User:Backsword/Culture Poll

A trend I've been noticing in most policy system discussion is a focus on describing how the system would handle things like a persistent vandal or a sysop who snaps and starts blocking all users who's name starts with an 'A'. That doesn't really interest me. Any viable system will deal with that in pretty much the same way. Where difference matters are an issues where you have more than one established group of well meaning users disagreeing. In practice that mostly means what one could call 'wiki culture'. Rather than trying to figure out what views each system would en favouring, and because that answer is often dependent on community views, I want to find out what people actually think on these issues.

Hence this poll. I hope to get responses from diverse groups, as to provide an overview. Thus hoping people will take the time to answer these questions. I'd also welcome general comments on the talk page.

Questions

1. Offensiveness. While everything is offensive to someone, some things are offensive to large number of people. Is there a limit on how many people one can offend before some statement becomes disallowed? Does the statement being related to wiki affairs make a difference here?
2. Trolling. Is zero tolerance desirable, or is some degree of intentionally trying to rile up other users OK, perhaps even good?
3. Preference in words. As a matter of taste, people prefer some types of language. Should some not be part of the wiki discourse? (Profanity can be an example, but this is not a repeat of the offensivness question, so things like 'leetspeak', jargon or dialects may be better ones)
4. Harshness. To what degree should malicious users be given a second chance? (And a third and so on)
5. Punitive action. Should administrative action only be preventative, or should users be harmed as a deterrent? (Beyond what is incidental to preventive actions) If the latter, what sort of actions are appropriate? (Eg. would deleting someones userpage be OK?)
6. Discourse mode. How should people who have a disagreement over fact or opinions go about to come to an resolution that is used by all sides? In detail, such as how discussions should be framed and what sort of statements should be made to get resolution.
7. Directness. Are users required to put 'padding' on their claims, or are blunt facts OK?
8. Enforcement. Policy can be used to try to force the wiki culture in one way. Irrespective of how policy is technically made, who's values should be reflected in such policy? This includes the case when the value is that policy should not affect an issue. Additionally, if there is no consensus in this group, which subgroup applies? (Eg. majority)

Answers

Santax

First off, I suppose I should state my experience with wikis (this is a diversity poll after all). I was a contributor to GWW since before the project was officially announced, and before that, the only wiki I had experience with was Uncyclopedia, which I have been a member of for 2 and a half of its 3-year existence. Uncyclopedia has two basic rules: be funny and not just stupid, and don't be a dick (the second rule can be ignored if it conflicts with the first - although I'm not saying that should happen here, due to the differing content scopes of the wikis). It is run by a democratic oligarchy - many things are decided by a vote, but ultimately the administration decides whether the outcome of the vote should dictate a consequence or not. The system has worked well for Uncyclopedia, and has kept it running for 3 years.

1. Re: Ofensiveness. Imo, just apply NPA and handle it on a case-by-case basis. Personal attacks can apply to a group as well as a single person.
2. Re: Trolling. Zero tolerance. Trolling is not a positive thing, and although, yes, people like Raptors have been able to change the wiki for the better, there were better ways of doing it than 9 months of trolling. If trolling was the only way to change something on this wiki, then we could end up on a slippery slope where everyone was doing it just to prove a point.
3. Re: Preference in words. Profanity is acceptable for expressive purposes, but there are some words that there is simply no reason to use (I'm thinking of a word beginning with c that is offensive in any context).
4. Re: Harshness. A first offence (unless the offence was clearly in bad faith) should be handled with a warning, a second with a short ban depending on the offence commited, and then every subsequent offence should warrant a substantially longer ban than the previous. Admins should not be afraid to permanently ban disruptive users. I understand the concern that the user may wish to reform and rejoin the wiki as a good contributor, but that is highly unlikely. However, perhaps some sort of an appeal system could be set up for such cases?
5. Re: Punitive action. My reply for harshness pretty much covers this one. Any user that is patently disruptive should be handled in a way that is both preventative and a deterrent.
6. Re: Discourse mode. Discussion, of course. If you cannot reach a conclusion with discussion, then primitive mob-rule will have to handle the case with a vote. I know that most of the GuildWiki and GWW community are opposed to voting, but personal experience shows that it is the best way to resolve something that otherwise would simply not come to a conclusion otherwise, especially when you are trying to reach a decision by a certain date.
7. Re: Directness. Why would anyone need to sugar-coat an argument? As long as the argument isn't offensive, and is a valid one, then there's no reason why directness can be a bad thing.
8. Re: Enforcement. I'm not sure I quite understand this one. If by this you mean "who should decide how policy is enforced?" then imo, the community can discuss and debate how policy is enforced, but ultimately, the administration should decide how it should be done - after all, they are the ones who have been trusted by the community to run the wiki, and the best way to rid the wiki of this "glorified janitor" mentality is to give them some real responsibility. Of course, this means the community will also have to be much more responsible in electing sysops. Fortunately, I think our current sysop lineup is very capable, but the community needs to be a lot more picky in elections and avoid RFA frenzies like when the RFA system was introduced on GWW.

Those are my answers, and good luck with your poll, Backsword :) --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Gimmethegepgun

Well, my first Wiki experience was GuildWiki, joined up September '06, been there ever since. In general, it seems like things should run the way they are there, unlike GWW, but anyway, my points:

1. Follow the NPA. If something is just used as a general statement and then some random wandering user takes offense, there's no reason to do anything about it. If it was directed at that person or a large number of people who took offense, then it's a problem.
2. Trolling is largely unacceptable, but a little bit (so long as you don't get into a massive flame war and you stop if someone asks you to) can be productive in some situations.
3. Profanity is largely just a matter of taste. Use it sparingly, when the situation is right, such as when referring to how bad something is, just use "shit" instead of laming up the statement by substituting in "crap" or "terrible" or something like that.
4. If it's something really minor, like it looks like they want the Sandbox, direct them there. After that, or if it's more major than that, give them a warning. Past that, start applying bans. After a single short ban, greatly extend the period of the ban, unless they go through an appeals process. For major vandalism sprees, don't give a second chance, ban them for a couple months and keep them away, unless they go through an appeals.
5. I don't really see what you mean by "harm", since a ban is a deterrent unless you smack a really minor Sandbox-misser with a month ban or something. It's really just preventative, you can't do a whole lot punitive on a wiki.
6. Talk it out amongst themselves and the community, the whole time avoiding trolling. That's about it.
7. Coating up a point with nothingness accomplishes very little, and more often than not makes it so people can't understand you properly. If it would inflame them or the current conversation if said bluntly, don't say it at all!
8. Not very strong opinions on this one

Well, that's what I have to say --Gimmethegepgun 04:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Ecker

1. I'm very hard to offend, but because this is the game's official website, I think we should keep things appropriate for teenagers. If Guild Wars 2 gets an M rating, we can loosen it up.
2. No, abrasive users can still be valuable contributors, and sometimes it's really hard to phrase something politely.
3. It depends on what rating GW2 gets. Generally, I think we should go by the word filter, with exceptions for any word used by the game and any innocuous English words which are filtered because of their non-English homographs.
4. I don't think we should permaban someone unless their negative contributions outweigh their positive contributions.
5. Punative blocks are fine, long-term blocks should be reserved for serious misconduct.
6. Is this about article content? If so, each side should provide evidence until one side concedes or gains concensus support.
7. Blunt facts are fine, but criticism should be directed at actions and comments rather than people.
8. Any registered members of the community who care to participate in the discussion.

