UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Free Speech

Updates

Current Draft: 3.5

Section for grim to list the updates that are going into the next draft, as well as changes made in previous drafts. For exact text of previous drafts, please check the history of the page. New drafts will be clearly marked as Draft 2,3,4 etc. The first draft is the first Edit.

To be added:
Nothing to be added at present

Added in creating draft 3.5:

• Clarified the evidence for Slander/Libel
• Trimmed a little excess from draft 3.

Added in creating draft 3:

• Removed the remove civility policy part (not needed anymore)
• Added a little clarification note to the Slander/Libel section.
• More accurately defined Spam.

Added in creating draft 2:

• Section demontrating procedures to go through prove accusations, or at the very least back them up with evidence.
• Definitions of Slander and Libel, to be shamelessly stolen from Dictionary.com
• Perhaps expanding on the Harrassment section a little, for clarity. Breaking it into subjeadings describing each section, talk page, Arbitrations, A/VB.
• Add a notice reading "It is preferred that users show others the same respect they would wish to be shown in return" to the things that are allowed section.
• Add comment indicating that a harrassed user can use a third party to go to an offenders talk page if they feel it is needed.

Discussion

MUCH BETTER. Gets rid of the really nasty stuff, while maintaining a reasonable amount of freedom of speech. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:54, 12 September 2007 (BST)

This is nothing more the current status quo. What would this change?-- Vista  +1  09:41, 12 September 2007 (BST)

While it is the status quo, the status quo isnt officially supported in policy. This makes the status quo official, and makes it vastly more obvious that we dont fucking need any civility policies. Also, it allows us to deal with people who threaten other users with bodily harm mush more expediently. A "I HATE YOU AND IM GOING TO HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU" thing. It clearly defines everything "needed", and keeps the maximum amount of freedom possible without going to the absurd lengths the two civility policy proposals do. Also, it gets rid of them if they have already been voted in if this one gets voted in. --The Grimch ^U! 10:42, 12 September 2007 (BST)

The "things that are permitted" section is causing me concern because I don't like how it could be used as a defence for the most hateful, poisonous insults. I don't want people saying nasty, abhorrent things and then trying to excuse themselves by saying they are only "expressing their feelings towards another user". --Toejam 14:27, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Well, if someone sends poisonous insults, just ask them to cut it out on their talk page. If they refuse, take them to arbitration. Its listed in the section below the section to which you refer. --The Grimch ^U! 14:58, 12 September 2007 (BST)

By "hateful, poisonous insults", are you making reference to derogatory comments based on ethinicity for example? Or are you making reference to anything that one can hold as a belief, such as religion, political affiliation, etc? Either way, people are permitted to say their peace, but are held accountable by the person affected, as well as by arbitration. --Ryiis 15:35, 12 September 2007 (BST)

I'll use some of jJames' contributions as examples (I was actually thinking of something worse, but I decided it's better not to mention it). Take a look at these edits: 1, 2, 3. Not only would this policy not prohibit these sorts of edits, it would actually defend them. All of those edits would have fallen under "a user expressing his feelings towards another user using whatever language he likes." A phrase like that needs caveats. --Toejam ^{A Stats Graph} 21:43, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Hey, the 1st 2 are funny but the 3rd goes way beyond what is reasonable.... That however is my opinion and may not be shared by others and that is the whole problem with policies like this, its all matter of opinion! --Honestmistake 01:02, 13 September 2007 (BST)

How come no one mentions the mean things he said to me. No one loves me. Tis sad, yes?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:07, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Well, there are systems in place to deal with that sort of thing happening. If it happens once, then stops, theres no need to do anything about it. If its happening repeatedly, then you go to talk and tell him to stop. If he refuses, get an arbitration ruling made, and he wont be able to dick around on that talk page again. Frankly, the days of Jjaxi are long gone. He is permabanned, and he and his ilk are unlikely to be seen again (And they were a result of the amazing drama of last year). --The Grimch ^U! 05:39, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Arbitration on cases where people are being obnoxious is only going to be made harder by this policy. People are going to use "I was only expressing my feelings - the rules say I can" as an excuse to be horrible. I think the only way I would support this policy was if each of the three sections on what was permitted were changed to be something like this (changes in italics):

Things that are allowed:

1. You are permitted to express yourself and your feelings, unless doing so is likely to be destructive or hurtful.
2. You are permitted to use whatever language you like to express those feelings except for language that is unkind or harmful. (English is preferred, though Cussing allowed)
3. You are permitted to express your feelings towards another user as long as doing so is constructive and not insulting.

Without these changes, this policy legalises people being nasty to each other. --Toejam ^{A Stats Graph} 20:30, 13 September 2007 (BST)

And doing so would completely undercut the entire point of this policy, which is to maintain the maximum freedoms of all users while giving those that feel threatened or harrassed a method of dealing with those problems. Users are to be encouraged to be civil, not forced to be. The fourth item of the to do list would be adequate cover for that. --The Grimch ^U! 20:37, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I've thought more about this, and the exceptions I wanted should themselves have exceptions. I'd say there perhaps are very rare cases where it's justified to insult someone, or to say something that will hurt another editor on the wiki, but there would have to be a greater public interest to outweigh the negative costs, which are significant. I don't want to get into a debate here about what sort of "greater public interests" could exist, because I don't think anything productive would come of it, but I wanted to say this before the page was archived. --Toejam 23:36, 8 October 2007 (BST)

I have a question. Would this policy differentiate between someone saying "you are an asshole" and "I think you are an asshole"? The reason I ask is that I feel there is a difference, if you make clear that it is a personal opinion and not what people think in general it is somewhat less hurtful. It should be obvious that it is a personal opinion when someone says that, but some people don't get that, and do get very hurt. Or is this entirely irrelevant? - Whitehouse 14:49, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Personally, i dont see a difference in meaning between the two statements. Both of them are opinions, not accusations. The purpose of this isnt to step on people for saying things that have the potential to be hurtful, but to inform people of how to deal with things if they feel they are hurtful (Through the section named Harrassment) while still retaining the maximum amount of free speech. If you are hurt by such comments, my advice would be to take it to their talk page, along with perhaps growing a thicker skin. To borrow and butcher an old saying: Insults on the internet: Serious business! --The Grimch ^U! 14:58, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Also remember, if you are insulted by someone, you can always bring it up on their talk page. If you can't get any satisfaction there, you can always take it to arbitration. I think the thing to remember here is that this policy does not seek to police other people's opinions - rather, it prevents serious infractions and provides a formal policy on how to handle such things. Most of us are adults, and many more think that we are - if you have a problem with someone, take it to their talk page. --Ryiis 15:30, 12 September 2007 (BST

