information with maybe some stupid jerk crap tagged on to the end, that's what we get. If I wanted, I could put on the CoL page that we have fifty thousand members and we operate out of Ridleybank after killing the RRF ten times over using our incredible psychic powers. However that shit would be edited out on account of the fact that it's not true, and most likely edited out by someone who isn't in the CoL. BUT OH WAIT GROUP PAGES ARE PROPERTY OF THE GROUP THAT'S VANDALISM!!! Hurr, no it's not, it's accuracy. I've done my best to make this wiki as accurate as my limited attention span will let me, and been more than a little ticked off when my edits get reverted because HAY UR VANDALISING OUR PAGE AND RUINING TEH GAEM!!!!! Your group's page is there to inform people about your group, and all pertinent information has to be included so it doesn't end up as some sassy biased piece of crap. Sure, you can put in all manner of stuff you want, but that doesn't mean that you have free reign to delete all the bad stuff like "abuses multiple accounts" or "player kills" or "RUINS THE GAME". Grow up and join the rest of us here in Maturityville, please. --Katthew

-Banana Bear4 21:32, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Agreed. The fact that anyone can edit a group page to remove blatantly false information serves as the only form of quality control this wiki has. Making each page the exclusive domain of a groups members means that we discard even the facade of accuracy. That would be a sore loss, and it is not something i want to sacrifice to salve a few immature twits egos. --Grim s 21:57, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Absolutely NOT. Wiki pages are not intended to be propaganda mouths in their entirity. The first paragraph should be NPOV and should be editable by ANYONE. It is acceptable to *re-edit* that in order to clean up language or remove obvious hostilities. If group pages are the sole properties of their "owners" then anyone can make all sorts of bullish claims as being true. For example, I'll just put down that the Malton DEA is a beloved group of barricaders who in no way, shape, or form would ever CONSIDER pking a Necrotech agent (which anyone who has ever encountered the DEA knows to be bullshit).--Jorm 22:13, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Agree wholeheartedly with Katthew. NPOV and editing of group pages keeps the bullshit down. When it breaks into conflict, well, that's what mods are for. Petrosjko 22:14, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

What Katthew said. The wiki is there for truth, not fabrications. - Mortio 22:24 2 March 2006 (GMT)

- I have to agree with Jorm, grim, Katthew and the others. How do you get unbiased information about a group if not on their Group page? Craw 22:24, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

- There would be far less fights, but the Wiki would become a bunch of ultra-biased pages with no purpose whatsoever.--Denzel Washington 22:34, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

The whole reason we did the whole group ownership thing because of all the fucking sniping against everyone else. Since this is a fictional game, and since noone can really cite anything anywhere here with any real accuracy, the idea of "confirming" stuff suddenly doesn't work quite as well. Screenshots are meaningless, even if they do show something it's easy to say that it doesn't prove what you think it proved. So, whenever any two people get into conflict, there's no way to prove which person is lying, and hell, often neither of them are anyway. So, with this in mind, we decided that it was far easier if we just let Groups do what they liked.

I don't like it, I've never liked it, and in fact I've long been an advocate for telling every group on the wiki to get their own fucking webspace and say what they like there, and that their wiki page here is no longer under their control, and to get rid of every fucking PKer list and do-not-revive list that exists on every page on this wiki. But that won't work either, obviously, because even if we do so, we'll still get all the fucking bitching and all the damn revert wars all over again because no group would willingly stand to let other people show their group in a bad light. Aiming for the truth is all well and good when there's citable evidence that people can agree on. Wikipedia loves the truth, because all it's doing is collecting it, not creating it. This wiki, on the other hand, doesn't have that option. We don't have access to logs, and even if we did, we don't have access to other people's motivations.

So, yeah. Much as I love the wiki ideal, the fact is we have no way to independently verify reports, so everything will always be hearsay. As such, I can't see any way to enforce a "strictly the truth" angle. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod | W!} 22:39, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

- I agree that there needs to be some area of the group's wiki that is still really a wiki and is not under their control, and that that area needs to not just be the talk page. The NPOV section seems to me to be a reasonable approach. I'd also just like to say that if you think that Wikipedia has it easy because they have access to Ultimate Truth, think again. Guess what. We don't have access to the log files for Roman history, either, so it's kind of hard to exactly disprove that M. Licinius Crassus, M. f., M. n. was or was not a zerger. Feh. Augustus says he was, and that's good enough for me. Strangely, the revert wars did eventually produce a statement of "ok, I was cheating, but I will stop as soon as I can figure out how not to cheat" in at least one NPOV section.--Fred Dullard 23:53, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

There may be some parts of the unverse you don't have verifiable access to, but wikipedia at least has attempts to cite sources, to help others verify. They wouldn't stand for me claiming that World War 2 was in fact a ploy by the Chinese and Indian governments to destabilise the European governments, because I couldn't back that up with other people in that field of history. In our case, there's simply no ability to independently verify or cite - not just a little, but no player movement can be verified or cited independently. So when people fight, there's no way for us to figure out who has the better argument. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod | W!} 00:31, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Isn't the whole point of Wiki-dom supposed to be the group editing aspect to come up with a REFERENCE WORK that isn't biased or POV'd? As it is now, its a damn free web host. I say make a rule to stay away from things that can or can't be proven with absolute certainty ("OMG so and so is a zerger!") but allow for group editing to reach a NPOV consensus. No one "owns" a wiki page. Its a group effort. If you want your own webpage, there's always geocities for that crap.--Mookiemookie 00:36, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

What some seem to be forgetting/ignoring is that Group control of a group page prevents people from carrying a grudge over and placing information that cannot be validated or discredited there. You can put "WE HAVE 5,000,000 MEMBERS LOL" - But everyone will know you're an idiot. This prevents people from coming to your page and putting "Some people think this group has ugly members." -- Amazing 01:28, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