-- Gordon Ecker 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Xeeron

This is a very good idea to get an overview of how people around here feel. I fully agree with you that "issues where you have more than one established group of well meaning users disagreeing" are bound to provide the majority of problems in trying to come up with policies and managing the wiki.

1. Offensiveness. While people will vary in what they find offensive, we have to try to find the middle ground between all users here. That is, if one person is offended, but 99 are not, it is very likely your statement was not what is generally found offensive (and the other way round). Similar, to me, there is a difference between being offensive while making a point and being pointless offensive. The first is bad, but the second is worse.
2. Trolling. Trolling is just as hard to define as offensiveness. IF there are actions which everyone agrees on as trolling, they should not be tolerated. The problem starts when some people feel it was trolling and others dont.
3. Preference in words. I can deal with a pretty huge amount of profanity (so long as it is not a direct attack on others). Personally, I categorise people using large amounts of profanity as immature and value their comments less, because heavy use of profanity shows me that they are unable to articlate more appropriate, which again suggests they are not all that clever, but I don't feel profanity should be forbidden: Why disallow people to make a fool out of themselves?
4. Harshness. All rules should be made clear from the start and people who break them once should be informed that they broke a rule and asked to stop. However if people presist in their activity after being warned, I don't see the value in giving third and forth chances.
5. Punitive action. In most cases a punitive ban will also be preventive, but since the adherence to policies depends partly on their deterrent value, enforcement should not be restricted to be soley preventive.
6. Discourse mode. The wiki provides plenty of methods (article talk pages, user talk pages, RFC) to foster discussion. That should be the first and by far most common way used. In the (let me stress this) very rare case that no consensus can be found and not acting is not an option, other methods that can be used are arbitrary decisions by a specified sub-group of users (e.g. arbcom on GWW for user disputes) or voting (e.g. bureaucrats elections on GWW).
7. Directness. As long as everyone is aware that directness does not equal offeniveness, there is nothing speaking against being direct.
8. Enforcement. Policies should decide who enforces and all users should decide on policies.

--Xeeron 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Calor

Getting everyone's ideas is a good way to find a group's general pool of options:

1. Offensiveness: If someone's calling another person a Nazi or someone, then...we issue a warning. Case-by-case basis, with NPA/Disruption/whatever as a line in the sand as for roughly where the border between "joking" and "insulting and cruel" is.
2. Trolling: Some small degree of trolling or riling people up is good for something to loosen people up and to change the norm, but nothing that can harm the wiki drive users away, or disrupt or slow discussions
3. Preference of words: I'm perfectly fine with profanity until it reaches the ten-year-old level of "Hey, fucker, learn how to play the goddamn game, or get a fucking life". It's a good way to express strong emotion, but can easily be used in a negative manner in discussions.
4. Harshness: This is tough. We gave Raptors about sixty chances. I'm for a degree of lenience, but enough action to maintain the image of "No bullshit, or it's ban stick for you". If a minor vandal contacts an admin in some way and apologizes, admits their wrongs, and asks for a second chance, then the admin should use their discretion. Maybe a second chance, maybe not. But leave the door open to all malicious users for a second chance.
5. Punitive Action: Most (such as gibberbots) should be preventative to stop unnecessary burden on users. But if someone is repeatedly a vandal or troll, then some sort of block, be it three days, a week, two, or more, should be given.
6. Discourse mode:Generally the arguments, in retrospect, are relatively trivial. Liche/Lussh v. Eloc could easily have been solved without a block. But we let it go on. As a last resort, ti should be handed to ArbComm.
7. Directness: Auron is blunt. He's respected as a valued contributor in the community. Sure, people can occasionally be pissed off, but it's for the better of the wiki. Blunt until it's "No dumbass, see XYZ".
8. Enforcement: I'm not sure I fully understand this one either. The admins should have the ability to use their discretion, but part of their decision should be how the average userbase feels about the situation.

-- Calor (t) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric

I helped found the GuildWiki and worked on it from its founding in summer 2005 until its sale to Wikia in late 2007. From 12 August 2006 until 14 September 2007 I acted as bureaucrat, providing guidance in policy matters, acting as final arbiter in conflicts, and serving the role of "foundational policy" for the wiki. I appointed (and in Skuld's case, removed) sysops who acted as autonomous entities themselves.

I additionally helped found the Guild Wars Wiki and have worked on it since its inception. I was a grandfathered bureaucrat who voluntarily implemented term limits and self-removed authority upon the end of those limits. I have been nominated for every bureaucrat election since, but have not been elected for a seat.

1. Any offensiveness that exists merely to be offensive is trolling. Content that exists to meaningfully enhance the wiki, and yet is found by some to be offensive, is just content. Content that's offensive for political/religious/other regions, for example, a statement on one's user page, should be handled with common sense. Some examples:
   • "FUCK EVERYBODY" on a policy talk page is mere trolling. If the word "fuck" is offensive to some, it's irrelevant.
   • "We should talk about whether the word "fuck" is allowed on the wiki" posted on a talk page is clearly designed to start a discussion. If the word "fuck" is offensive to some, it's irrelevant.
   • A userbox stating "This user is a member of a white supremacist organization." is a statement of one's beliefs and should not be censored or punished, even though the idea behind the userbox is offensive to most. A userbox stating "This user wants to kill all niggers." is offensive and is an attack against a group. Alternatively, no statements about personal lives should be allowed at all. It should either be all or nothing.
2. Any statement that disrupts discussion or the operation of the wiki should be disallowed. I don't want a "no trolling" policy -- but a "no disruption" policy would suit me.
3. People should use the words that make the point. There are legitimate uses for the word "fuck."
4. We should be as forgiving as possible. That said, we should also be fair. Blocks should, in general, escalate in duration as disruptive behavior continues.
5. I don't really know what "harm a user" means. That said, administrative actions should solve the problem. Preventative blocks and warnings are usually the best tool in solving a problem. However, in certain cases, punitive blocks help solve the problem too, depending of course on what "the problem" is. Every situation requires analysis.
6. People should solve their own problems. People should give. People should accept that their opposition's opinion is usually just as valid as their own. In cases where the two parties cannot come to a reasonable conclusion amongst themselves, they should work to bring in other third parties to assist -- preferably a single third party they both agree on. In cases where a single party is being obstinate or otherwise counter-productive, a sysop can intervene. There could also be either a single Arbiter or an Arbitration Committee to handle situations where all other options have failed to conclude the issue.
7. People should be as polite as possible and should avoid personal attacks. That said, a fact is a fact and there should be no politeness requirement or policy.
8. If the users in general can come to a meaningful consensus, the users in general should decide this. Only when the users cannot come to consensus should a bureaucracy be invoked. Using wiki-terms, my preference for our bureaucratic structure would be a single bureaucrat who appoints a team of autonomous sysops. However, this situation is unlikely to form without ArenaNet interference, so my next preference would be a set of elected bureaucrats who appoints a team of autonomous sysops.

