UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Homophobia as Vandalism

Please discuss your thoughts on this policy before voting takes place, and please add your thoughts as to what the scope of the policy should cover. For my own two cents, though, this policy has been sorely needed for a long time, as the double standard in what is and isn't vandalism hate speech is ridiculous. 01:50, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Glad to see someone finally suggested a policy of this nature. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 02:52, 22 May 2010 (BST)

You've got my vote. I don't know if maybe the wording of the policy needs to be changed a little bit, but the sentiment is good for me.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 03:10, 22 May 2010 (BST)

At this point I'm against this. Why is this necessary? To what level should it be implemented? Will I get escalated for calling someone a faggot or retard, in the same way I would call them, an idiot or a dipshit? Even in the case of the word "faggot" in the way Sonny uses it, even as a past target of this homophobic rant (1) never have I considered it offensive or even vandalistic. And even so, it's just obvious he's just fishing for any sort of reaction, and this policy is exactly the sort of stuff that would make him feel accomplished. It's been a long-term saying on the wiki that "this is the internet and if you can't handle what is said here then you're best off leaving the computer forever".

Seeing as how the "racism" clause of the TOU was only ever implemented as vandalism because wiki lawyers wanted to rid of certain users, I find it hard to believe that this policy, in this state, would make anything more clear-cut and will a) turn the wiki into a verbal pussyfest and b) create a huge amount of conflict of interests from the sysop team as wikilawyers will literally POUNCE on anything slightly offensive to any demographic, as long as it was said by someone they don't like. This has already happened recently with WOOT vs Misanthropy, straight after we got someone else for vandalism and the backlash was a pain in the arse and only excusable because Sonny was a known/failing troll (that's how I deal with it anyway). If you pass this policy, prepare for much, much more of that. --

 

 

 

 

03:33, 22 May 2010 (BST)

I'm aware that there's bound to be ways for this policy to be used to target people, as there are for any policy adding vandal clauses. Hell, as you pointed out, I've been on the recieving end of it. But I fail to see why we should just allow this kind of harrassment to the community to be something we're powerless over. Yes, you and I can shrug it off and go "fuck it, it's words on the internet", but if someone else would rather it chased up once they're on the recieving end of it, it's their choice not to let it wash over them, not ours. We shouldn't be telling the community to "man up" and ignore any and all hate speech thrown at them, and when they choose not to ignore it, we shouldn't be caught with our thumbs up our asses just because we're afraid of some petulant child throwing a tantrum over being punished. 03:50, 22 May 2010 (BST)

What are you talking about with "harrassment to the community to be something we are powerless over?" You make it seem like this is actually a problem. All I see is one little idiot troll coming on UDWiki once every 2 months, spurting homo insults to anyone he comes in contact with (not even targeting actual homosexuals) and then the community look down on the two people (thad and maybe POD, give or take) who actually QQ about it. This isn't even a problem, and if it is, take Sonny to Vandal Banning now for (which you coined yourself) harassment, which there is a clause for in the guidelines. The flak you get for that will pale in comparison for the long term flak the ops will have to cop for this if it passes. --

 

 

 

 

05:27, 22 May 2010 (BST)

And also, if this is simply about homophobia, as the title suggests, then make it about homophobia instead of adding simple things like "but not excluding other such forms" and other sections which will give the lawyers a field day. IMO you need to decide whether this is going to be about homophobia or everything discriminatory, not appear to be the former but actually the latter. --

 

 

 

 

05:33, 22 May 2010 (BST)

While I agree that Sonny's rants are uncalled for, I'm not entirely certain that a policy of this nature is the way to go about it. As DDR points out, some of your wording is extremely vague and begging for abuse. If harassment is already a clause in vandalism policy (I honestly have not read through it, so I don't know), then this policy change is entirely unnecessary. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:21, 22 May 2010 (BST)

I think I may have worded the phrase poorly, I'll admit (I wasn't trying to bluff a lie, I'd just woke up so I probably wasn't thinking right). I'm actually very sure it isn't in any polices specifically, however, harassment as vandalism has been around in extreme cases I believe, and today's sysops have already expressed that they would be willing to rule vandalism on harassment if it occurred (to save this being said out of context, it was regarding the way I and others were bothering Cornholioo), so I don't see, if users are willing to claim Sonny's stuff as harassment, why we should enact an entire policy for it... Generally, if it should be vandalism, it can be. Policies don't have to be made for stuff like this if the sysop team are headstrong about it, and it's best if such policies aren't made, if they are retroactively being made simply because of one user. --

 

 

 

 

07:25, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Well the same thought applies then. If we already have policy (either written or understood) that harassment is considered vandalism then this is unnecessary. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:38, 22 May 2010 (BST)

My takes on this: I support this policy as-is, but I also think that it could be solved, as DDR mentioned, by merely being consistent or headstrong in an alternative enforcement. That is to say, there's already a clause about hateful speech in the ToU, and it's up to the sysops to interpret and apply the ToU, so we need merely choose to apply that one clause, which up until now we have simply ignored. Either solution would reach the same end, I believe.

As for its application and in what cases it would apply, I don't know. Since we have a relatively low bar for what we consider racist speech, I think a similarly low bar should be applied to homophobic speech. That said, everything is open to interpretation, so just as Cornholioo said plenty of disparaging or somewhat insulting remarks about Jews without an escalation, we can expect that many remarks that may be considered homophobic would be allowed to slide as well. Ones that are clearly derogatory or blatantly homophobic would be escalated however, and standards for what is or isn't considered to be over the line would surely develop in time, just as they have for racist remarks. I see nothing wrong with having an unclear initial standard that is allowed to develop as time goes on. There will be growing pain, for sure, but it's the right thing to do. —Aichon— 07:51, 22 May 2010 (BST)

I 100% agree with Aichon on this. I would support this policy personally, but it would be just as simple to actually do this as sysops. I must say though, the phrase about "not excluding other kinds" definitely needs to be clarified.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:07, 22 May 2010 (BST)

Hatespeechfags--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 08:21, 22 May 2010 (BST)

The policy has my support --C Whitty 17:48, 22 May 2010 (BST)

People are too thin skinned and prone to offense already as it is, let's not make such a condition an official must for usage of the Urban Dead resources. Guidelines regarding "hate speech" are subjective by their very definition; what one man regards as hate speech may not be hateful to another. In fact, the word "man" as I used it may in and of itself be perceived as sexist and hateful. Someone call the cops on me.

Or will I be considered as a vandal for using "that's so gay" as/in a sentence? How about the aforementioned "retard?" That term (mentally retarded) was in and of itself coined to cease offending, as earlier labels for those under its umbrella of conditions, such as "idiot";"imbecile";"moron" took on lives of their own. The racial/ethnic descriptor "Black" may be enough to set some American users off. Moreover, what types of words/actions are we to consider racist? If we're talking about a six word slur for black people, I agree no one wants to see that.

But what about off-game statements regarding social/cultural or political movements/philosophies/items?

I'm very much against this. Douglas Summers 21:19, 22 May 2010 (BST)