The fact remains: The wiki is supposed to be an information source, as accurate as we can get it. We are not required to be 100% accurate, but its accurate enough. What Amazing, and apparently the mods want to do to the group pages will change the wiki from an information source for all players into an e-penis swnging competition on a scale almost beyond imagining, especiallyy among the groups comprised of less mature members, such as the BME and Crossman Defence Force. You should also notice that it is only these two groups that are affecting this discussion, and that there are many hundreds of other groups represented here. I dont see how change inspired by the vast minority, counting among their number the most annoying people on the wiki can ever possibly be for the better. --Grim s 04:24, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Save your insults for other pages. As per your non-inflammatory comments - A Wiki is code. Much like a forum there is no requirement that terms of service or 'laws of the land' have to be uniform for all sites running a Wiki. This notion that a Wiki is strictly "This only!" is not really valid. It's whatever the owner says it is - and if he passes it off to Moderators for the most part - It's whatever the Moderators say it is. What you're saying is akin to telling someone they cannot have a Message Board that has private forums because "Message Boards are for everyone to post on." - Many facets of a Wiki community change on a case-by-case basis, so there is no strict requirement that a Wiki be run in any specific fashion. -- Amazing 04:42, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

I don't agree with what seems to be the reigning ethos, that wikipedia is a shining paragon of virtue and we need to pattern our wiki exactly after theirs. Wikipedia does a lot of good thing, but aside from whether their system even works, ours has completely different goals and circumstances. Lets be honest about how factual group pages are, or ever will be. If we cracked down and forced people to post things that were only verifiable group pages would look something like this, "They're just these guys, you know?". If we're talking factual wiki safe information then you lose all your PK lists, all your history that at least three other groups wont witness to, ect.. We don't have the manpower or community interest to ensure that pages are routinely scanned for truthfulness. You have two choices really. Make the pages truly factual and a hell of a lot less interesting, or admit what they really are and make sure everybody understands. Its not like these things are shining beacons of truth in the current system, and they wouldn't change that drastically. --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:16, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Agreed--I don't know where this is coming from. What's wrong with the current compromise? NPOV para is editable by everyone and must be provable or at least reasonably uncontested by others. The rest is whatever the group wants, and everyone understands it isn't necessarily factual.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:30, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

I support having an NPOV section that is editable by the whole community, and the rest of the page being the domain of the group. However, as it stands, I don't believe that this is actually official policy, and as such, leads to some terrible spats between people who think that the whole page belongs to the group, and people who don't. -Banana Bear4 00:59, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Nothing can be proven at all.. So all that's left is "Reasonably uncontested", which in effect means that the 12 members of a group can counter 1 person making an "NPOV" slam against said group -- and the comment goes away. So basically either way a group has control of the entire page, including NPOV section. The only CURRENT difference is some of the Mods support "NEVER REMOVE NPOV SLAMS" while others support "NEVER POST NPOV SLAMS".

As I say, if a majority can overrule the minority about an NPOV area comment, then Groups will have total control of their page. Which is fine by me. A theoretical Wiki page I create and maintain is NOT the place for some idiot from in-game to think of ways to annoy and antagonize the entire group. -- Amazing 01:10, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

On the subject of what to do with contested statements that can not be unproven either way, perhaps have something in the NPOV section for suppositions? or just make it very clear that it is both an unproven, and contested claim, that way everyone can get their say, without people getting mad that their honor will be besmirched. Their honor in a free online game about zombies. -Banana Bear4 01:30, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Does that mean i'll be able to post that the RRF is Kevan's favourite survivor group?--Denzel Washington 12:43, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

You raise an interesting point. While I trust that most of the community would not do something like that, I think that would be a relatively simple thing to take to arbitration and have sorted out, as there is a lot to point to the RRF being a group of zombies, -Banana Bear4 22:03, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

It was an extreme situation. It wouldn't be easy with the 99% of the other groups.--Denzel Washington 21:21, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

This is a wiki, It's main purpose is to inform. Although a group page is mainly used by groups themselves as propaganda and mission statements etc. a small NPOV section sometimes helps when needed to inform people of the less saviory aspect of these groups. We don't need absolute certainty or accuraty, only reasonable adherence to the truth. Most of the times that isn't a problem because most people are quite mature about it. For the people that aren't we have the vandal page and arbitration. Where abuses either way can be dealt, and frequently are. Lets remember to be adults and simply give up on group pages after some hissy fits.--Vista 00:57, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

I contend that 'less saviory aspects' of a group are not needed. Take it to the talk page, your own page, forums, etc. Marring the group's page - no matter what they do - is not needed in the least. Nothing positive has ever come out of slamming a group on their page, and nothing ever will. -- Amazing 01:45, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

I support the aspects of a group being presenteds in their NPOV section, savory or not. I don't think that its a big problem if people are, as Vista said, adults, about them. If a group shoots a lot of doctors in the face, then thats their choice, and they shouldn't be mad if someone puts on their wiki page that "TeamBananaz shoots doctors in the face." Also, I would say that the information on most group pages produces little or nothing positive, its mostly flavor, but no one says that that shouldn't be up there. -Banana Bear4 03:00, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

Exactly. Wiki is a shared dialogue, not a series of advertisements. Just because your group page has 50 sentences of propaganda doesn't mean that we should prohibit it from having one sentence of truth. If TeamBananaz wants to take it to arbitration, and the evidence is complex and supports both sides, then it ends up as something like: "A number of doctors have complained of being shot in the face by TeamBananaz. TeamBananaz does not have an official policy on doctor faceshooting." --Tycho44 11:10, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

The problem is still that NPOV areas can and are used to place errant, unprovable, or otherwise inflammatory information. The problem is not Hissy-Fit-Throwing groups, but the people who provoke them with baseless or purposefully antagonizing text. Futhermore, the Wiki is code on a website and the ones who maintain/run it are the ones who decide what it is and what can be done with it. -- Amazing 17:46, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Absolutely and entirely NOT. A wiki is OPEN. If a group has not put an NPOV on their page, don't put one there, if you have any connection to the group, as, say, an ally, don't make one. Same goes for enemies. It's not possible to be NPOV. Let a group make one for themselves, then edit it to BE NPOV as an impartial observer. Allies and enemies should not have control over an NPOV, but as the main body of a group's entry is the domain OF THAT GROUP, this level of control is not needed. Completely unnecesary. MaulMachine 19:39, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Language/Behavior

I move that we adopt the Locational Language/Interaction as per the above debate. Its clear cut and allows free speech while limiting the scope of flame wars to areas where they wont be a public nuisance. In the long run I think it will cause the least work for mods and be the best recieved. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:30, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

• I agree with you on this one. As much as I get a kick out of reading people's hilarious posturing, I still don't like discussion turning into simple name calling. This should help out some. I hope. Or at least keep some things cleaner. -Banana Bear4 10:19, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
• You got my vote, civility isn't a dirty word, All the fights and personal attacks that arise in places very clearly not intented too have that kind of interaction (the vandal report page for one) are very annoying--Vista 16:02, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Location Pages, NPOV?