—Tanaric 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rezyk

1. Offensiveness: Draw the line along NPA, and "who found it offensive" should not matter outside of NPA. Being related to wiki affairs should not matter except for potentially and unofficially being more understanding about intent.
2. Trolling: Not worthwhile (despite any positives) and should be discouraged. But unless really disruptive, should be addressed socially/culturally (ignore them) rather than strictly/formally.
3. Preference in words: Weakly favor not being restrictive in matters of taste and rating. But we should also be sensitive to the needs of our host, if any.
4. Harshness: Just take something appropriately preventative, and err on the side of openness if anything. A public wiki has great strength in openness and great weakness in harshness.
5. Punitive action: Probably should reword as "action for punitive reasons", to avoid the argument that certain actions have an unavoidable punitive effect. Punishing reputation, such as with an ArbComm finding, can be okay. Blocking for punitive reasons is especially unnecessary (due to preventative justification), disruptive, and promotes a bad mentality of treating blocking as a solid general solution to many problems.
6. Discourse mode: Pursue discussion & consensus. If consensus decision-making is to be abandoned for a direct democracy, then it can generally fall to a vote. If abandoned for an (institutionalized) oligarchy, it can fall to the higher-ups.
7. Directness: Not sure what issue there is here; leave this aspect up to the individual, as long as they are being civil.
8. Enforcement: First, look to the group that is empowered to edit the site. Failing that, and in case of internal disagreement, depends on the underlying ideal followed for management (and one should be determined):
   • If consensus decision-making, decide by consensus. As a matter of necessary practicality, also set up consensus pre-approval for certain cases as warranted (such as vandalism), and a group with very open-ended discretionary powers in arbitration that is limited appropriately in principle to uphold consensus management.
   • If some sort of top-down system (a dictatorship or institutionalized oligarchy), leave it to the higher-ups.

--Rezyk 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wynthyst

1. Offensiveness - This is a difficult question because it is purely subjective in nature. What some will be offended by others won't. IMO attacks against a person or group are offensive and should not be tolerated. Terms that are generally accepted by the community as an expression of emotion or to convey an idea, but that are not directed at an individual or group should be tolerated.
2. Trolling - Trolling is generally disruptive to the community as a whole, and should not be tolerated in general. However, I oppose any policy that sets down lists of actions or words that automatically generate administrative action.
3. Preference in words - The use of profanity in documenting the game is a bad thing. The use of profanity on a user page, or talk page as an expression of emotion can be tolerated. Profanity being directed at a person or group is offensive and should not be tolerated. The use of profanity for the sole purpose of disrupting a discussion is simply obnoxious and shouldn't be tolerated.
4. Harshness - There really is no real way to stop someone from being obnoxious. Warn, short ban, longer ban, perma ban. That should cover it. I believe in personal accountability for one's actions.
5. Punitive action - There really is no way to harm anyone on a public wiki. No ban is going to stop someone really out to cause disruption. Prevention is always preferable to punishment.
6. Discourse - As a wiki, this is by definition a community site. The promotion of participation in decision making through discussion/debate is necessary if it is to remain a vital, viable community.
7. Directness - Plain statement of facts does not have to be harsh, or mean, it is just a plain statement of facts and less likely to be misinterpreted than a padded version.
8. Enforcement - A well chosen small group, or individual at the top with support from a well chosen larger group who are granted discretionary enforcement rights, allowing for community involvement in choosing, and monitoring their actions.

-- Wynthyst 11:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Snograt

I'm a frequent changes patroller who edits when his brain works. This user is a middle-aged wrinkly guy who, nevertheless, feels his opinions to be as valid as those of whippersnapppers.

1. Offensiveness - Intent is key here, in my opinion. Some people are naturally offensive without intent to be, whereas others set out to actively offend. The latter are the problem.
2. Trolling - Trolling is deliberate antagonisation of other users and, unless used in an obviously ironic way, should be discouraged.
3. Preference in words - Articles should be written in plain, non-confrontational English. The odd fuck on a talk page isn't going to hurt anybody and leet is never used except in cases of irony anyway. Anyone using AOL-speak however should be noted as a potential troublemaker.
4. Harshness Shoot first, ask questions later. If any admin sees malicious behaviour, ban. This could lead to discussion amongst admins, but this way the limits will be established fairly quickly.
5. Punitive action - Preventative action generally is punitive - blocks usually dent the ego too. A block is also the limit of what can be done as a punishment - we sure as hell don't need someone to make a "This user is a tool" template.
6. Discourse mode - If two editors can't agree on something, the issue should be set aside for consensus at the earliest opportunity. RFC?
7. Directness - Padding should never be a requirement. Pad if you must, but facts is where it's at.
8. Enforcement - Bah, there really is no viable (read "acceptable to all parties") alternative to Bureaucrats -> Sysops -> Users.

Snograt 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Defiant Elements

As far as my experience with wikis goes, I started off a couple of years ago as an active contributor to GuildWiki where my focus was mainly the build section. I had a single (failed) RfA on GuildWiki before moving to PvXwiki (which I helped found) where I became a Bureaucrat in the very early stages (and I've been a Bureaucrat there ever since). My focus on PvXwiki has been primarily managerial and policy related.

1. Offensiveness: The point has already been made, but I'll re-state it, whether or not something is offensive should be decided on a case-by-case basis with the intent as the most important determining factor. An "offensive" comment on a user page which is clearly a joke should not be precluded. Similarly, comments which are inadvertently offensive or only slightly offensive are acceptable as well. Additionally, a questionably offensive remark made to make a point might be acceptable, while a pointlessly offensive remark would not be.
2. Trolling: Trolling is alright essentially up until the point when it begins being disruptive to the Wiki. A little bit of harmless fun is one thing, in fact, getting people a bit riled up can be positive (also note that being "blunt" with a user is not equivalent to being a troll), but when it becomes excessive, it should be dealt with. Generally only the worst cases should be dealt with via administrative action, this should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
3. Preference in words: Articles should (obviously) be written in plain English. As far as talk/user pages go, profanity only becomes a problem when its intention is to attack/demean a user pointlessly or when it becomes disruptive. Similarly, posting everything in caps or bold text might be construed as disruptive.
4. Harshness: Cases of obvious vandalism (for instance an anonymous user whose only contribution is to replace the text of an article with a string of profanities) should be dealt with harshly. That said, we should not assume that new users are familiar with policy and should generally assume good faith and respond with a simple warning directing the user to the appropriate policy link. However, Sysops should not be afraid to use their authority to block users who they suspect of being malicious (e.g. if an account looks like a sockpuppet and acts like a sockpuppet -- and it shares an IP with an existing account -- it should be banned as a sockpuppet immediately rather than waiting for the user to produce exculpatory evidence). Bans should increase in length depending on the number of infractions a user has committed, and Sysops should not be afraid to permaban users whose actions demonstrated an obvious pattern of malicious behavior. The exact length of a given ban should be left to the Sysop who is handing down the ban.
5. Punitive action: Generally, bans should be preventive. However, if a situation calls for punitive action (this being left to the discretion of the Sysop), then, longer, punitive bans are a legitimate response.
6. Discourse mode: Obviously, in most cases, simple discussion should be used to attempt to establish consensus. Sysops may intervene in deadlocked debates or debates which have begun to escalate in order to prevent further escalation; ArbComm may be used as a last resort. Disagreements should not be resolved through votes; while polls are a legitimate means of gaining consensus, Sysops (or ArbComm as necessary) should have the authority to render a final decision. In doing so, they should consider the debates that have been laid out and the results of polls; however, they should not be constrained to those results. That said, they should only do so when it is obvious that consensus cannot be reached, and consensus, if reached, should be the absolute determiner.
7. Directness: Being direct or blunt (as long as it's not purposefully offensive) is a legitimate tactic. Padding is fine, but the foundation should be "factual" (i.e. based on empirical or anecdotal evidence).
8. Enforcement: If the users are unable to reach consensus, the manner in which a policy is enforced should be left up to the Sysops/Bureaucrats (depending). They should act in a manner that reflects the spirit of the policy, and, while the majority may have a larger say than the minority, once a Sysop becomes involved (assuming consensus remains unreachable), they should have the authority to act in the best interests of the Wiki (as they see fit).

