UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Group Page Policy

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This is the discussion page for the Group Page Policy I wish to have enacted. Any questions, place them here. --AegisTyra 00:01 26th November, 2009 (GMT)

lol --Haliman - Talk 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi.-- SA 00:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't be doing this TIC stuff around people who obviously have a problem reading tone from text, SA? They tend to take what you say on face value -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:03 26 November 2009 (BST)

I noticed that too mr. box. I forget that not everyone uses diff links to check comments. :/ -- SA 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the "ban-worthy" behavior that you speak of--zerging, text abuse, etc.--cannot actually get you banned from playing the actual game. Because as Kevan covers in the FAQ:

Kevan said:

How do I report game abuse or zerging? You don't. A number of automated detection systems and countermeasures are already in place, and time is better spent on improving those systems, rather than carefully investigating reports and screenshots (and all reports would have to be investigated at length, given that any of them could be easily-faked attempts to get innocent characters banned).

Are they horrible things that people frown upon? You bet. But issues of truth and legitimacy are very large gray issues. I would advise you to simply ignore any such things directed at you because if it's on a group page, odds are that the only people who will see it is people in that group anyways. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah Cyberbob  Talk  00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Let this policy die. Groups should have the right to say whatever the hell they want. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy fuckballs. TZH calls you some names and now you want to dictate what groups can put on their own pages? Get bent! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree to an extent that there should be a certain level of censorship, and decentsy, but at that,... take a little trash talk like a man, or get the hell out of the way. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 00:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Butthurt user is butthurt--Orange Talk 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, if a group creates a page insulting you, the correct response is to make a page insulting them. --ZsL 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry bub, you can't enforce civility. And if you think that other people are being douchebags, you can either stoop to their level or demonstrate superior behavior with your own actions.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This policy holds no merit. Groups are free to put whatever they wish on their group pages without need for neutrality or even truth. The bias is obvious from the fact that it's a group page, so please, please shut up about being called a few names by some guys. Seriously. 00:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Misanthropy said it perfectly. --Moctezuma 03:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

While we're here

Given everyone will probably read this abortion of a policy it might as well be put to some use. Would anyone be against a policy removing the NPOV section from policy regarding group pages? It's only used now as a deliberate tool by opposing groups to cause drama, can you imagine the drama that would have kicked off if anyone had insisted on a NPOV section for The Dead? Thoughts? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually that's how they came to have a page in the first place. So that people could read about what this huge (and I mean HUGE) new zombie army was, that suddenly turned up out of no where. NPOV sections serve a purpose, other than drama creation. It's a small section where readers can be informed that their may be more to it than what is placed on the page by the group itself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:49 26 November 2009 (BST)

Part of that drama would be something else I'd move to remove, whilst groups are entitled to a page on this wiki, I'd have the updated policy codify that they are just as entitled to not have a page and have no-one steal their links as Conndraka was doing. Both the NPOV section and the "you must have a page" mentality cause more drama and disruption that is orders of magnitude greater than any apparent benefit. I mean, where can you draw the line in NPOV? Surely the Malton Marshalls should have a NPOV section that says "This group kills other living players, but claims to be punishing those that they perceive as committing crimes", you know, the exact same thing that could apply to the Philosophe Knights. The massive lot of vandalism and drama that such instances could create seems completely unnecessary. I'd move for a complete removal of such possibilities for abuse. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested in a change to policy along those lines, but I would like to read it first. Write something up, and I'll be there. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because Conndraka acted like an idiot, and inflamed the situation with the Dead, doesn't mean that notable groups should be able to have no page whatsoever on the wiki. The Dead situation could have been handled by someone impartial, instead of DHPD, and the basic NPOV known facts presented in an informative way. That is better than having a blank space. As to getting rid of NPOV sections, there are pages like Tommy Gun and Dk13 martial law that require an explanation due to their ability to misrepresent clear facts in a way that makes it hard for non-wiki literate people to miss the fact that they are presented in such a way. Basically, groups are welcome to present their pages as POV, but the minimum that the wiki should demand is that it must be clear that that is what the material is, and who it is coming from -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:46 26 November 2009 (BST)

DK 13 martial law doesn't conform to the NPOV section as defined by the Specific Case Editing Guidelines, so it works against the point you're making there. Why should groups have the right not to have a page? The Dead get away with one line with no NPOV section on it, how is that any different? Their page contained no information that could help someone unfamiliar with them.

The current climate means this NPOV business is in no way enforced except to use it against a group who isn't wiki active or savvy, see The Dead Walker. The current policy is being used as a weapon against some groups and as a drama magnet for shits and giggles, given that the average wiki user is intelligent enough to work out what is and what isn't a group page by the tone, space and categories, I fail to see how removing this is going to cause any great damage at all. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, average users can work out TZH type pages, but perhaps not Tommy Gun or Martial Law type pages, which are deliberately designed and redirected to look legitimate to someone following URL links from in-game graffiti. An NPOV statement is the best way to ensure that the wiki isn't used as a tool to provide misinformation in a way that lends the wiki's credibility to the story.
Perhaps there is a case to be made for ensuring that NPOV sections are indeed an impartial assessment of the situation, by making them go through arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:10 27 November 2009 (BST)

Arbitration is broken beyond repair, potentially someone could challenge the placement of a NPOV section on their page using arbitration. As the NPOV is the challenged edit it is reverted during the arbitration. We all know, see Thad at the moment, how long an arbitration can be dragged out. Using arbitration is going to magnify the drama, not reduce it. I believe we two have reached an impasse, each believes that the other's concerns are not as pressing as they make out. Does anyone else wish to add anything while we have this convenient disposable talk page? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV's can be useful but also dumb. that is all.-- SA 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I say kill them. There's no policing anyway. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see them used on every group page anyways. If there is a policy change, it should probably be along the lines of "an NPOV section on groups is appreciated, but by no means required." --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Any more for any more? I see one against and more for or disinterested. If there's no further input I believe I shall create the appropriate page in my user space to refine the concept. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And then.... Leave it there, right? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have something against the fact that I am choosing to take the time to evaluate some of my proposals? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, actually. The fact that without any proper motivation, all they do is sit and rot in your namespace. Is one ever going to actually make it out into A/PD? Every PD you make in your userspace just gets a more and more select amount of users allowed to comment on it. Now I wouldn't go as far to claim that it was so you had less resistance in your initial plans to make the policy workable, but sheesh, even with only 1 user invited, giving input and agreeing, it still never even makes it to A/PD. What a bonerkill. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So steal it in it's entirety, make it for him, and say he's the controller of the policy after five minutes of it being created.-- SA 00:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to adjoin myself onto half of the policies he makes. Are you nuts? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

hurrdurr-- SA 00:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll be first, up against the wall, when... ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:01 2 December 2009 (BST)