I don't like how many location pages currently look like, especially some in Dunell Hills. In my opinion a location page should be NPOV because a location can't belong to anybody, but the DHPD redirects some location pages to one of their pages, and those are clearly not NPOV. For example: The Broadbelt Grove Police Dept page (a Police Dept. in Dunell Hills) http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Broadbelt_Grove_Police_Dept redirects to the "Dunell Hills Police Department" page, which is a group page and it contains mainly point-of-view information. See other Dunell Hills places if you want more examples,

or the Fort Creedy page http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Fort_Creedy , last Event entry

or the Caiger Mall page http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Caiger_Mall , the part about Mall information and that all PKers are evil and blah blah blah.

Now my policy question: Should location pages be NPOV?-Craw 15:41, 25 March 2006 (GMT) I feal it should be maped off of existing policy on groups, NPOV section at the top with facts and data and less Nutral sections below. However I would also state that the Other areas be restricted to groups and persons who visit the area, and further that each group have their own place to say their peice. --Alexei Yaruk 00:57, 28 March 2006 (BST)

The Dunell Hill Police Department is not a redirect page. It has a link to the groups front page, but its about the police departments in the area.--Grim s 09:01, 28 March 2006 (BST)

NPOV vs. History

When an NPOV comment (against a group, in my case) is out-dated and no longer relevant, can it be removed?

Example:

Jim thinks Bob is a dirty Zerger.

Jim goes to the page for the The Snickerers, a group Bob belongs to.

Jim posts: "The Snickerers support Zerging and Bob is a Zerger" in the NPOV area.

How much time must pass before the incident of "Bob Zergs!!" becomes irrelevant and historical, IE: Unimportant enough to be removed?

Does it become historical/get removed when the issue is resolved, (IE: Bob is kicked out of The Snickerers for any reason) or after a certain time period? (IE: It's been a month since Jim saw two people named Bob in Gropecrotch Mall, so who cares anymore?)

Or is it perminent?

Amazing 08:04, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Copyright issues

I'd like to see the Mod team get ontop of this situation - Copyrighted images are uploaded very commonly. One of the regulations of the wiki is that a user may not upload copyrighted images. (says so on the upload page) Linking to an image offsite is of course no problem, but I really think we should keep an eye out for violations of this nature. Perhaps making the deletions when noticed, and not specifically searching them all out (I'm sure that would be a waste of Mod time.) I have long noticed folks violating this rule, and would like to see something done about it. As I say if people want to use a copyrighted image, link to it offsite. Thoughts? -- Amazing _{SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 23:45, 7 April 2006 (BST)

The problem with linking it is that it might not always be availiable. It could also lead to the bandwith of the server crashing. Perhaps if a link was provided to the source or some sort of text underneath indicating the source of the image would be acceptable. Prosperina

You could always upload it onto a 3rd party host such as photobucket.--Poodge 05:33, 13 April 2006 (BST)

That could be done, but it wouldn't address the core issue. You could still save copyrighted material to the 3rd party host. The disclaimer is not specific nor does it sufficiently absolve connected parties of blame. In other words, its not enough to protect from suits. Even though the copyright holder could give their consent for the protected property to be used on the wiki, that does not mean that someone is free to steal that image and use it however they would like. Though the illegality of the issues presented are contested, the disclaimer does nothing to prevent more extreme abuses.Prosperina 06:29 13 April 2006 (BST)

• It is sufficient for the policy to be in place. If individuals abuse that then should any copyright holder complain to the wiki owner(s) then any consequences are to be met by the abuser, not the wiki or its owners. --DeadMeatGF 20:56, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Proper Placement of Humorous Suggestions

I moved this policy discussion to its proper placement at Talk:Suggestions#Policy_Discussion --Brizth ^W! 16:38, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Three strikes policy

Currently a vandal has to recieve two warnings before they are banned (unless it's a bot) but sometimes a vandal has vandalised several different areas on several different days and is only reported after their most recent vandalism. Should a vandal who has vandalised on three seperate pages and/or on three seperate days be banned or warned. It would seem stupid to me if someone could blank every page on the wiki and only recieve one warning.--The General ^{W! Mod} 13:38, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Against I've seen warnings compounded before by a Moderator, even retroactively when it's brought to light, so I don't think this would actually be any sort of change. -- Amazing 19:30, 17 April 2006 (BST)

• Re - If we can do that then that is fine, I just wanted to check what the community fought first.--The General ^{W! Mod} 21:08, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Against - Redundant, and since some mods ignore the warning rule anyway, this wouldn't be necessary. MaulMachine 19:33, 17 April 2006 (BST)