Was just checking. The minor difference between the two was that one makes it clear that it is a personal opinion. Personally I am not bothered, I don't spend much time talking/arguing/debating with other users anyway. - Whitehouse 19:58, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Remove section 4 and the Harassment section and you will have my vote. Spam and harassment are too independently defined, everyone has differing opinions on what both are, bad cases of spam and harassment are already covered under vandal banning anyway as they are bad faith edits, no reason to include them here.--Karek^maps?! 21:02, 12 September 2007 (BST)

If you read more clearly, the harrassment section merely details how users are supposed to respond to perceived harrassment, first by going to the other users talk page, and then by going to the arbitration page if that fails. Needless to say, you need to show that you have attempted to resolve the problem before you go to arbitration. And Spam is, pretty much, spam. Its useless content, or its posting huge numbers of solicitations to numerous groups. Thats pretty much how its defined. Common sense. --The Grimch ^U! 21:08, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Major problems

Just a list of major, and by major I mean seriously, seriously major problems:

1. The policy doesn't provide any change to A/A, effectively discriminating between the cases the author deems as "serious enough" to warrant A/VB treatment and those who don't. Arbitration remains with the same problems it has now as well.
2. The slander/libel section... what do you define as "slander/libel"? How do you prove most claims? If you can't you automatically go to Arbitration? I should say this just seems based on the author's personal experience and convenience alone.
3. Spam is very liberally definded. It's almost as it gives superpowers to Sysops so they can ban whoever they deem as a non contributive user (repeat posting of contentless posts)
4. R/L threaths are overly punished, not to mention vaguely definded (if not at all). Another section that gives superpowers to Sysops without requesting any kind of uninvolvement...
5. Posting personal details... Eveyone knows that Amazing don a beard, his R/L name and multiple personal details as well. Now, if I mention Thari's name (wich I actually used to know) in a respectful and friendly manner, am I going to be simply taken to A/VB by a "troll lawyer"? Yet another point were no room for interpretation remains, more that those of the ruling but not necessarily unbiased Sysop.
6. This policy will automatically and irrevocably replace any civility policies that have been enacted. This sentence alone shows how reactionary is the policy presented and how biased the author is on the issue at hand.

As a resume, the policy just seems to protect experienced users that know how to use the ways around on the wiki over inexperienced ones that can make some claim and be taken to A/VB for a policy like this. Harassing newbies and undesirables to get them banned will be more effective if a policy like this is enacted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewfarenheit (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I am going to do you the courtesy of actually addressing your concerns. Something which you neglected to do for my complaints to you on your policy (instead opting to attack me and then repeat that attack on my talk page):

1. Since this only has to do with perceived harrassment, there really needs to be no change to the Arbitration system as it stands. This isnt dealing with hard and fast attempts at objective definitions, such as your policy, which effectively forces the Arbitration system into the official system operations region. This maintains the spirit of Arbitration as a place to work out conflicts and determine resolutions, and as such both the matter being brought forward, and the resolution, can remain subjective, which in my opinion is a better way all round than your attempt to ritualise Arbitration. I am not against having Arbitrators elected, indeed, i tried to have that done a while ago, but that is beyond the scope of this policy.
2. Slander and Libel would be making of demonstrably untrue claims against other users. For example, if i called you, for a ludicrously comical example, a pink three toed sloth that eats babies and flings poo at passing motorists, and maintained it in the face of opposition without supporting my assertion with evidence or objective reasoning, you could rightly throw me to the wolves. If i had evidence of those claims, then i wouldnt be. One provides evidence in much the same way as one backs up an assertion in a logical debate: By backing up the evidence with factual statements, quotes, or screenshots. For example, if i called Rodeo a zerger (Rodeo was an actual zerger using four accounts, Rodeo1, Rodeo2, Rodeo3 and Rodeo4 which i found and killed repeatedly at Tynte Mall last year when teh RRF was assaulting it and i was revived, As a comical note, Rodeo3 was slain with a crowbar. BARHAH!), and i had screenshots and profile links of his zergs, that would be a qualified statement. If i say Rodeo is a zerger, and fail to provide it when challenged, im in deep shit, and i can either withdraw the statement or i can maintain it and get in deep shit for it. I should update the policy with this.
3. Well, that is what Spam is. If someone goes around coughing up nothing but garbage, then they rightly deserve a warning. Contentless isnt that hard to see. If someone just walks around saying WTFCentaurs all the time, or contentless rubbish on pages like the recent vandal, Mr Crabs, they will cop a warn on their page (Or a ban in extreme cases). Its very hard to wiki lawyer that, and once again, i left the decision of what constites repeatedly up to the sysop who rules on each case. I honestly cant understand your objection on this count.
4. If a user threatens another user or their family with any form of harm that is to take place outside of the game, they dont belong here. Period. Who wants to be a part of a community where people are threatening others? No one. Zero tolerance on this issue is more than justified by the possible impact of such individuals. They either shape up or get kicked out quickly.
5. The ban on posting personal details is for the protection of users, and is almost always a hostile act. Personal information about a user should never be posted by anyone but the user in question, or with express written permission from the user in question I dont believe you were on the Desensitised board back when it was operating, but some of the users that made their home there made a habit of hunting down details of other users, then using them to smear shit on those users there. Such behaviour is intolerable and creates an insanely hostile environment, far worse than is possible under regular freedom of speech. All in all, it is vastly more threatening to post a persons details in an attack than it is to generally post an attack on its own. In all, this is really a secondary method of protecting users, linked to the previous method.
6. Well duh, does my bias on the issue of civility devalue the points i am making, or the ideas i am presenting for consideration? Does it make them any less likely to work, just because i dont like your ideas? If you answered yes to any of those, your argument is fallacious under the Ad Hominem fallacy. The purpose of this policy is both to fix any possible damage to the wiki done by either yours or Nalikills civility policies if they pass, while at the same time fixing the problems alleged to be happening and maintaining the maximum amount of liberties to each and every user.