– *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mister Pepe

Yo.

Many of you know me from the GW1W. For those who don't, hi. I'm a sysop over there (added note - o0, I'm apparently one here as well, news to me), and my favorite word is "Schadenfreude." As a disclaimer for these responses, I'm very much in favor of latitude in applying any and all policies - the thing I hate the most about about the GW1W (WTB better acronym) is how rules-oriented we became after a while. I can remember quite a few times when I would have killed a puppy just to get a little leeway in my decisions, especially after we got some rules-lawyering twerps in there ;)

That being said, let's do this (Leerooooyyy).

1. Offensiveness: NPA FTW =\ 'Nuff said.
2. Trolling: As much as I enjoy trolling (and I rather do), I'm against it in a wiki environment. Trolling is, almost by definition, working against the collaboration that a wiki depends on - rather than helping others, you're trying to get a rise out of them, which is generally counterproductive. There's a fairly significant difference between trolling and mocking/joking/being blunt. I'm against the former, and completely in favor of the latter >:D
3. Preference in words: I will pay anyone who can invent a device that punches l33tsp34kers in the face with the click of a button as much as they want. Seriously. More on topic, though - this is an English language wiki (at least for now), and the language used should follow that principle. Profanity is acceptable, IMO, as long as it doesn't conflict with concepts like NPA. I'm not entirely sure if there's any need to balance that against the fact that there are a lot of ~13yo users. Meh. More importantly, I think that language on talk pages should be almost entirely unregulated; while it's a very good idea to create and enforce formatting guidelines on content pages, it's just as important to have free discussion. Forcing people to write their comments in a style/dialect that is unfamiliar seems to be overly punitive to users with less than an en-N level.
4. Harshness: Case-by-case basis. I'd like a general set of guidelines (probably not policy) for punishments. In every case there are always circumstances that affect the issue - for example, a non-logged in user is likely to be punished more for the same infraction than a logged-in user that has made a large number of beneficial contributions to the community. Spambot = permaban, IMO.
5. Punitive action: Anyone who says that administrative action is only preventative, a penalty, or a deterrent is kidding themselves. It's a mixture of the three (and probably several other components that aren't coming to mind at the moment). Perhaps we should also clarify what we're talking about; "administrative action" has, in the past, really just been a fancy way of saying "ban." A ban has all of these effects, and I'm glad it does - blocking someone who repeatedly vandalizes pages both keeps them from vandalizing further, discourages them from doing so in the future (assuming the ban is lifted), and hopefully deters others from vandalizing as well. I think that picking a category to put it in is somewhat shortsighted, and that there is absolutely no point in categorizing blocks. When it comes to it, a block is a block (especially if there are colored letters written on the sides). As a final note, I'm in favor of more creative penalties as well - the default answer should not always be "block," as it has been. For example, deleting and protecting a userpage from recreation might be better than blocking a user that has consistently put offensive material on the page.
6. Discourse mode: It's a wiki. There are disagreements. Sometimes, I think that the whole thing is one big argument with small sub-factions on each talk page =\ Discussion, and its older sibling Consensus, are the ultimate goal on a wiki. Ideally, everything would be solved by talking about it, but, unfortunately, that's not always the case. Honestly, I'm not really naive enough to think that people will go along with the decision of a third party unless that third party has the power to back it up, but I'd still ideally like to see a small group of non-administrators that could make decisions in user conflicts - ArbComm, but a distinct entity, rather than the group of BCrats. I do not think that polls are a valid measure of consensus, and I think that they often give very misleading results (take the New Hampshire primary, for example - Obama was due, according to the polls, to win in a landslide). While it's often slower, I think waiting for community consensus is ideal - though, almost by its nature, a wiki is somewhat of a meritocracy. People you see making a lot of good contributions will have more of a voice when it comes to influencing you, it's just that simple. I seem to have stayed a bit from the topic, essaying at 1am ftw - let's see if I can wrap this up. I'm sure that there'll be some sort of policy for this in the future, but I'd just like to say that I do not feel that the Administrators should be in charge of making decisions in every user conflict - that has the potential to seriously harm the credibility and perceived neutrality of the administration staff. Admins should be there to keep the wiki running and maintain the written policies (once again, leeway), and involving the people with the banhammer in every user dispute can make it seem like all of an admins actions are being made to further some particular agenda. I'd like there to be a group that escalated issues can go to (larger than the 3-bcrat thing, to avoid taking days on end to make a decision - 24 hours would be reasonable/ideal IMO) that does not have administrator powers at all.
7. Directness: I generally find that, in a discussion, it's far more effective to persuade rather than say what I'm thinking straight out, but I see no reason at all to regulate this.
8. Enforcement: I am a believer in consensus. Majority should not rule on a wiki. The idea of consensus has a number of benefits - it shows who knows the most about the topic in the discussion, and it shows who cares the most about the topic. A simple vote can be pretty easily manipulated, while the consensus approval process gives added merit to the arguments of those who the discussion affects the most and those who have the most perspective, which seems, at least to me, to be ideal. I think that a consensus decision allows for both an accurate representation of what users on the wiki think, while avoiding any harmful or potentially destructive issues. As far as the (mildly inaccurate) section title goes, some degree of leeway is necessary in enforcing policy as written. Rules lawyering is quite possibly the single most destructive thing a wiki can face (as usual, IMO).

Finally, I'd like to mention that a lot of these section headings have little or nothing to do with the questions they ask. Nice.

Heh. Look at me being all verbose. MisterPepe talk 08:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Entropy on GuildWiki

It is late and I'm tired, but here are my thoughts for now...

1. Offensiveness. While everything is offensive to someone, some things are offensive to large number of people. Is there a limit on how many people one can offend before some statement becomes disallowed? Does the statement being related to wiki affairs make a difference here?

Simply put: NPA is good. GWW:PROFANITY is was not. No one can make a set of words and phrases which are the "standard of bad" and must always be censored. I believe that common sense tells us most of the things which are obviously offensive to a large number of people, such as pestering someone on the Wiki about in-game behavior or using obviously malicious hate speech/profanity for the sole purpose of offending. Stuff like that just doesn't belong, and we should all know that. Now, it's obviously the more borderline cases here that you are concerned with. On that issue my belief is that it doesn't matter how many people were offended. If a user insults another, even unwittingly, then they are in the wrong. "Sanity is not statistical" and one person's sensitivity about something is not automatically right. The exception to this is breaking AGF. For example if some user came and said that all words starting with A were offensive to them. That's just bullshit. But again I believe common sense can tell us that.