For I think it is neccessary to put explicit rules in place for all to see (see Ron Burgandy vs. Humerous) so that we can enforce opinions correctly. --Karlsbad 22:20, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Against Codify the rules and synchronize the mods before you introduce stricter penalties. --Ron Burgundy 03:04, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Against - What Ron said. --Cyberbob240^CDF 03:09, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Against - I hate to say something so trite as "ditto", but...ditto. If we're going to hand out insta-bans for momentary fugues of judgement, we need to be a bit better organized and a bit better...uh...that c-word that Ron used. Ron you're so smarte. --Undeadinator 03:26, 18 April 2006 (BST) For - Changing my vote following author clarification. But Ron is still reel smarte. --Undeadinator 21:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Re: - Yes, my many leather bound books serve me well.  :) --Ron Burgundy 03:44, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Re - What I meant was that if someone commited three different occurences of vandalsim on different days, but is only reported on the third time, are we allowed to ban them considering that they would have already recieved the required number of warnings if they had been reported sooner.--The General ^{W! Mod} 20:25, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Re - Well, laddo, why didn't ya say so? Aye, 'tis a fine suggestion. Top o' the mornin'! --Undeadinator 21:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Re - I don't know, captain, it still seems problematic. If someone makes three posts while ignorant of the definition of vandalism (a fairly easy thing to do) and the posts are of such a nature that no one cares to inform the poster of the rules regarding vandalism, you will create a very closed atmosphere in which those of us not privy to your legalism find ourselves kicked off the wiki for- what would at least appear to be- no good reason. Besides this, it will probably create more work for the mods, who will constantly be asked to justify the bans. --Ron Burgundy 22:52, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Re - I was thinking more of when someone does something which could nevver be considered good faith such as blanking three pages and replacing them with explicit language and then only receiving one warning.--The General ^{W! Mod} 12:57, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Re - That's good, but what's the exact definition of "something which could never be considered good faith"? I don't want to sound like I'm just being obtuse, but I'd like to see the extent to which this policy would be enforced. Of course, if blanking pages, or something similar, accounts for a good chunk of the vandalism on the wiki, then it deserves a set of rules all of its own- maybe it's vandalism in the first degree! --Ron Burgundy 18:50, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Against What Ron said, but more importantly--if it wasn't reported, nobody was bothered enough to report it, so it shouldn't count.--OedipaMaas 02:14, 20 April 2006 (BST)

God, make voting easier to tally please, okay thank you

Let's make all voting processes on this Wiki split into two categories. FOR and AGAINST, each with their own headline. Then people could vote with the # symbol and tallying wouldn't really be needed.

Example:

FOR HEADLINE

1. ME LIKEY
2. ME TOO
3. HAHAHA GG WHAT

   Please explain what "hahaha gg what" means.

   Nnnooooo!

4. LOOK THE NEXT VOTE IS NUMBERED CORRECTLY!
5. omg pls

AGAINST HEADLINE

1. This sucks.
2. BARF!!

   Are you having fun yet??

etc. etc.

We should already be doing this. There could be another headline for undecided or comments, that would be created by the first person who wants to leave one. -- Amazing 00:44, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Comments

• ....This idea is bloody brilliant! Why on earth didn't we think of this before? --Mia K ^(sotss) 00:50, 18 April 2006 (BST)
• Because we did, and that vote got killed. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh man. --Undeadinator 02:35, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Oh. ... ... Why the heck did it get killed? --Mia K ^(sotss) 02:39, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • It was for the Suggestions page, and people killed it because they were worried people would only read the "keep" or "kill" sections, whichever they had an initial bias towards, decreasing the probability of a good counterargument convincing them to change their vote. --Sindai 03:08, 18 April 2006 (BST)
      • - Well, that and there was a point about it getting messy with strikeouts and switchers. Velkrin 03:17, 18 April 2006 (BST)
      • - If someone is going to only read Keep or Kill, they can do that anyway since the vote is stated at the beginning of the line. There's no real backing for not implementing this. If someone is THAT biased, they won't read anything starting with the vote they don't like. -- Amazing 04:48, 18 April 2006 (BST)
        • - Actually, I believe the specific argument (and the won that proved ultimately successful) was that it would get too messy. --Undeadinator 05:15, 18 April 2006 (BST)
          • Hrm. It's actually less messy than the current system. This way people would recieve a very clear "Use #, for comments use # and Colons for spacing" - Strikeouts would be very easy to spot and subtract from the total. It would, as I say, actually be tremendously less messy. -- Amazing 05:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
            • I think it would be more messy, in the sense of people defending their 'space' and getting into more vocal arguements against a person that enters "their" section of the vote space. Allowing no side to have a seperate section allows for more discussion. --Karlsbad 21:07, 18 April 2006 (BST)
• I have to agree with Sindai. Makes it a lot harder for people to compare each side's arguments. --Cyberbob240^CDF 03:11, 18 April 2006 (BST)
  • Ah, but that's what replies are for. If you have something really important and on-topic to say, reply to someone's vote with a simple "#:" -- Amazing 04:48, 18 April 2006 (BST)
    • So...why would we need to change the system to do that? Besides, you might call the wrath of Pinpoint unto your head. --Undeadinator 05:15, 18 April 2006 (BST)
      • The statement wasn't that we'd have to change the system to do that. -- Amazing 05:20, 18 April 2006 (BST)
• For anyone interested, here is the previous vote.--Brizth ^W! 19:05, 18 April 2006 (BST)
• <tr><td>"Against"</td><td> - </td><td>"For"</td></tr> Maybe something could be made of this format, where people voting "for" on something would leave a blank in the "against" section and a comment in the "for" section. It works pretty well on the Great Graffiti page. --Ron Burgundy 21:05, 19 April 2006 (BST)
  • That would be a bit complex, I think, Ron. The simplest and most effective way to do it would have to be the way Amazing is suggesting it. At least, in my humble opinion. -Wyndallin 18:02, 22 April 2006 (BST)
    • Amazing, you are, well, Amazing. I think it is a great idea. I tried to tally some of the suggestions that had 20 plus votes, and I ended up having to use Apple's dashboard and the attached notebook to count. This suggestion simplifies everything. Swmono ^{talk - W! - SGP} 22:31, 1 May 2006 (BST)
• Someone once said something quite amazing — "…If someone is THAT biased, they won't read anything starting with the vote they don't like". I concur that in this instance his logic is flawless. Therefore the only legitimate concern users currently have with the suggestion is that commenting would become a chore when it comes to tracking continuity. To counter this, why note restrict vote sections to nothing but a signed vote. Make another heading, and people can have their discussions there. Place the voting section after the commenting section. It's as about as neat and fair as you can get. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:43, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Arbitration

The current Arbitration system is broken. I propose this overhaul:

• Arbitrators are selected from Moderators only. Current Arbitrators are decided by volunteering, which has lead to the presence of users who are actual trolls on the Arbitrator list.
• If a user/group rejects all arbitrators who propose to take the case and do not ask for another arbitrator to take the case instead, he automatically loses the case and his opponent's requests are immediately accepted. This is to prevent endless stonewalling of arbitration.
• Only one arbitration case involving a particular user may be active at one time.
• Only arguments involving clearcut evidence (LINKS) are allowed. One rebuttal is permitted to a statement made by the other party, who may then use their own response as well. Rebuttals do not require links.
• Only parties involved in the arbitration or the arbitrator himself may comment.