And thats all folks. Now will you respond to my comments on all policies reasonably, instead of calling me a troll? --The Grimch ^U! 13:53, 12 September 2007 (BST)

I like it?

Actually I do like it for a number of reasons:

1. Firstly, it still keeps the current process of the wiki which is, in and of itself, civil: try to find a solution on the other person's talk page, if that doesn't work then take the case to Arbitration, and if that final step does not work, then take the case to A/VB.
2. Slander and Libel should be obvious... however, if you need definitions, I suggest dictionary.com for the very basic meanings. In the context of the wiki, it would be as Grim says: anything that you post, that defames someone (ie. Calling them a zerger), without proof, is considered Libel. This is not limited to making edits on the wiki, but uploading pictures to the wiki which are libel or slanderous.
3. Spam is as spam does. Spamming a page for the sake of spamming, is spamming, and therefore is spam. See my point. If I were to write this stuff for 30 revisions, on 30 different people's talk page, that would be spam wouldn't it? It is subjective, and if need be, such things could be brought to arbitration. However, I think the sysops try to stay relatively unbiased when it comes to warnings and what not (although I am sure that it is not without exception). It's not like the person would be perma-banned first thing off for a minor offense. This gives no more power than what is already here: it simply formalizes it.
4. I again agree with Grim here. Zero-tolerance for threats to the real-life of a person. Threatening PCs of the game is the spirit of the game, however, it should not be carried over into reality. If you threaten someones real-life - shape up or ship out.
5. Posting someone else's personal details is wrong, period end. There shouldn't even be a conversation about this. I can't think of one good reason why you would post another's personal details - unless they, themselves, posted it. It is ludicrous to think otherwise, in my opinion.
6. I'll stay out of this one... as it seems to be something more personal than professional in my opinion.

The fact of the matter is, some of the other civilty policies seek to remove some of the very basic civil liberties that we in democratic countries are afforded each day. Furthermore, the internet has always been a bastion of free speech. Does that mean it is lawless? No. I agree with many of the other policies in principle, however, such strict regulations are likely to stifle meaningful conversations rather than create an atmosphere of cooperation. This policy document isn't 10 pages long, with a list that could wrap around the world in changes to already existing policies. It is not obtuse, obsurd, or ambiguous - it clearly defines what it seeks to set out. Nor is it revolutionary in the sense that it seeks to make many changes to complicate already complicated and very burecratic things. It is simple, straightforward, easy to read and understand.

I support it. --Ryiis 15:27, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Good point about the definitions of Slander and Libel. Ill do them in my next revision tomorrow. For now ill leave this revision up. --The Grimch ^U! 15:31, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Another section

Whilst I'd prefer a lot more civility on this wiki, I much prefer this policy to the others. I feel it approaches the 'problem' from the right angle, and provides a meaningful explanation of the behaviour that should be accepted on this wiki. I think perhaps it needs a little fine-tuning, but in essence I'd support this policy. 'arm. 15:06, 12 September 2007 (BST)

• Okay, my suggestion for the 'fine-tuning'. 'arm. 15:39, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Things that aren't allowed

1. Slander/Libel - If you make an accusation against another user, be prepared to provide some form of proof to back up your claims. Users who make accusations without being able to supply proof (and do not withdraw the accusation) can be taken to Arbitration.
2. Threats regarding real life - If you threaten a user of this community with action outside the scope of this community, you will be vulnerable to the Vandal Banning section of the wiki. Furthermore, it will be treated as three warnings. So if you have a clean slate it will be a 24 hour ban. If you already have one warning, you will receive a ban of one month. Threats to kill a user in-game are perfectly acceptable, and part of the spirit of the game.
3. Posting personal details - You are not permitted to post the personal details of any other user, or his or her family, on this wiki. Doing so is considered vandalism and the relevant revisions are to be deleted.
4. Spam - Comment: Surely spam IS protected under Free Speech? Perhaps something to say that excessive non-contributory comment *could* lead to an A/A A/VB case?
5. Vandalism - Activity that is considered Vandalism is not protected under this policy.

Harassment/Bullying
In the event of perceived harassment/bullying, users should try to work out the issue on the relevant user talk page(s) first. If this fails the case may be taken to Arbitration, where the issue will be settled with a ruling. If that ruling is broken, a case then be taken to the Vandal Banning page for violation of the arbitration ruling.

I like. But with the exception of protecting spam. Some things, such as the garbage posted my Mr Krabs recently are undeniably unhelpful, and are a bother for most people to remove. It is best that mass spamming messages, as well as consistently posting contentless posts be met with at the very least a warning. The stuff like what Codename V posted a year ago (Spamming every survivor groups talk page with a call to invade ridleybank), and the more recent case involving Al duck (13th of August, its currently on the vandal banning page, near the bottom) make it clear that something needs to be there to prevent mass solicitation, which many users find annoying, and contributes nothing to the wiki. There is no need to settle it with Arbitration, as it isnt about settling a dispute between users. --The Grimch ^U! 15:57, 12 September 2007 (BST)

It's just that the very first sentence is "We recognise the right of each and every individual user here to speak freely, without censure, so long as such talk is legal", and so more general 'spamming' by not reading discussions properly and contributing stuff with zero value would be legal - even if it's fluff that no-one really wants to see or waste their time reading. OTOH, spam such as Al duck's is covered by A/VB - so change A/A above to A/VB and what I said probably makes more sense. Or just merge the Spam and Vandalism sections. 'arm. 16:16, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Thats pretty much what is said at present, though a little more detailed. But yes, a note that it should go to A/VB is a good idea. It'll go in with the next update. --The Grimch ^U! 16:41, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Anti-civility...