Wiki drama is usually one of the worst types of offensive statements because they can actually be proved or at least researched...it is all right there. I believe that while Wiki issues are best resolved on the Wiki, sometimes it is better for the community to take such disputes elsewhere. If you know you can't reach an agreement without profuse swearing and general bitching, take it to IRC or in-game and hash it out there. (Saves RC too.)

If you're specifically talking about the Wiki itself...well. Freedom of expression? Bah, doesn't really exist here. I can say that from reading heated debates - such as the Wikia page on GuildWiki - sometimes rather nasty stuff comes up which is likely offensive. However, I think that you have to look at the root cause before just labeling something as offensive and repriminding the perpetrator. If there was no other way to get your important point across than by calling Gravewit an asshole, then...so be it.

Honestly, as much as I would like people to never be offensive, it is only natural. You have to weigh the costs and benefits. At what point does dealing with offensiveness and censorship become too costly? Does it help the Wiki more to let a good but foul-mouthed contributor go...or to punish him? Case-by-case basis, I'm thinking.

2. Trolling. Is zero tolerance desirable, or is some degree of intentionally trying to rile up other users OK, perhaps even good?

"Do NOT disrupt the wiki just to make a point." -PanSola, echoing the thoughts of many

If they are trolling and it is bothering someone, then take the zero tolerance stand. If it is just some friends poking fun at each other, don't give a damn unless it leads to, say, massive RC spam or misuse of Ban templates. Trolling is almost always a bad thing; I can't think of any situations where it has resulted in something positive. Bottom line, if it disrupts the Wiki, take zero tolerance. Use discretion.

3. Preference in words. As a matter of taste, people prefer some types of language. Should some not be part of the wiki discourse? (Profanity can be an example, but this is not a repeat of the offensivness question, so things like 'leetspeak', jargon or dialects may be better ones)

If you're on a Talk page which is trivial, I don't give a damn what language you want to speak, as long as it doesn't offend someone. For example, using all caps or leetspeak on a Policy discussion page is probably a bad idea. For all the important areas of the wiki, though, standard English should be used, whether that is from USA or England or wherever. And yes, I would consider banning for this, as it is disruptive. We try to reach the largest audience possible, and part of that is making the Wiki readable for everyone. So try and avoid your leetspeak and jargon unless it is directly relevant. (example: explanation of 1337 on Flux Matrix.)

4. Harshness. To what degree should malicious users be given a second chance? (And a third and so on)

I advocate giving second chances when feasible, precisely because almost everyone can do an about-face and become a useful contributor. This is especially true of the Wiki-savvy vandals; we could use their expertise. However, you have to use your head...if someone makes an account just for spamming, links to shock sites, starts massive blanking, goes after a user repeatedly with socks...etc...then don't give a second thought to infinibans. Be harsh to harsh vandals.

Basically, if they ask for a second chance, give it to them...and then watch carefully. The additional harm that someone can do is insignificant compared to the possible benefits which may come from letting them go. If you honestly believe someone may reform, they show the desire to do so, and their "crimes" are not too heinous, then definitely consider it. Remember AGF and common sense.

Third chances, though? Not likely.

5. Punitive action. Should administrative action only be preventative, or should users be harmed as a deterrent? (Beyond what is incidental to preventive actions) If the latter, what sort of actions are appropriate? (Eg. would deleting someones userpage be OK?)

Admins are not the Gestapo. We do not "make examples" of people just to deter vandals. That just encourages them. The ban is a tool to help counter vandalism and serve as a strong warning. It is not for personal vendettas or a threat device. Eye for an Eye doesn't work on Wiki. Admins do not punish, they admonish. Abusing deletion powers to kill userpages is NOT okay as a "deterrant". Never use your admin powers beyond what is necessary to deal with a user...don't let anger or vigilante justice carry you beyond that. What's done is done, and a fixed Wikipage is no grievance.

6. Discourse mode. How should people who have a disagreement over fact or opinions go about to come to an resolution that is used by all sides? In detail, such as how discussions should be framed and what sort of statements should be made to get resolution.

Disagreements over "facts" are quickly settled, and accordingly those should be resolved ASAP by referencing the relevant authorities. No problems here.

Unfortunately, most "facts" are actually opinions, and many opinions have the truthiness of fact. It is not our job to define what is true and what is not true, beyond the absolute sense; we aren't metaphysicians. But, we always try to keep an open forum where everyone can participate in the discussion. Don't resolve things in private over chat, unless they are personal issues that the rest of the Wiki has no business intruding in. Bring it to the Talk pages. That is what they are for.

"Consensus" and voting are generally very bad things. They mean little unless every person involved is actually qualified to do so. To come to a resolution, you almost always have to compromise between opinions. To get there, have both sides present their arguments and counterarguments...and let people discuss them after that. Give adequate notice, and consider informing people with experience who may be able to help. Hopefully, that much positive attention should solve the problem.

Things which are forever argued without end, like good secondary professions for X or a good build Y or the current usefulness of Z in PvP....well. You honestly can't do much for some arguments, as they are ever-changing and just too complex. While people should always try to debate with reason, and respect their opponents, sometimes it just isn't that important because neither side will win anyways.

7. Directness. Are users required to put 'padding' on their claims, or are blunt facts OK?

We don't have a GW:BE NICE policy. No one is "required" to tell the truth lightly. While it is encouraged to always be civil and not offend people, sometimes it just cannot be helped. If there is no way to tell a truth but the blunt way, then so be it. Auron knows about this...When it comes to opinions, though, that is different. Opinions are not truth, and so you should try not to force them on people...having "a majority" or "the meta" to back you up is no reason to be uncivil, really. Some people are just direct by nature and I see no reason why we should either persecute them or condone them.

8. Enforcement. Policy can be used to try to force the wiki culture in one way. Irrespective of how policy is technically made, whose values should be reflected in such policy? This includes the case when the value of that policy should not affect an issue. Additionally, if there is no consensus in this group, which subgroup applies? (Eg. majority)

"Policy" is...dangerous. It is not the law, even though people would say that it is. It is not the spirit of the law, either, because that is already ingrained in the Wiki and does not get written down. Policies are some mishmash of the two, and depending on how you interpret them, they can be used many ways.

The values behind every policy should ideally be those of the Wiki as a whole. Policy is to help, not hurt, the Wiki and further its goals towards streamlining the compilation of information and presenting it in an easily accessible form. GWW:IGNORE is a partial explanation of this. On a Wiki, "laws" can be bent or broken as required, and a policy should never stand in the way of the ultimate goal. Always check for intent first - was policy willingly and knowingly broken? Was it to help or hurt the Wiki?

Policy is no excuse for witch-hunts. Wikis do not force compliance with policies unless it is vitally important to do so. GWW:AGF and GWW:NPA are critically important to maintain and uphold because that is the basis (well, most of it) for a safe and welcoming environment where everyone can contribute. GWW:SIGN is...well...petty. Don't go around checking user's sigs and reporting them...unless it is actually causing a problem, like user impersonation or disrupting the Wiki, then that is such an insignificant issue. I mean - OMG his sig image is 1 PIXEL too big! Honestly, QQ, there are so much better things to spend your energy on.

Consensus means shit. All policies are intended to help, not hurt, the Wiki. If "the majority" thinks they are there to punish and shackle the users, then...screw them. They are wrong, plain and simple. If "the majority" disagrees on which way of helping the Wiki is best, use your discretion. Past precedents are good, but it should not be set down as a rule that we must always follow subgroup X's decisions.

-Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 11:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Auron

1. Offensiveness - hypersensitivity is a worse sin than murder IMO. Most cases where users are offended, they whine (usually indirect, like on the admin noticeboard). On a solid wiki with admins that can think, I'd trust the admins to either tell the whiner to quit whining or to reprimand the offender if it was serious enough (throwing "nigger" around is serious, being offended by anything less borders on hypersensitivity).
2. Trolling - Some is tolerable. Stupidity abounds (flourishes in untold amounts) if trolling is absolutely disallowed. Pointless trolling ("lol ur so dum") is meh, admins can ban for it because it violates every version of NPA I've ever read; but the other kind of trolling ("wow, did you seriously suggest wild blow as a counter to deadly paradox? wow... just wow" - etc) is a reality check for the OP. You can't just let stupid people continue being stupid - they've got to learn somehow or the quality of the wiki will just deteriorate to nothing. A bit of trolling is a good way to keep people thinking inside the box of "sane."
3. Censorship (oh, preference in words, I guess you called it) - As this is an English language wiki, discussion should be solely in English - and all of its dialects, including moonspeak and leetspeak. If you can't understand a comment, just ask; someone will translate.
4. Harshness - Up to the admin team (meaning each individually). If a kind admin gives someone a 1 day ban and the person comes back and vandalizes/pulls a raptors, the next admin along can decide if the user is being helpful or harmful and ban accordingly.
5. Punitive blocks - Wow, I read that question wrong the first time. Yes, punitive blocks are fine, on admin preference. Kinder admins will give shorter blocks, sterner admins will give longer blocks; both are fine. If a user is a persistent vandal/troll, punishment should be left to the sterner admins.
6. Medium of discourse - Wikis are terrible for reaching an actual agreement. Much of the time, the most vocal group gets their way - for better or for worse.

• That being said, anything but votes/polls are allowed, as those cut out the "thinking, reasoning, using logic and debating" part of "discussion" and leaves just a bare "no matter how misguided I am, my vote means the same as everyone else's!" part. Different users like debating in different ways (some use numbered lists, some use colon paragraphs and write in huge walls of text; just a small example of different methods of discourse). Editors usually use what they feel comfortable using; nothing should be forced as standard.
  

7. Directness - ties into hypersensitivity again. Nobody should ever have to sugar coat anything they say. If someone is used to beating around the bush, so be it; but that person shouldn't ever force that method of "communication" on anyone else. If you can't handle the truth, get off the internet. Or go to Wikipedia. Either way works.
8. Enforcement - admin word is the law. Regardless of policy, admins understand wikis better than the average user (the "majority," in other words) and should be able to act for the betterment of the wiki, no matter what any policy says.

• This might seem obvious, but check it out; any wiki about Guild Wars (1 or 2) is going to be a small one. You don't need to elect a bunch of dumbass sysops just to cope with the candidates for deletion. Elect sysops that can think and your problems go away pretty fast.
• The majority means nothing. The majority of people don't understand wikis. The majority aren't used to intelligent debate. The majority are ignorant, and therefore should never be allowed to make final decisions on pretty much anything (outside of default site skin or something). Democratic wikis fail before they get off the ground.
  

-Auron 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ab.er.rant

I think moderation and tolerance is key to most of the issues brought up here. The stand against those who do harm to the wiki is mostly unified. It is the stand against each other (the different well-meaning subgroups) where most of the issues come from.

1. Offensiveness - NPA sums up enough about what is generally accepted as being offending in nature. Being needlessly offensive, regardless of how it's worded, is in itself offensive, especially after being told off repeatedly. For some situations, context is important. The degree of tolerance is dependent on where said offending material occurs and why it occurred.

2. Trolling - Trolling is hard to define. I don't subscribe to the view that some good may come of it. The person or persons being trolled do not come away feeling enlightened or happy about it. "Good-natured" trolling or mocking will never appear to be "good-natured" and will never be helpful simply because they'll never be accepted as helpful even if they really are. Trolling is almost always disruptive but I accept it as a way of expression (more about this on the next point). Simple rules to follow: Don't troll, ignore trolls. Ignore a trolling statement that is never responded to. It's when it starts turning into a string of useless "No u" edits that disrupts an existing discussion that makes it disruptive enough for admin action.

3. Wordings - Assuming this is only related to talk pages, I think it is mostly irrelevant how one person chooses to talk. If they have a poor grasp of English, learn to manage. They like leetspeak or full caps? Go right ahead, I won't bother reading them. I'm more concerned with happens as a consequence. If someone appears to be intentionally annoying with the way they type their responses and it's causing a lot of disruption and distraction to other users, that would be grounds for admin action.

Touching on profanity a bit, personally I'm unfazed by however much profanity you like to use, unless you throw them my way. We all come from different cultures and social circles, so if I can come from a background where profanity in everyday speech is rare unless it's an extremely big deal, I can easily accept that there are others who use profanity every other sentence. They can call us lame, and we can call them crude. It doesn't matter. We all express ourselves differently and imposing on one's way of expression is bad. In real life, we have accepted styles of speech for legal matters, politics, business, advertising, etc. We have our article retention policies and formatting guidelines. In our daily conversations with our people, our limits are our societal norms. In our talk pages, our norm is the combined norms of everyone involved in the discussion. All that's needed is to be aware that people express themselves differently. If my language gets out of hand, people around me will comment on the way I said because it's different from they're used to. On the wiki, it only gets out of hand when people start focusing on sentence construction instead of sentence meaning. Of course, profanity for the sake of profanity falls under offensiveness. I also want to just add that since ArenaNet is a business, and we are linked from within the game, it doesn't hurt to give our host some courtesy, but that's just me.

4. Harshness - Don't be too hard. Be too hard, and it breaks on meeting resistance. Second chance? Sure. Third chance? Why not? Fourth? Fine. With each appeal from a malicious user, we tolerate that user's wrongdoings less. First offense? Warn. Second offense? Short block as appropriate. Blatantly offensive/disruptive or third offense? Long block as appropriate, even on minor offenses. Yet again? Even longer block, regardless of offense. Permabans are of questionable use for troublemakers. Permablock a user and you're essentially telling that user to get a clean slate by creating a new account, not to mention giving that user an extra dose of encouragement to come back and do it again. Keep the option open for them to return in the hopes that they sincerely want to be better, especially after some long cool-off time. Most vandals and troublemakers are usually short-term in their attentions and most don't bother coming back once they're bored of it Permaban should be limited to spambots, vandal bots, impersonations, offensive names, and accounts obviously created for one-time mischiefs., making permabans on these accounts irrelevant.

5. Punitive action - Reading through all the responses, I feel that most responders misunderstood this topic (that, or I'm the one who misunderstood). I strongly disagree with "harming" a user (as per Backsword's example of deleting user pages). Warn them, block them, but don't give them any more cause to come back as troublemakers. Block any action or behavior that deserves to be blocked. Don't make it seem personal.