Vote here:

Yes

1. Yes. --LibrarianBrent 04:52, 21 April 2006 (BST)
2. Yes. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:57, 21 April 2006 (BST)
3. Yes.--Jorm 04:58, 21 April 2006 (BST)
4. Yes. The Arbitration page currently has no teeth, and expecting people to settle their differences on their own and 'be mature' is obviously not a valid expectation given the multiple folks who are very clearly incapable of doing this, no matter who you think are included in their ranks. The culture truly being manifsted on this Wiki is very easy to see for what it is. -- Amazing 05:00, 21 April 2006 (BST)
   • Some responses:
     1. Note 1 keeps trolls from attempting to speak with authority or simply cluttering up the system. As it stands now, there are plenty of folks there who will probably never be able to arbitrate a case because no one will choose them. Plus, outright trolls really should not be encouraged to judge cases in any respect.
     2. Both parties "choosing an arbitrator" does not address the tactic of blocking all arbitrators, or all who will disagree with you specifically.
     3. Excuse me, but isn't there a "Moderators Wanted" movement in effect right now? I think there is. Even without the fact that we're going to have more moderators soon, it really doesn't seem like the Mod team is being overtaxed to the point that they cannot handle anything more.
     4. No comment atm.
     5. Anything less than total blocking of unrelated parties (who are not supplying evidence) is, in effect, supporting trolling. If they aren't adding evidence (witness account, link, etc.) they have no business making any comment at all. The arbitrator can go over the case without needing commentary. If someone decides against one party simply because someone else said "He's a dick and he sucks!" then they should not be arbitrating. As it stands, such comments should be stricken.

   -- Amazing 07:17, 21 April 2006 (BST)

5. Yes, I must agree with amazing. --ramby T--W! - SGP 06:39, 21 April 2006 (BST)
   • Re: I'm sorry. :X heh. -- Amazing 06:55, 21 April 2006 (BST)
6. Yes. Sadly, not everyone is mature enough to suck it up and play nicely all of the time. --Aiden H ^4H 08:24, 21 April 2006 (BST)
7. Yes For the reasons that have been listed, espescially the elimination of those who are not ready to be conflict management arbitors.
8. Yes Presuming there are sufficient moderators willing to take this on, I think the idea is absolutely fantastic. Arainach 18:21, 21 April 2006 (BST)

   Yes - This is exactly what Arbitration needs. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} Vote changed to "No" --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 09:39, 25 April 2006 (BST)

No

1. The whole point of arbitration is to settle disputes between users instead of running to mods, thats why both parties have to agree. This just makes turns it into "vandal banning with more trolling". I do like points two and three. Four has its charm, but its kind of against the wiki spirit of inclusion. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:56, 21 April 2006 (BST)
2. Zar said everything I wanted to. --Sirens^{T RR} 05:06, 21 April 2006 (BST)
3. Moderators already have enough to do in my opinion, and shouldn't have another task heaped on them (Especially as they are already spread thin). I'd rather see arbitrators needing the support of the community in the manner of potential mods. The other points I have no problem with. -Nubis 05:10, 21 April 2006 (BST)
4. As pointed out above, the purpose of the Arbitration page is for non-mod resolution to problems. I do agree there is a problem, but this is not the way to fix it. --Brandon.excell 06:34, 21 April 2006 (BST)
5. As Zaru said. Arbitration makes the assumption that users here are mature enough to be able to resolve difficulties on their own, without moderator intervention. I do not wish to work with a system that assumes that users here aren't mature enough to settle their own differences - it seems entirely against the culture that we've been trying to manifest here. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 06:09, 21 April 2006 (BST)

   Just some further notes, while I think of them:

   1. Note 1 is really superfluous - if a troll puts themselves up for Arbitrator duty, then noone will be willing to choose them as an Arbitrator. The system in place is actually self-policed.
   2. I agree with Zar, this seems a useful tactic. I would, however, note that when the two parties come up for arbitration, the first thing that they should be doing is agreeing on an arbitrator, and perhaps this should be made clearer.
   3. I'm not so sure about this one. I agree that overly complex cases like Amazing's current case should definitely be discouraged. But I can't see exactly how this point assists us in doing this. Are we to say that if a person has a related beef with a large number of people, that it should be thrown into a single case? Or that we're expressly saying that you have to go through the various beefs you have one group/user at a time? Either way there are some issues.
   4. Point 4 seems nice, but I wonder about what we do if the incident occurs moments before a history clean - what do we do then? It seems in this case that the aggrieved has no recourse at all. I recall that the original format for Arbitrations was actually pretty similar to what's being considered here - perhaps what's really needed is better organisation of the Arbitration page.
   5. Point 5 might perhaps be better expressed as a "Outside parties are restricted in where they can comment". I think that outside comments are probably very important in many cases, but there should be a specific area where Outside parties can leave comments (rather than outside parties throwing comments wherever they like). I also think that outside parties should only get a single statement, rather than be allowed to post a dialog (which makes the obvious case that People within the case probably shouldn't get to respond to outside parties).