It seems odd that this policy would claim to be irrevocable, also that it's primarily aimed to prevent civility policies from being enacted. Why should we accept something that aimed to justify acceptance of behaving antisocially here? Is that really worth preserving? Would you accept as a houseguest someone who was constantly horribly rude to you? If you were at a workplace meeting and someone got up and started shouting "Fuck you" at each person present, would that really be cool? Society has norms, and wikis are no exception - "Free Speech" as a political right is about not marking ideas as verboten, not about justifying people being as joyously unpleasant/loathsome as they can be. --Pgunn 19:05, 12 September 2007 (BST)

This isn't about Anti-civilty whatsoever - however, it is a policy that would revoke the needlessly lenghty policies that are being discussed currently. If you can't be an adult, and confront people regarding their actions, then you probably shouldn't be on the internet. In fact, you shouldn't socialize at all. If the person at your house was being horribly rude, you would confront them and ask them to change their behavior, or leave. If you were in your workplace, and that person started cussing at everyone in the room - they would be fired (in a case on the wiki, brought to arbitration or possibly A/VB if the person attacked them on their own user page, etc).This policy seeks to keeps things as simply as possible on the wiki, while still maintaining that there are already pre-determined routes of conflict management that can be used to ensure civility on the wiki, and ensure continued Free Speech and related liberties. --Ryiis 19:22, 12 September 2007 (BST)

"...and that person started cussing at everyone in the room - they would be fired" - in my workplace they wouldn't be fired, but would definitely receive a warning with defined outcomes for a repeat performance. It's knowing that this would happen that leads people to refrain from exercising their 'inalienable right'. This is why I believe this policy is far superior to either of the civility policies under discussion. As Grimch says, the current systems are just underused. If this policy goes through, it's one I'll be having in my sig. 'arm. 19:44, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Darn, edit conflicted by Ryiis. I will hunt you down to the ends of the galaxy! :P (Ive been watching waaay too much stargate recently)

Firstly, this doesnt claim to be irrevocable. I suggest you reread the opening again. It would irrevocably remove the civility ones if they got passed then this got passed. Basically meaning that those get taken away and this replaces them. Also, this isnt "Anti-civility", this is "Free Speech". To call it such is misleading in the extreme. This is not "Everyone can say shit to everyone without consequence", this has a clearly defined method for dealing with the problem, and thus there are consequences for your actions. If you talk shit to everyone, there will be consequences for it. Not only will you almost certainly be ostracised, but if the people go through the proper channels and he/she refuses to adhere to rulings, official censure may follow. As with any perceived problem, it will not go away if you dont do anything about it, and from this the current "civility" debate stems. People want everyone to be nice to each other, but they dont want to put in the effort to deal with each case in the manner that makes the most logical sense, perhaps because of the culture of policy changes this wiki has to "fix" problems. If you are being treated poorly and abusively, and you want it to stop, please take it up on the offenders talk pages first. This should always be your first stop in any such dispute. Try to work things out diplomatically. Its quite possible, and many disputes have been worked out in this manner. If this step fails, the next logical port of call is the arbitration page. There you make your case that you feel the user is harrassing you, and that the behaviour is undeserved or whatever, and then the arbitrator makes a binding ruling. Once this ruling has been made, any breach of it by the offender will result in official sanctions by sysops, these being warnings and bannings. The current system is not ineffective, it is underutilised. If people got up and used it instead of complaining to the sysops, and whining about how people are uncivil, we wouldnt be having this debate now. The simplist solution, especially in administrative matters, is always the best. The Civility policies are needlessly and irretreivably complicated, and will be all but impossible to understand, let alone enforce without living in fear that some rules lawyer will miscontributate you at the drop of a hat. This is simple, covers all the major bases, and everything else is rushed through a system designed to end the conflict, rather than punish the offender, with the big meaty stick waiting at the end for people who dont get the hint. --The Grimch ^U! 19:31, 12 September 2007 (BST)

I'm sure you're aware that your attitude marks you as one of the problem users that some of these policies are meant to deal with. When people say "hey, please don't be rude" and you say things like "I shouldn't be expected to be civil, that's outside my duties as a Sysop", that illustrates how at least on some level attempts to deal with incivility/rudeness have failed. There's the notion that establishing norms of behaviour where that kind of thing is explicitly marked as uncool along with an expectation that there will eventually be consequences for people who refuse to treat other people decently. What's wrong with establishing that norm? --Pgunn 00:25, 13 September 2007 (BST)

How does a perceived "attitude problem" on the part of a person devalue the points made by that person? Short answer: It doesnt, unless you are into shoddy reasoning. Besides, what you are talking about is a sweeping cultural change. You simply cannot do that with a change of rules, its impossible, especially when the rules themselves are impossibly complicated. The way the debate is shaping up is that there are those who want to let people speak as they will, and if they cross a line from the perception of the person being attacked, if the person decides to do something about it through the system, they can set the ball rolling. This will lead to the end of the conflict, one way or another. Then there are those that want to cram a suprememely complicated system down everyones throat, agreement or not. Also, FYI, your quote and response are mismatched. Also, I only ever mention sysopness when they say things along the lines of "Why dont be so nasty! You're a sysop!". In any case, the biggest problem is that such a policy will kill the spirited discussion we have on this wiki. What you are trying to do is force everyone into behaving nice, but forced niceness is not true niceness. --The Grimch ^U! 05:32, 13 September 2007 (BST)

• I agree that it doesn't devalue the points, but it does devalue the discussion because it makes it much more irritating to read and makes it less likely that people will stick to discussing points. If forced niceness is not true niceness, many of us will be satisfied with forced niceness - if we're talking with people who don't like us, generally we'd rather them keep a stiff upper lip and be civil even if they want to be a jerk if we want to discuss something. If that's a sweeping cultural change we're far from, this is a great step towards making that change. --Pgunn 15:45, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Anti-civility... (Part 2)

Oh dear. Pitching free speech as the opposite of civility is a terrible way to get a meaningful consensus on what civility stance the wiki should adopt, and including a specific clause to detonate any future (and democratically approved!) civility policies is appalling, Grim.