6. Discourse - Consensus by discussion. Discussion shows who cares about a subject and who understands the subject in question. Consensus is sometimes interpreted as "everyone agrees", which I happen to disagree. Achieving consensus is when all those involved who have actual valid concerns be willing to tolerate it. Compromise is key. Take time in discussing things. The wiki won't grind to a halt if a discussion cannot conclude. Opposing sides, upon seeing that resolution may be impossible should endeavour to bring in more users, especially users that both sides respect and can accept to make a decision. It should preferably not be admins, since some users may unconsciously feel unwarranted pressure due to the perceived authoritative role. In the case where a discussion must be reached soon (and no compromise or middle ground be achievable), then and only then, should a method be decided on how to resolve the issue, such as leaving it to the decision of all admins or the ArbComm.

7. Directness - Be as direct as you want. As with profanity, it's a way of speech. Some peoples and cultures are very direct, some consider directness rude. People just need to realise that. I personally don't like being blunt, because I'm not used to it, but I'm fine with others being as direct and as rude as they want too. I think there is a fine line between being blunt and being offensive. Just make it clear that you're commenting on actions or ideas, and not person(s). People tend to perceive a message differently depending on how it's worded. As I said before, choose your words carefully. Badly worded blunt statements, especially short ones, is just begging to be badly interpreted. Of course, personally, I feel that if the only response you can come up with is something like "Fail less", the better response would be to not respond at all.

8. Enforcement - It is important to make known that policies are not laws. Wiki-lawyers like to treat them as laws, and some users mistakenly believe that they are laws. Policies outline and define community norms; it's not a legal system. I've been trying to loosen up and simplify several policies on GWW (but not getting much participations) because when a policy is more subjective, it becomes more open to interpretation, giving more leeway for admin discretion. When a policy is simpler, it makes it easier to get the gist of why the policy was formulated (i.e. the spirit). All users can inform other users regarding policy violations, but it should be admins who offer up official warnings. Enforcement is, of course, carried out by admins, as appropriate. Enforce now, discuss later. Unless it was done in bad faith, this resolves issues and also allows a slower discussion process to gauge what the community (at least the vocal ones) accepts. The degree of acceptance of certain actions will set future trends on what is perceived to be acceptable, thereby establishing tradition or convention. Start simple, be flexible, change as needed. It's a long term process that, unfortunately, many users believe should all be set in stone in day 1.

-- ab.er.rant 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanguard

For whatever this is worth.
Offensiveness: This is a double edged sword. The person doing the offense may not have any idea they're offending, or they are perfectly aware but they don't expect to do much harm (see: Brutal Honesty). If it is blatant and admitted that one is trying to cause trouble, action should be taken.
Trolling: Annoying and pointless, it's basically vandalism in a more elegant form.
Preference of words: Should be allowed without question. Excessiveness is easy to spot and should be noted, but otherwise it's good to express something with better feeling sometimes.
Harshness: Harshness goes hand to hand with brutal honesty and is needed. A lot of people sugar coat their crap, and that's fine. But the ones who are more abrupt should not be looked down upon.
Punitive Action: It should be made VERY clear what someone is doing is wrong. Talk pages, little "warning-stop your shit" templates, kicks, temporary bans, etc. If someone is actively trying to disrupt and destroy, take them OUT.
Discourse mode: People often confuse their opinion as fact. This should be dicussed thoroughly before action or final editing is completed.
Directness: Read: "Harshness"
Enforcement: Should be democratic without the voting. Actions should be based what the average public wants, within reason.

- Vanguard 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

NuclearVII

Well, I know most of you won't recognise me, but I recognise most of you. I have viewed GW from pretty much get-go, and I watched and padded my time as time passed. Since you wanted different inputs, Backsword, I'll be bold and give you mine.

1. Offensiveness: Obviously, spme people love drama and some people love encouraging drama. Thankfully, neither latter nor the former is common. As most of the other users put it, NPA is a wonderful policy, and a helpful one. NPA solves most of the singular cases, so that is not a problem. A Case I remember was when readem worte "americans can't play GW" all over his page. Now, is american a group, an ethnicity, or a nation!? IMHO, NPA should be the most specific policy on GW2W pages. It should not be a guide-line-ish thing, because when you want to insult somebody, you try to slipthat insult through the cracks. NPA should be made waterproof.
2. Trolling: Scott Adams said, "Eliminate the assholes. Nothing can drain the lifeforce of your employees as much as a few sadistic assholes who seem to exist for the sole purpose making life hard for others." Take readem for example. He is a fine contributer, his knowledge is that of the Guru status, and he is a very respectable player, these no one denies. However, he usually resorts to insulting and let's say 'verbally headbutting' the opposition. We value his contribution, but we certainly do not value his asshatery. In such cases the offender should be remiinded that he is doing it wrong: He is certainly correct, but he will be incorrect if he keeps up the trolling. The purpose behind this is human nature. You alienate everyone, crush newbies with leetspeak, and it spreads. thus, I conclude that in the cases of trolling, a 'gentle' warning to the offender is usually enough. If he/she does not stop, he should get a ban to show that distruption is certainly not welcome. On a final note, trolling is a sign of an enlarged ego, and egoes are enlarged by experience. It is usually the experienced and the arrogant doing the trolling, but a troll is a troll. It should 'not' be fed.
3. preferance of words: let's not be naive. I personally learned all the curses and cusswords I know today from internet, holywood, TV etc by the time I was 12. It might be that I'm an extreme case, but this is not a serious encyclopedia. "fuck", for exaple, is the most versatile word in the english language. Censoring it would look only dumb. On a final note, swearing is a toll one can use to determine another's maturity. Swearing in context and, believe it or not, creatively can show that an user is an aadult. Over use of the word FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK shows that we deal with a 6 year old. I, personally am against leetspeak. Reason is simple: I can't understand it. When I see all those numbers my eyeballs shrivel like the balls of a 60 year old (Note the creative use of swearing).
4. Harshness: Here, I'd prefer a low to high setting. Make 'plenty' of warnings, suggestions, etc but when the it becomes obvious that the offender is pushing it or just enjoying it, nuke them. Make bans 'feel'. This way, we can aviod unnecessary bannings of random people, but when a malign influence pops up, we can show them the full brunt of the bamhammer.
5. Punitive Action: Here, I'm going to say one thing: Do not do damage where you can't undo it. Deleting a userpage certainly goes in this category. Example: Mr. ex vandal and Raptors. Both have changed. As entropy said once, "people use second chances."
6. Discourse Mode: We have talkpages. The wiki values common consensus over all. Majority Rules is certainly not the basis we started with, and it certainly won't be gaining support soon. The admin notice board should only be used in extreme cases, when users can't solve a conflict on their own. When does this happen? When someone says, "It is obviously impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you". At which point the holy admin army is summoned and their word is law. Admins should be willing to accept this "parrenting" role, and not take sides in a disscussion.
7. Directness: All I can say is: Be moar like Auron, and less like Readem. Be moar like Tanaric, and less Cursed angel......to elaborate on that, life sucks. Yup, there is no denying it, life sucks. Can it be made easier with "padded" comments? Most certainly. You'd prefer an user to say, "I'm afraid to say that, while I'm sure you're misinformed, X does not work, becouse of Y," instead of "Dude, X+Y doesn't work," on a bad day (every day, anyday). That being said, We shouls value a padded comment as much as a blunt one. No user should be forced to sweeten the medicine to make someone else feel better, it is simply not their responsibility. Padded comments are a luxury. On a final note, however, I'd like to point out that "blunt" is easily comfused with "troll growl". We should make this distiction rather clear in NPA.
8. Enforcement: Let me be blunt. The majority of people are idiots. When it comes to a glitch that the policy can't handle, and it will come to that one day, ADMIND ARE GODS. Admins are people who have proved their worth to the community. They are people who have shown that they have responsibility. They are not glorified janitors, they are glorified judges/janitors, and they are the ones to be consulted when all hell breaks loose.

