Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Disruption

Opinions? Also, anyone who has a better introductory paragraph or who wants to improve wording or anything about it, feel free. --Edru/QQ 03:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Imo, if a personal attack is worth banning over, it's trolling, and if not, who cares? We're not ban-whores. Armond 04:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps, but this was intended to condense all the typical "don't be an obnoxious asshole" policies, such as NPA, into one policy, and I expected that if personal attacks weren't specifically dealt with, people would want a NPA policy in addition to this. --Edru/QQ 04:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How about harassment? I was thinking along the same lines, something a bit broader than NPA and more principle-rather-than-rule. See: User:Elviondale/Policy/User_conduct -elviondale (tahlk) 05:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism is the intentional destruction of Data on a page, either by deleting everything, or changing certain facts deliberately to other false facts. Also included is the entering of a personal or biased opinion on a page, if however, a great part of the community thinks the same about a certain thing, one should present it as a collaberal opinion rather then a fact." I was thinking about something like this for the Vandalism part? What do you guys think of it? with the collaberal opinion, I mean that for example, you put a note with "using Mending on oneself as a warrior is mostly considered a foolish thing to do." Rhydeble 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article /clapRT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 09:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a wiki, vandalism is intentionally editing somthing in a way that goes against the content scope. Backsword 12:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of having all of these collected in one document. As you say, it needs significant fleshing out. You'd probably want to add technical disruption, (eg. making pages of extreme size).

Ofc, if the "General disruption" clause is adopted, the rest of the policy is not needed, nor most other policies. Backsword 12:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true. The other sections were intended to give more specific examples of what is covered by disruption. It definitely does need lots of fleshing out(and probably a total rewording of a lot of it). I'm not much of a policy writer. --Edru/QQ 14:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, eight or nine policies made into one general policy. Very nice. Each section could be a sentence or two more detailed, but I like everything. No GW2W:TROLL and GW2W:NPA and this and that. Calor (t) 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Shouldn't we add also creating spam pages with stupid names like sex, wow or the like between the disrupting actions list?--Ricky 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would fit into vandalism, and even if not, the sysops could still ban them for it. Adding every single possible disruptive action to this policy would be unnecessary due to the discretionary nature of it. --Edru/QQ 00:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, for my experience on Guildwiki, creating spam pages is very common amongst vandals... --Ricky 00:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and then they get banned. =] --Edru/QQ 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Caps and Aim speak

Please for the love of god put using Caps lock continuously and crappy Aim Speak (see User_talk:Erf_Shakuur and the crew.)PheNaxKian(T/c) 17:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, that is very annoying. but "AIM speak" could be taken in a multitude of ways. Perhaps "Try to refrain from forms of shorthand language or disruptive styles of text, such as ALL CAPS or AlTeRnAtInG lEtTeRiNg". Calor (t) 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That works for me-shall we say "disruptive forms of communication" e.g. all caps or alternating as said beforehand, and leaving incomprehensible text/information (again see how erf shakuur&co. talk? PheNaxKian(T/c) 19:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

SO I HERD U DNT LIEK WEN WI US CAPZLOK END WRIT KK?? MAH CPZLOK IZ BRKEN END I CNNOT HLP ET KK?? --GL4S AR00WS 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold down shift while typing. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WER IZ SHIF END WAT IZ DAT FR NETHNG KK?? --GL4S AR00WS 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we're getting too specific with caps and AIMspeak. I think that consistently annoying the community should be enough to warrant a warning, and then a short ban. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Santax is right - don't try to spell out every eventuality you want to cover, it won't work (as seen on gww). Armond 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't want a system where people are gaming the system. --Santax (talk · contribs) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WuTs WrOnG wIf DiS? —̵SEERINFLOOMES 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I DONOW IZ NT RLY VRGN IZ IT KK?? --GL4S AR00WS 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GW2W:DICK

If this proposal ends up being a policy it will probably force GW2W:Don't be a dick to be a guideline (because this proposal is written in a policy style), despite the fact that GW2W:DICK > GW2W:Disruption.reanor 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So rewrite DICK in policy style. Lord Belar 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like dick as it is (?), but some ppl may misunderstand it.reanor 03:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I took that dick from meta, I adjusted it so it would work properly on this wiki as a policy. My personal opinion is that that dick is the best dick we'll have, short perhaps a few minor (but necessary) adjustments. We'll have to see how people adapt to it - it is rather prominent, after all. Beyond that, I think it's ready to operate as a full policy, and that it'll do better at its job than this will, though I'd like others' opinions on that. Perhaps we should give both a test run? Armond 09:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be because i'm jsut immature but i could sweare Armond was trying to get a couple of funnies in there )Prominent-lol. A test run on both would be best, then jsut see what the consensus is.PheNaxKian(T/c) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Me? Funny? Blasphemy. Armond 21:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the subtle thrusts of your unintentional sexual innuendo. :P Lord Belar 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unintentional? -- Armond Warblade 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol. You should work that into the policy itself. Lord Belar 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure...and we can redirect GW2W:INNUENDO here. Calor (t) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we should direct GW2W:DICK into GW2W:VAGINA. :P Lord Belar 04:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol@LordPheNaxKian(T/c) 11:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Misnomer

Together with "Don't be a dick", wording like Other actions which intentionally disrupt the wiki, according to the discretion of the sysops, are also punishable amounts to "ban whom you (don't) like". I propose to replace both policies with "Sysops can ban whom they like, for whatever reasons. Sysops are expected to exercise good judgement when doing so." and call that GW2:BAN, and be done with it. It amounts to the same thing and is more honest. --84.128.205.247 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to focus on content more and policy less. I prefer GWiki's precedent of waiting it out; not reacting to every minor scenario with another policy proposal, most of which don't solve the problem anyway. If something becomes a real problem (i.e., the build namespace became a hotbed of personal attacks), then the community can draft up something to solve the problem... however, rushing headlong into policy discussion is the wrong way to go about it. It's hard to *know* what kind of people you're going to have on a wiki, and when you rush to policy discussions first, you haven't taken the time to mesh with them - you're immediately at odds, trying to prove a point and "win" an argument. If people spend a few weeks (or a month) getting content filled in and styles agreed upon, they'll be more cohesive when it comes time to craft policy, which will make consensus much more obvious and will keep pages-long arguments to a minimum.

On your original point, though, I don't mind that at all. As long as the bureaucrats are active (and, imo, that won't be a problem) free-reign sysops won't be a problem. -Auron 10:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)