Encouraging civility doesn't mean restricting people's free speech - there's no reason why policies on both subjects couldn't exist alongside each other. As with Wikipedia, a civility policy wouldn't ever be about banning people for being uncivil (or even deleting their comments), it'd just state the behaviour that the community expected from its members. --Kevan 10:01, 13 September 2007 (BST)

So wait, is establishing a policy to alter A/A and/or A/VB to include additonal Warning/Banning powers also not kosher? I see what you are saying, but without having people (most likely SysOps, or "Mods") warning and banning people based on what has been loosely-defined and easily-argued terms, all non-vandal edits are the same. --Karlsbad 10:16, 13 September 2007 (BST)

This policy is a counter proposal to the two existing policy discussions on civility, both of which do negatively impact free speech (Hence the reason why this would overwrite them if they get passed, then this gets passed, because the two contradict each other in how to deal with things), and those policies so needlessly complicate matters so as to be abusable by every Tom, Dick, and Akule that pops by for a rules lawyering case. In most cases, we can dismiss such cases because they rely entirely on twisting the rules so far to be all but unrecognisable, but in the case of the civility policies, they are so poorly defined that if a sysop wants to avoid a valid misconduct case, they will need to avoid ruling on matters there at all.

As you say, a civility policy shoulsnt be about banning or warning users, and this solution doesnt, unlike both the others. This is about allowing people the maximum freedom possible, and where conflicts arise, and drama rears its ugly head, it provides a clear step by step approach to dealing with the problem that doesnt involve official sysop intervention until it has clearly crossed the boundary into true harrassment. While the systems steps are indeed subjective, and damn well should be, overall, the effect of the system would be to weed out the trivial disagreements from the serious before Arbitration, and then the true harrassment out from there into a place where sysops can rightly step on it.

I guess what im saying is that to understand what is meant by the opening to which you take so much offense, you have to read both other civility discussions. While i agree that, perhaps, a minimum code of conduct should be set for some pages (Administrative pages only, in my opinion. We dont bloody well need flamewars there), enforcing civility at the point of a sword, like the other policies, is not the answer. Here is mine.

PS: I never pitched this as the opposite to Civility. I pitched this as an alternative policy to those policies, which did impact free speech rather seriously in the negative. --The Grimch ^U! 10:54, 13 September 2007 (BST)

If two simultaneous policy proposals overlap in their jurisdiction, it makes sense for them to consider the possibility that they'll both pass, and to include optional clauses appropriately, rather than having them each call for the other's destruction. You could easily bolt an "if a civility policy exists, update the second 'allowed' bullet point to read..." clause onto this, if you wanted to respect everyone's opinion. (And even if the other policies up at the moment are overly harsh or too long to read or whatever else, you're still blindly ruling out any future civility policies.)

And yes, as I say, a civility policy shouldn't be about banning people or doing anything "at the point of a sword", it should just be a sign on the wall to remind people of consensus opinion, which can be hard for new users to gauge. Whether it says "be civil" or "be as rude as you like" doesn't matter, we could just use something to point at when a user reacts to another user's incivility. But we should get there with a fair and clear vote, rather than "be as rude as you like" being armour-plated against all contrary policies and buried under the rallying cry of "free speech". --Kevan 11:42, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I guess i could add something saying "It is preferred that users show others the same respect they would wish to be shown in return", and i dont believe the warning rules out future policies, just those taht would be in place by the time this would be in place, if it gets voted in. I guess i could add "Prior to this policies implimentation" to it to make it more clear. Also,while this does allow people to occassionally be a jerk, this does have rather good methods of dealing with the bigger problems of people bing habitually offensive to all comers by encouraging the use of Arbitration to solve inter-user problems. --The Grimch ^U! 12:02, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I find Kevan's attempts to enforce his view on how should his wiki work without forcing it into the rules (thing he's totally enabled to do) quite admirable but also quixotic:

While a simple sentence like the one you propose "helps", it's basically a poor excuse to still be enforcing the rest of the policy defending "incivility", "armoured-plate be-as-rude-as-you-can" or however you want to call it without having the other people's views eclipsing your own. Also, you fanatically present the views of "free speech" and "encouraged civility" as totally opposite, while it's just a matter of good faith to combine both in an armonious way. The problem is that you made the policy specifically to counter whatever the other, more nicer part of the wiki community wants to enact, not with the idea of reaching balance between both sides or filling up some policy holes. That stubborness... none can fight against it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:02, 13 September 2007 (BST)

You are completely misrepresenting the purpose of this policy. Intentionally i think, given how many times i have stated what i am about to say yet again on this page already. This is not to protecty "incivility". This is a policy to outline clear methods for dealing with perceieved problems of abuse between users, which is where the problems are, while at the same time maintaining the maximum amount of protection to all users, from all forms of abuse, including but not limited to rules lawyering. Unlike yours. Also, this doesnt attempt to force a code of conduct on all users. This will, with the next update, provide a non binding code of conduct, more in line with kevans stated wishes (Im listing stuff that will be included in the top section). --The Grimch ^U! 19:29, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Approval

I like it. Official Sonny Seal of Approval. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 21:00, 12 September 2007 (BST)

i like it as well.--'BP^Tmz 22:25, 12 September 2007 (BST)

RL threats penalty: Too lenient

I never thought I'd ever say this about anything, but...Grimch, I actually think you're being too lenient on -that- plank of your platform. RL threats to anybody should be a no-questions-asked month-ban at *minimum*. Why? 1. Kevan could be liable if, God forbid, it led to something in real life (as it has on other sites); 2. Kind of a cardinal rule of net discussion, no? You just...No, you just don't do that. I don't care how new or old you are, if you have 2 braincells to rub together, you should know that that crosses a line. A big, bright red line with lights and sirens attached that scream 'Do not do this'. 3. The chilling effect of even -one- threat like that would be disastrous if someone was smacked with merely a 24h vandalban. In most things, I am more a fan of slow and deliberate response over speed. This is not that. Once you make an RL threat....The hammer should come down so fast on you that you create a vacuum and the hammer creates a snoic boom. --Penta 23:36, 12 September 2007 (BST)