Nuclear 7 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warwick₁

NOTE: I wasn't invited, but I'm posting anyway =P

1. Offensiveness. While everything is offensive to someone, some things are offensive to large number of people. Is there a limit on how many people one can offend before some statement becomes disallowed? Does the statement being related to wiki affairs make a difference here?

   Definately no limit on how many people one person can offend, but not everything is offensive to everyone, For example "I like cookies" would, I doubt, be offensive to anyone whatsoever. It shouldn't make much of a difference; If somthing that offends many people was said, then its been said and should not be said again.

2. Trolling. Is zero tolerance desirable, or is some degree of intentionally trying to rile up other users OK, perhaps even good?

   I think there should be slight tolerance on trolling; Usually trolls decide to do so because they're annoyed at somthing, and banning them will make it even worse. My brother (Who I used to share an account with) trolled often, and it was tolerated, and he stopped trolling soon after.

3. Preference in words. As a matter of taste, people prefer some types of language. Should some not be part of the wiki discourse? (Profanity can be an example, but this is not a repeat of the offensivness question, so things like 'leetspeak', jargon or dialects may be better ones)

   Profanity (Swearing etc) should be allowed on a general basis, but not in a personal attack format (EG; you're a fucking bastard). If things like that is intended as a joke, its okay, but when its intentionally offensive its not ok.

4. Harshness. To what degree should malicious users be given a second chance? (And a third and so on)

   Malicious users, in my opinion, should be given no quarter. They know that they've vandalised, and so should not be given a second chance.

5. Punitive action. Should administrative action only be preventative, or should users be harmed as a deterrent? (Beyond what is incidental to preventive actions) If the latter, what sort of actions are appropriate? (Eg. would deleting someones userpage be OK?)

   Administrative action should be preventive, and should not harm anyone other then the person who is the cause of it. If somone were to start vandalising , they should be banned. Deleting their userpage is a no go (IMO), unless they get an infiniban.

6. Discourse mode. How should people who have a disagreement over fact or opinions go about to come to an resolution that is used by all sides? In detail, such as how discussions should be framed and what sort of statements should be made to get resolution.

   The truth should be the one that is enforced. If its a dispute between two things that are true, it should either be removed outright, or somone should prove that it is true.

7. Directness. Are users required to put 'padding' on their claims, or are blunt facts OK?

   It doesn't really matter, IMO.

8. Enforcement. Policy can be used to try to force the wiki culture in one way. Irrespective of how policy is technically made, who's values should be reflected in such policy? This includes the case when the value is that policy should not affect an issue. Additionally, if there is no consensus in this group, which subgroup applies? (Eg. majority)

   It should be enforced by the spirit; not the actual policy in words. If somone were to imply somthing insulting towards you, then that should be translated to offense, and action should be taken against the person. --Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Galil

1. Offensiveness. I believe this differs from case to case. In the most obvious cases, such as those that fall under the NPA, there should be low tolerance since violations of NPA usually only offends one person and the NPA has pretty generous standards of what should be allowed and what should not. Cases that aren't "serious enough" to fall under NPA would have to be handled on a case to case basis as the severity of the offensiveness differs between cases. Obviously, cases that aren't clearly offensive would need more input than the cases that are.
2. Trolling. I personally am against trolling but would not take action against it unless it happens repetitively, or without discussion. Trolling isn't as sever as direct offensiveness in my eyes and since it isn't as sever as offensiveness it's harder to distinguish between clear trolling and plain sarcasm or a joke that went wrong. Since the line between the two is so thin I don't believe one person alone should have the right to judge whether or not it was right or wrong, but rather initiate a discussion about it.
3. Preference in words. I don't have a clear preference of words. I do believe any discussion can be held without profanity, but I also see that some people use it to enhance their opinions in some matters. I do not feel profanity, dialects and such should be disallowed, or maybe not even discouraged as long as it isn't used in a clearly offensive manner.
4. Harshness. There's a saying here in sweden (possibly in other countries too) that goes: "One time is no time, two times make a habit." which is how I feel in many cases. I realize it's a bit of a cliche now, but we're only human and as such breaking a rule or crossing the line once is only natural, and possibly even two at times. However, repetitive crossing of said line should not be tolerated.
5. Punitive action. While I agree it's not always helping to just take preventive action against someone, I don't feel it would be more helpful with a punitive action but possibly only raise their need for "vengeance". As such, I personally would never take anything but preventive action.
6. Discourse mode. It depends on the nature of the disagreement. Say it's just a simple disagreement of whether or not an article should be deleted and there is equal support on both sides, I personally would let it stay on the basis that I prefer too much information rather than too little. If there's a disagreement of policy or article content or such though, an outcome of the two groups compromizing until consensus is reached would be the best outcome. If only one or no group agrees to compromize, I feel the article or policy should pretty much be left as is. If the disagreement is between two people arguing over something, claming the other person started it and how, one should look at the proof provided and act accordingly on a case to case basis. If there isn't enough proof provided to tell who did what and what not, there's not much you can do about it without assuming, and you all know what happens when we assume. Any other disagreements would have to be solved as they appear.
7. Directness. I personally would not act unless I had hard facts to act upon. It's too easy to claim someone did something wrong to be able to separate the ones telling the truth from those who aren't, especially over a non-personal medium such as the internet.
8. Enforcement. As most people, my opinion is that one should not go by policy "down to the letter" but rather by the "spirit" of the policy. If cases should arise where policy isn't enough to cover a dispute, they would have to be handled on a case to case basis, as most of these issues. Usually it would mean open discussion within the community - or if discretion is prefered by all involved parties, in between the admins or in rare cases where admins can't come to a conclusion, within ArbComm - where the clear majority has the advantage. The actual interpretation of "clear majority" would have to vary from case to case.

People of Antioch

1. Offensiveness. That's a good question. As people all over the world are constantly changing, it would perhaps be settled from case to case.
2. Trolling. To gain support, it should be a civil matter. "Trolling" by common knowledge isn't as productive as discussion.
3. Preference in words. There should be a common language, and I think simple (ie. non-jargon) is best, as both experienced and novice wikians and GW players will know what you're talking about.
4. Harshness. Assuming good faith works once, and malicious acts done over again is just showing badly upon the person committing the act. Repeat offenders should receive higher and higher punishments. Though again, this is case by case.
5. Punitive action. I don't believe admins should harm anyone, as more it should be a preventative measure. This isn't a tyrannical rule, it's a place where we can all contribute positively.
6. Discourse mode. How should people who have a disagreement over fact or opinions go about to come to an resolution that is used by all sides? In detail, such as how discussions should be framed and what sort of statements should be made to get resolution.
7. Directness. It's just my opinion, but padding is good as long as it doesn't distract from the facts.
8. Enforcement. The majority, but the spirit of policy takes place. Again, this one is hard in that problems should be taken by a case by case basis. Galil has my basic opinion.