   More thoughts as I think of them. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 07:06, 21 April 2006 (BST)

6. The arbitration system obviously needs an overhaul, but some of the suggestions - especially #1 - completely miss the point of arbitration in the first place. I suggest that we look at wikipedia's arbitration policies if we want to find a system that works. --Sindai 20:28, 21 April 2006 (BST)
7. No Velkrin 00:19, 22 April 2006 (BST)
8. Not so much I think Odd Starter pretty much summed it up--Bermudez 05:40, 22 April 2006 (BST)
9. What Odd Said --Grim s-^Mod 06:20, 23 April 2006 (BST)
10. some points are certianly needed, but I'm in agreement with Odd starter.--Vista ^W! 19:00, 23 April 2006 (BST)
11. No Yes Especially if there were more mods recruited specifically for this purpose. I say 'more' because you couldn't simply have one do it because of conflict of interest even if the mod was tried and true for being as neutral as possible. -Wyndallin 18:04, 22 April 2006 (BST) - What on God's green earth was I thinking? -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 19:08, 23 April 2006 (BST)
12. No - What Odd said. --Brizth ^{W! M T} 20:20, 23 April 2006 (BST)
13. No - What Brizth said :P --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 09:39, 25 April 2006 (BST)
14. No - What Grim said. -Banana Bear4 09:56, 25 April 2006 (BST)
15. No - What OddStarter said. --Swmono ^{talk - W! - SGP} 12:37, 2 May 2006 (BST)
16. No - What everyone else said. Plus, we don't have enough mods. - CthulhuFhtagn 21:27, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Speedy deletions

Unused Templates Criterion

I propose the addition of another criterion for speedy deletions: Unused Template

Its purpose should be clear, the swift, efficient deletion of templates that are not being used, as they dont fall under any of the other speedy deletion criteria. --Grim s-^Mod 06:17, 23 April 2006 (BST)

• For - Makes plenty of sense to me - Sirens^{T RR} 06:19, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For - I guess. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:21, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For - as long as it's been given the proper time period to BE used, and is NOT used by ANY page at all. (IE: Absolute Zero.) -- Amazing 06:23, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For - If just to get rid of some pointless user templates. – Nubis ^NWO 06:25, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For - What Amazing Said. --Karlsbad 06:30, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For - What i said! --Grim s-^Mod 08:02, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For ---Vista ^W! 18:57, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For - The best things seem like common sense. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 19:00, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For --The General ^{W! Mod} 19:23, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For --John Rove 20:14, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For --Brizth ^{W! M T} 20:18, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• For - Sure. MaulMachine 02:58, 24 April 2006 (BST)
• For - Velkrin 05:12, 24 April 2006 (BST)
• For - As long as there is enough time for the template to actually be used, but it still hasn't? Sure. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:32, 24 April 2006 (BST)
  • Re to all - I would assume that "Any template one week old and completely unused" would be the best description to put next to it? --Grim s-^Mod 09:26, 25 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re re - Yes. Also, moderator should make sure that the one who submitted the request didn't remove the template from pages just before submitting. --Brizth ^{W! M T} 09:54, 25 April 2006 (BST)

It looks like we're in pretty much total agreement at this point, I'm going to add this to the guidelines. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 03:10, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Non-existent Users criterion

On the same principle, I propose the addition of a new speedy deletion criteria for "User:" pages named after a person who does not actually have a user account on the wiki. If a group wants pages for its non-wiki-using members, they can have them as subpages of the group page or just get them to make accounts.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:14, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Is this a vote? If so, then Yes. Sounds reasonable. --Brizth ^{W! M T} 16:05, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I don't see why not. Would alleviate confusion brought about by non-existent users. – Nubis ^NWO 16:07, 27 April 2006 (BST)

This seems reasonable to me. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 05:19, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Yes --Vista ^W! 08:38, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, although they should be copied to the creator's user page, somewhere, before being deleted. --Spiro 08:49, 28 April 2006 (BST)

There seems to be no controversy on this, I'm going to go ahead and implement it. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:13, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Speedy Deletions/Deletions Clarifications

It looks like we need some clarifications on how Deletions and Speedy Deletions interact. My thoughts:

• It's probably simpler to state that if something's moved from Speedy Deletions to Deletions, it should probably stay there. My philosophy is that if it's really Speedy Deletions material (ie not useful for the wiki), then in practice it should get deleted - it'll just happen later rather than sooner.
• To generalise further, I think that if someone accidentally throws something into Deletions which probably could go into Speedy Deletions, we should definitely leave it in Deletions. If it gets no Keeps and three Speedy Deletes, then it serves the same purpose, really, no movement required.
• While I'm not certain of this point, it seems to me that it may be a useful thing to enforce a 1-day waiting period, even for Speedy Deletions, so that people do have time to, well, do something about it.

Thing is, I can't really think of many situations where the removal of a page is so time-sensitive that it can't take 2 weeks. Speedy Deletions is there effectively as a convenient system for removing uncontroversially poor material from the wiki. If there's controversy surrounding the deletion (or it looks like there could be controversy surrounding the deletion), hell yes it should go through Deletions. Hell, I'd even like a mechanism for Moderators who agree that it probably should be deleted, but want to send it through Deletions anyway since people are likely to cry foul over it.

Thoughts? -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 06:29, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Overall I think it's a good plan. I certainly like the idea of a short waiting period for speedy deletions, one day seems reasonable enough so that something that shouldn't be speedily deleted isn't pushed through the system. Perhaps implementation of a 'slow delete' vote of sorts to allow any user to suggest something be moved from speedy deletions to deletions would be in order, as opposed to just Mods. – Nubis ^NWO 16:13, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I completely agree with points one and two. I'm not quite sure about the third point. Some of those criterions are quite clear cut. The off-topic and no content are the ones that are unclear.
And about the mod moving speedy deletion to deletions just to be sure, why not? I think sounds great idea. Though Nubis has a point, why not give new "slow delete" vote (though the name sounds... weird. Maybe change that to something else.) --Brizth ^{W! M T} 16:24, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I dont ever recall there being a problem with speedy deletions before, at least not one that would require a one day waiting period on anything (And if there is, thats what undeletions is for). As for the rest, im good with it all. --Grim s-^Mod 12:02, 28 April 2006 (BST)

There seems to be clear idea of what people think, so I might put this up in writing. If it turns out anything further needs discussing, we can still use this as a platform. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:16, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Wiki Timeline

This poped up on the suggestions page, but I removed it since it was on the wrong page. Not sure who the author was. I'll just format it a bit for this page and here we go:

"a basic page on the wiki starting from the time the game began, It lists conflicts, groups offical creations, Major Events, battles, and so on."