It is lower than i personally would prefer because i fully realise that occasionally people can be infuriated beyond reason by another user, and make a slip that they will later regret. The punishment must therefore be harsh, yet not overly so to account for such occurrances. --The Grimch ^U! 19:37, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Real life threats don't mean anything and I'll kill anyone who disagrees. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 21:22, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Civility

I have said it before and say it again now. too many people use the protection of distance that the internet provides to say things that they would never think of saying to someones face! Think before you type... if what you are expressing would probably cause a fight between yourself and someone of similar build would you actually say it? I think that in many cases the answer is no and frankly to go on to type it anyway is cowardice... It makes you look like a worm or at best a petulant teenage boy, telling me i am a fuck-wit might provoke a heated argument and thats fine... saying that you hope dogs rape my mother to my face would get you hospitalised (at the very least!) Basically the policy should be summed up as would you say this to their face, something offensive deserves offensiveness back and a policy can and will depend on the opinion of whoever judges it. Sadly people are scum and given half a chance will revel in the idea that they are being "cool" when actually they are just being obnoxious turds. --Honestmistake 01:19, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Um, im not sure how this pertains to the policy, especially how many times i have reiterated that users can use talk pages and arbitration to make sure that such behaviour is curtailed if it gets excessive... --The Grimch ^U! 05:41, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Who judges "excessive" though and for that matter who decides when the line is crossed? I honestly can't think of a policy that would be able to make the criteria clear-cut without being overly censorious or a total free for all. If I was to say "thats it you little turd, I am coming round to your house to chemically castrate you!" it would be seen by some as a direct threat, others would dismiss it as macho posturing, some would see it as the use of an absurd threat to get a point across while another group would think i was being moronic given that i don't even know if you are male or female; let alone where you live! Who is to say which group is right other than me (and I might lie to get out of trouble) My point (if I have one?) is that it is down to the individual to police themselves and not be an ass, any rules we make are fairly arbitrary and would be easily broken... Perhaps the only fair way would be to open each decision up for community voting but it would get pretty heated and probably solve nothing! --Honestmistake 13:24, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Community voting does sound appealing, and if we could keep a record of previous results it would help with consistency. I think wikipedia has a similar system, but with commenting instead of voting. --Toejam ^{A Stats Graph} 14:04, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Problem is, as with all things community-based, such a system would turn into a popularity contest. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:05, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I have no doubt that it would but the alternative is to trust to the judgement of the mods... I have no problem with them maintaining the WIKI and am grateful they do it, but they are no more impartial than anyone else so they should not have the right to judge on these matters without public debate and that would soon degenerate into E-Penis duelling and other shit! I believe that the majority of contributors are careful what they say but a very vocal minority do revel in being rude and offensive and if it takes a majority vote to shut them up it would be worth the hassle. Sadly I doubt it would work tho :( --Honestmistake 15:14, 13 September 2007 (BST)

If the sysops can't be trusted to be impartial, why were they elected in the first place? Isn't one of the major criteria for being a sysop impartiality? The mob is far more likely to show bias, trust me. Pack mentality has a way of polarising people. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:17, 13 September 2007 (BST)

'Sides, if we had to have a vote on every single case of alleged incivility nothing would get done. Imagine what trolls could achieve with something like that. They'd give us a major bout of constipation. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:21, 13 September 2007 (BST)

You of all people should know that sysops have no need to be any more impartial than anyone else for the vast majority of their edits/work. They should not be voted the extra powers for being model contributors, they should be voted em because they are willing and able to put the work in! Knowing WIKI code and having spare time to live here are not the same as being fair judges or polite contributors and this is a case where the clearly stated opinion of the majority should take precedence... it won't cos most people won't care enough to vote and those that do will probably have very polarized views which will just make things worse. Solution: fucked if I know!!! --Honestmistake 17:17, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Ok, i watched this roll downhill fast. Honestmistake, you are not understanding the purpose and intent of the policy, or even what is said in it. Who decides if things get excessive? A lot of people:

1. The User being targetted decides its excessive, and carries it to the talk page to try and fix the problem.
2. If this fails, and the user still believes the behaviour towards them is excessive, they can go to arbitration (Where the Arbitrator then gets a say)
3. Once a ruling has been passed, if the User is still being attacked in the same way by the offender, it goes to A/VB as an Arb violation. (Where a Sysop gets a say)

Please understand that this policy deliberately remains subjecive. In the most basic sense, its the system we have now, only official, and publicly encouraged for current users. Now, you might say: "The system doesnt work, that why we are having this debate in the first place". This is absolutely incorrect. The current system isnt well publicised, and it isnt being utilised to fulfil its purpose. This is not a fault of the system, its a fault of the people. Since both users in a disagreement have a say in who arbitrates the case, and thus the arbitrator selected should be neutral. While there may be one or two minor problems with the arbitration system, that is not the scope of this policy, and i have no intention of making it so.
Also, just an FYI, Sysops are expected to be neutral parties on the Vandal Banning page, what magical force stops them from being expected to be so now? --The Grimch ^U! 17:37, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I do follow but i just don't agree with your interpretation of this. A single comment to 1 user cannot be deemed excessive so they can't complain. Further comments are made but days (even weeks) apart so does it count as excessive yet? Maybe, but what if the same guy abusing this user is also abusing others in an equally patchy way; can anyone make a complaint? I have seen days on the suggestion page where users are abusive on every suggestion not because its utter shite but because its just not great or even just because they don't like it! A civility policy needs to be a blanket statement of what the community expects from users, the word "excessive" just should not be included as by definition any uncalled for abuse is excessive! Kevan's position above pretty much sums up a lot of my feelings on where i think you are going here and i think you might just be over-reacting to Matts OTT civility policy without realizing.

Oh and I know there are duties that sysops must be neutral on (such as Vandal banning) but as you have told me in the past apart from that and a few extra editing tools a sysop/mod is just like any other user! --Honestmistake 21:53, 13 September 2007 (BST)

I'm going to add one little point here... actually it's not little. It's been brought up in the civility policy discussion that simply going to a person's talk page and asking them to stop, or whatever, is not a good solution... And rightly so has this point been brought up. It's not a good idea in some cases. If someone is harassing me, threatening me, or just being a huge cocksucker to me, I'm not going to feel comfortable addressing them on their talk page. And rightly so: their tactic is one of bullying and intimidation... going to their talk page will only further that dynamic, no matter how diplomatic I try to be. In these cases, a third party needs to step in and arbitrate. This is how harassment is dealt with in the real world, and how it needs to be dealt with here, if we're going to deal with it at all. To this end, I'd ask those who have already volunteered to arbitrate disputes to be willing to step in as a "third party" if asked to do so in such a situation. Please correct me if I am wrong, but arbitrators are NOT necessarily sysops... therefore that objection is not valid. And, each party can "veto" an arbitrator that they feel is biased, no? So a system is already in place, it just needs some fine-tuning... --WanYao 19:43, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Actually, you make a good point with that, and a good suggestion. Perhaps a section indicating that users could use another person, be they arbitrator or not, to go on their behalf to an offenders talk page and ask for it to stop. I will definately have to include that. --The Grimch ^U! 20:40, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Now that seems the basis of a good idea, I would further reccommend that these go-betweens be non mod/sysop types with a rep for avoiding or calming drama! --Honestmistake 21:53, 13 September 2007 (BST)

Further comments

Are there any further comments on this, or should i just take it to voting. Id much prefer more public input first though. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 08:46, 20 September 2007 (BST)

No, don't take this into voting yet. Arbitration can easily be made into a joke. While arbitrators are left to feel that they have no power this policy is effectively useless. Clarify the powers, or processes that arbitrators have so that they can deal with problem users who do not wish to solve the issue. - If Jedaz = 10:02, 20 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

Why should i do that when there is another policy in voting to do it? Redundant methinks. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 00:37, 21 September 2007 (BST)

What happens if the other policy fails to pass? We're back to square one where this policy is ineffective. It's better to be safe then sorry. At the very least you should wait upon the success of the other policy before putting this one up for voting. - If Jedaz = 12:35, 21 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

Arbitration is a country mile from ineffective. While the system could use a little work, it doesnt need that work to function so long as the arbitrators act like adults, and i have no intention of turning this into a policy that covers how disputes should be arbitrated. I will be, however, waiting until after that vote to put this up. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 01:00, 22 September 2007 (BST)

Censure can mean

1. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism, or
2. An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.

It'd be useful to clarify which meaning it has in the first line of this policy. --Toejam^{Stats Graph Updated} 00:47, 21 September 2007 (BST)

The context of the comment, such as it is in a policy about free speech, would indicate the latter definition. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 00:55, 21 September 2007 (BST)

Voting

This will be forced into voting on the 26th. Does anyone have any last minute complaints or concerns to address? --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:03, 24 September 2007 (BST)

I was saving this for my vote, but if you listen it may help the policy, even if it was ill conceived:

The two only original, workable parts I see are Posting personal details and Threaths regarding real life. They are well written per se.

Both the Vandalism and Spam section are already covered, one by policy and the other by precedent. There's nothing written in there that really "adds" to the policy, so I have to say that it's all filler without content. Why?

Finally, the Slander/Libel section is VERY ambiguous. It basically obliterates your intended purpose of "defending" what you call free speech. As worded, you couldn't call anyone a "retard" or an "idiot" or anything without being vulnerable to A/A. Also, as worded, these A/A cases seem mandatory, another strange turn of events... The whole section, in resume, is a wiki lawyers tool.

Pertaining the section that talks about how to deal with perceived harassment: The wording makes mandatory to use the user's talk page before starting an A/A case, or ask third users to do so... most precedent on A/A cases deal with users with conflicts developed on community/group talk pages, and jumped either to A/A or A/VB then A/A. Most of the time an user has already been asked through these community/group talk channels whatever they could have been asked in their talk pages and didn't change their minds: why would the user talk page contact be mandatory?

That's most for now. You could also drop the "civility policy nullifier" as well as a gesture of good faith (and it's not neeeded as there's no civility policy likely to be approved to debunk ATM, so it's a win-win). --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 13:42, 24 September 2007 (BST)

You do make a couple of good points. Since neither civility policy still exists, its time to get rid of that note at the top.

The purpose of going to the talk pages first is not to work out the issue at hand, thats for the relevant pages where the issue itself is being discussed, but to discuss the other users conduct in that discussion. For example, if i were to call everyone in a discussion a "Stinking Sodomite", (IE, i became abusive, injstead of just plain abrasive) then the other person could come to my talk page and ask that i not do so in the discussion. A short discussion could then be held on my talk page, and if the issue of abusiveness isnt resolved there, it can go to A/A.

The intention of the Slander/Liber section is to deal with accusations, such as zerging and other such poor conduct, not abusiveness. I can add a disclaimer to that section, clarifying what was intended.

The Vandalism section is really needed just so troll lawyers cant go "But the free speech policy doesnt say anything about vandalism!". Its a safeguard, and helpful to have around as a clarification for any readers.

The Spam thing there makes the precedent official and enshrined in the rules, and will prevent occurances such as yesterdays axe27/Kamden accusations on the A/VB page.

Thanks for your input though --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 14:57, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Well, it's ok, let's see if the next wording of the Slander/Libel section is better... anyways, I realized one more thing: as worded, the "Spam" section goes far beyond covering "codename V" cases... the "repeat posting of contentless posts" as worded covers various types of edits not intended to be covered, and susceptible to wiki lawyering: this is because in no part it says that these "contentless posts" have to be the same or almost the same: i.e. a user could report someone for posting in his talk page without saying anything of weight. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 21:46, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Updated with the suggestions you made. Any further changes? Anyone? --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 20:01, 25 September 2007 (BST)

My biggest concern still is the Slander/Libel section. I don't think it's workable: the seemingly simple concept of presenting "proof" to back one's statements get's quite convoluted when we get to "what is proof enough?" and "when said proof is mandatory?". Also, didn't you realize that the section contradicts itself saying in one place that these cases go to A/A and in the other that they go to A/VB. To fix this and other problems the section has, if possible, would take a really big ammount of time and conversation...