There you have it, description is verbatim. Velkrin 19:13, 1 May 2006 (BST)

• So are we voting on this or what? Generally I like it, though I don't see what, if anything, it has to due with policy. If anything, this could just be a random page that everyone works on, or maybe a subpage under Current events --Sirens^{T RR} 19:21, 1 May 2006 (BST)
  • well I'm all for it, anybody remembers when the first fort siege was?--Vista ^W! 19:22, 1 May 2006 (BST)
    • The timeline is an excellent idea, if it gets enough added to it, put it as a link on the main page. God knows how many times I've read through hundreds of pages just to get an idea of what happened, when it happened, and why. It can be both as a resource for newbies who'd like to know what's going on and a way for veterans to get all nostalgic. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:02, 3 May 2006 (BST)

This doesnt require a vote. Creating a page for such a project requires no policy discussion, and shouldnt be here. If you want to go ahead with it, do so. Be warned though that a lot of people are going to want stuff included and the article will bloat to epic proportions, and will generate a similiarly large amount of drama. Personally i think its more trouble than its worth. --Grim s-^Mod 22:20, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Now if we only knew who the author of that suggestion was we could tell them. Alas, the conflict will not come to pass. Velkrin 09:52, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Weak Moderators

This isn't an attack on the moderators, it's a problem with the wiki that I know several people have noticed other than myself, and something needs to be done about it. The moderators on the Wiki have little to no power beyond the ability to warn/ban people, delete pages, and restore pages. And how do they do that? Member vote. The moderators are nothing more than tools, and it's a sorry sight to see.

I don't like presenting an idea without a suggestion on how to fix it, but right now the only thing I can think of is giving the moderator's word more influence...like a moderator's vote equals ten regular users votes, or something. What I am opposed to, however, is the idea of moderators being given full power, as that can easilly be abused.

So...anyone got any suggestions to refine this idea? --Sirens^{T RR} 05:26, 6 May 2006 (BST)

It's a Wiki. The moderators aren't supposed to be an end all, just regular members who have been given, through the trust of the community, additional abilities to maintain that community. It's the job of the community as a whole to determine how to conduct itself, not a set bunch of people determining how the rest of us go about our business. As such, I don't see how making the opinions of a few matter more will benefit the community. – Nubis ^NWO 05:34, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I'm just going to repete myself from now on. What I am opposed to, however, is the idea of moderators being given full power, as that can easilly be abused.--Sirens^{T RR} 05:36, 6 May 2006 (BST)

But you want to make Moderators essentially the end all for determining Wiki Policy. What's to stop them from getting together and making policy (which they can do now, going by your model) which allows them more power? Checks and balances, i.e. the rest of the community. Your idea gets rid of it. – Nubis ^NWO 05:43, 6 May 2006 (BST)

What I am opposed to, however, is the idea of moderators being given full power, as that can easilly be abused. If you want that applied to the example you've given, put it in the policy that moderators can't make a policy giving them full power. --Sirens^{T RR} 05:53, 6 May 2006 (BST)

That's just it. Moderators are tools. They are the tools of the community. They do not define policy; they are implementors thereof. This suggestion advocates altering that position.--Jorm 06:00, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Jorm's got it. Administrators are the authority of a community; moderators are a tool that helps enforce the administrator's policy. They aren't supposed to dictate policy themselves. - Caz 06:09, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Actually, no. Our Admin (in this case, Kevan), doesn't dictate policy either. the Community is supposed to dictate policy, and the community is supposed to ensure that it is followed. Sysops are merely there to ensure that certain very powerful and far-reaching tools aren't placed in the hands of people who are likely to abuse them. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 03:49, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Let it be known that Mia is completely incapable of communicating her point, and is shutting up now. Furthermore, she would be tickled pink if someone could actually try, you know, explanding on this idea instead of attacking it, and that she would also like some strawberry icecream, a craving brought on by thinking of the color pink. --Sirens^{T RR} 06:02, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Mia, moderators are servants of a community, not its leaders. Those are determined in standard interaction between users. A moderater has been granted abilities as a show of trust in the community to maintain that community. We are not the Khans that lead people, but the Janitors, who clean up after them at the end of the day. We fight off those who would overtly harm the community, and we have no more "real" power than what we found in our interactions with other users. Accountability must be maintained at all stages. With power there must be equal blocks to prevent that power from being abused. Also, one must realise that moderators are human beings, and are fallable, and there is no reason why our vote should count for more than anyone elses. What you are suggesting is putting moderators up above other users, which is wrong, and proposing to undermine the series of checks and balances we have. I say no. --Grim s-^Mod 06:48, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Mia, I take it you want the moderators here to be more like moderators on a forum?--Vista ^W! 12:01, 6 May 2006 (BST)

For expansion sakes...

From what I can tell, what you would like is for the sysops to have some additional benefit beyond their extra abilities that allows them to better mould the community into ways they prefer. I think that you wish that sysops could be social engineers, capable of using the sysop's god-given abilities to shape the community into a more pleasing form, perhaps allowing them to remove certain ills that seem to be popular with the community, but clearly not good for the community as a whole. You'd like the sysops to be a more proactive force within the community, building it up to a better community as a whole, without interference from a populist wiki.

To me, this reveals several assumptions, many of which I do not agree with.

1. The community cannot perform these things itself - that an outside force is required in order to "whip the wiki into shape".
2. Sysops are an outside force - that they stand outside the wiki community as a whole, and are capable of doing this.
3. Sysops require some additional force in order to accomplish this.