About everything else in the policy, I would like to have the content of the "Talk pages" section as "strongly recommended" but not mandatory. I have expressed my reasons for this above. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 20:12, 25 September 2007 (BST)

Ive settled on Arbitration, but with A/VB for using debunked evidence and not er... rebunking it, because thats just an attempt to start drama. Such things should be taken to forums.

As for talk pages: Id rather people try to work things out first. Besides, it does say "should", not "must", when referring to Talk pages. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 20:35, 25 September 2007 (BST)

What this policy does???

Grim, I am putting this here cos i don't want to break your user page but feel free to move it there if you want. You think people don't understand what this policy would achieve but I don't think you are seeing it clearly and are reacting too strongly to the overzealous civility policies. Basically what this policy would do is make two of the following statements punishable through vandal banning.

"You are a flatulent Camel!"

"I am going to beat you to within an inch of your life"

"I hope your grandfather rectally violates you and you die a slow and miserable death from the AIDS he gives you!"

You can see exactly which 2 in a heartbeat? the first is nonsense but IS slander! The second is more serious but given internet anonymity is utterly meaningless in 999,999 out of a million cases. As for the third... its not slander and its not a threat. You could complain on the posters user page and take it to Arbies if not satisfied but how many times does he have to do this for it to count as harassment? What if it gets to that stage and he says "Sorry, yeah got a bit carried away but, you know, freedom of speech and all that. I was just expressing how strongly i felt!" Don't tell me it never gets that bad cos we have both seen it in the past, sure it was a while ago but this policy as is gives carte blanche for these types of Asshole to spoil the WIKI for those with some self control and decency!--Honestmistake 20:03, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Sorry, didnt see this. You are completely wrong. The slander thing only applies to in game behaviour. Have you ever tried reading? It might make you look like you have a clue. Also, harrassment was not defined, as i have already said elsewhre here, because harrassment is subjective, and one can only rely on a persons perceptions of that harrassment. If a person says enough is enough, then its enough, stop prodding them. An arbitrary definition merely blanket forces everyone to put up with a certain amount of shit, and is hard to actually prove that its happened, since a lot of people here are capable of being quite subtle. Dont just read the thing. Try to understand it. The whole civility ship has sailed. As fucking usual, it was all a bunch of morons making a big deal of a minor and temporary blip in the vast tossing sea of this wiki without thinking of how the "problem" as they saw it was a very short term temporary, even arguably nonexistant thing, that resulted from one guy complaining about my attitude on the misconduct talk page (In a case i was cleared of any wrongdoing, i might add) and then they tried to cram it down everyones throat at the point of a fucking sword. Kevan should never have suggested adopting the Wikipedias civility policy in the first place. While he may rule the game, he doesnt participate in the community at all (A major failing of his in my opinion), and hasnt a clue how it works. We struck a nice balance here between freedom and community over the last few years, something which this policy is written to enshrine. Apparently far too many people are caught up in the "OMG! GRIM! KILLKILLKILL!" and not reading the fucking thing before they vote, and even if they do, they dont take a moment to understand it before they say or do something stupid, like you did in the above post: Make a comment attacking what you think it is without actually realising that the policy states it is not what you think. Re-read it, then understand it, THEN vote. I dont care how you vote, i just want you to vote whatever way you are voting for the right reasons instead of the wrong ones. Thats what is ticking me off. Not that people arent voting for it, but that people are voting against it because they havent actually examined and understood what it is, and make it painfully obvious that they havent a clue in their vote comments. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:31, 9 October 2007 (BST)

will answer properly when i have not been drinking. That said which bit in the slander/libel bit did i not read?

Kevans say means nothing??? fine but i think you will find that a lot of people disagree there!

What i think this is is based on what i read... i can and did read and I do not like what it says and thus i voted kill. If you do not like my vote thats fine but do not accuse me of stupidity, illiteracy or not being bright enough to understand the meaning implied by the superior intellect that is GrimS. I do understand... i just do not agree. --Honestmistake 00:23, 10 October 2007 (BST) Edited slightly now i am sober... meaning left, just made it readable for anyone not drunk ;)

Okay, i spotted the bit "I didn't read" that would be the one line that says it only applies to in game accusations, all personal insults are fine! Thats cool, it could be clearer but its there. How does that make me completely wrong? That bits the joke part of my objection, my problem is with the open invite to be abusive and the paper thin way you are trying to viel it as freedom of speech! You are not defending freedom of speech, by peddaling shite like this you are harming its cause! People want and expect a certain level of manners in any community. In the real world social pressure/censure enforces this, on the internet it is impossible to police it without express statements of what the community considers unacceptable and consequences for breaching those expectations! You feel the need to belittle people or just be outrageously rude in the larger part of your comments, its posturing trying to hide behind a mask of bluffness and its not hiding very well! You are not alone in this and you are not always guilty of doing it but if you disagree with someone your response is to take the offensive and attack them in a usually personal way. If that person is not willing to stoop to your level or is not as articulate as you they are seen to lose, if others then join in on attacking (and try to outdo you in aggresiveness) and drown out their opinion just because if its OK for you to, then how does that help freedom of speech? It doesn't because it is not freedom of speech it is bullying, it is purile crap that has no place in a school yard let alone a cojent arguement. If the best you can come up with in real life is "this is crap because you are a fucking moron" then have already lost the debate. Resorting to such abuse in the real world is a bad sign, on the internet its the equivilent of resorting to physical intimidation but without any commensurate risk--Honestmistake 14:45, 10 October 2007 (BST)

If there is anything in there that is not an ad hominem, i have yet to find it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:56, 11 October 2007 (BST)

I prefer to think of it as a Cireronian defence but given you started by attacking my vote by infering i was stupid I think we are both just as guilty ;) Seriously though, it is impossible to criticize this policy without reference to its author because it reflects so much of your opinion of how things are and should be. Its every nuance is designed to restrict the things you don't like while giving you free reign to behave in a manner many do not approve of, that is bad enough but in doing so it also opens the floodgates to assholes who would use this as a defence for things far beyond the level of abuse and aggresion you display. That is why I vote against it because it stiffles debate by awarding victory to whoever has the biggest e-penis! --Honestmistake 15:42, 11 October 2007 (BST)