I'm sure, Mia, that you're already aware of my feelings on this matter. My main issue with the view you seem to be espousing is that second assumption. Not only do I not think that sysops are as much a part of the community as any other user, but I also feel that this is an important thing. Placing one set of users above another is a poor state of affairs, in my mind. It does a few dangerous things, especially if that state is because the Sysop is supposed to "maintain the wiki". For one thing, it removes the onus of the user to do these actions. If the sysops are responsible for maintaining order, then the logical end result will be that users will allow the sysops to be responsible for maintaining order, and will choose not to do so themselves. After all, that's what the Mods are there for.

Also, it seems to encapsulate a certain level of distrust for the regular users. It makes this implicit claim that since you don't have as much power as we do, you can't be trusted with them. And if this happens, you tend to find that people start acting towards that expectation - that since they can't be trusted, they won't act in a way that lets you think they're trustworthy.

I mean, so many communities do have these Moderators who are ostensibly considered "outside forces" dispensing justice and performing social engineering on the forum community, usually by legislating away bad actions. And I note that these Moderators burn out real fast - they end up dealing with the most annoying groups on the community, because that's their job, and since it's they're job, noone else sees fit to interfere. And when these people do deign to act within their community, it can never be as a regular user.

Frankly, I never signed on to this wiki in order to become some great leader, dispensing justice and righting the wrongs of the wiki society. I don't want that role. I don't want to be an external force in the community, and you may have noted that Promotions is set up so that people (in theory) can quickly climb the ladder to sysophood. I think that sysophood should not be a big deal. I think that sysophood should, in theory, be only a small change in what regular users are doing anyway. I don't think it should grant a sysop any real power compared to a regular user, especially considering the direction of the community. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 08:21, 9 May 2006 (BST)

It always is interesting to read another person's assumption of what a moderator should be. When I've voiced my opinion on the subject of moderation, it is easy to assume that I would enjoy a more powerful wiki-staff. However, I have instead attempted to say that it would be best that a moderator would act as if they were worthy of being entrusted with the power they are given- power that serves only as a voice of the community first.
So, while personally interpreting Mia Kristo's admittedly vague proposition, I can come up with only one way to give moderators more "preceived" power than they have already, if we are to assume that Mia does not want moderators to become all-powerful beings overlooking the sad state of their wiki-dom, would be to give moderators the ability to place themselves as arbitrators on arbitration cases, either if there is no acceptable arbitrator between the parties, or cannot be dismissed unless it is done by both parties, or being able to refuse the refusal of a person to deny arbitration, or some other such gifting of assumed power on the arbitration page.
And while I present an answer to Mia's unsupported supposition of Weak Moderation, I do not support an idea that would perminantly alter the form of the Arbitration cases; instead of a voluntary forum in which users can air differences of opinion and have a neutral party decide on the best method to advance the issue between them. Instead, the elimination of the assumed "weak" moderation staff through giving encompassing Mod Powers would, while allowing the moderators to push drama off of the wiki if they so choose- which I believe is the source of Mia's arguement- it would create another tool of distancing power and create a chilling effect that would destroy the freedom of the wiki.
-Karlsbad 00:17, 10 May 2006 (BST)

It's nice to see that someone finnally has an idea on how to expand on this, and If I missed anyone else, I'm sorry. Vista, in general, yes, thats part of how I see it. For those of you who don't know (all of you) the forum I come from is far different from places like Desensitized or the forum this Ludwig person was mod on. The Moderators there are selected for their abbility to handle things like Trolling, as all maintaining of the board is handled by the Administrators. If the administrator feels there is a need for a new staff member, he gets along with his fellow admins, and they determine who would be a good choice. They then present thier thoughts, and ask for feedback from the members, and make a descision based on that. Beyond that, most rule changes are still based on community discussion, much like they are here.

So, essencially, the entire purpose of moderators is to deal with users out of control. A wiki is different from a forum, yes, but does that mean the SysOps have to be so different? I like the idea of a moderator stepping in to be an Arbitrator if all other arbitrators have been rejected by the parties, but I'm sure thier's another way to expand on this.

On that note, if we WERE to enact some sort of policy altering a moderator's privledges, would we have to re-vote on the existing mods? Just a thought. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:41, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion Rework

It is hard to follow what is being discussed in here. So many policys being discussed, so many people editing this page. Sometimes it is hard to see when and what was added to a single discussion. <ost of the times some policyes are left forgotten because other policys drew more attention to themselves, branding the forgotten ones a status of text that only fill space, but isnt readed.

So. In order to make things better organized, i propose the following:

When you create a policy discussion, you create a page for it.

In that page you will post a draft about the policy you are suggesting, in this page (the Moderation/Policy Discussion) you leave only a few words about this policy.

Example:

Blue People

• An easy way to handle with the rising population of Blue People in this wiki.

Then, based on the draft written in that policy page, people talk about it, in the talk page.

People talk about what should be changed in the draft, how things should be tweaked in order for that to work.

Users would then discuss about this policy until they find a final text for the policy. The draft is then changed by the final version, and a voting begins.

Voting would take place in a two weeks period, with the policy being approved with 66% keep votes of at least 30 votes.

Policys would then be sorted in two sections: Discussing and Voting.

Voting

Blue People

• An easy way to handle with the rising population of Blue People in this wiki.

voting ends May 20th

Flying Pigs

• Zomg, they are flying!!1!

voting ends May 24th

Discussing

my pet zombie

• tired of your old pet ? how about a pet zombie ?

Red People

• Red people are humans too :(

Move zig

• For great justice!

Pros

• Will make things better organized
• Will make it easy to keep track of changes in any policy
• Will uncluter the policy discussion page
• Will help find which policy discussions are under voting and which are still under discussion

Cons

• Requires some ammount of wiki knoweledge (only enough to create a new page)
• Requires ability to write some lines about an idea.
• Extra clicks, people with not-tabbed browsers wont like this.

--hagnat ^mod 03:52, 7 May 2006 (BST)

This seems an excellent idea. To be frank, Policy Discussion is effectively unchanged from it's original form, which was only meant to be a placeholder until a better system could be devised. It's clearly showing the strain at the moment. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 03:52, 9 May 2006 (BST)