Guild Wars Wiki talk:No profanity

Inintial statements
Citing User:Raptors' user page and the controversy surrounding it, I hereby propose amending GWW:USER or creating a new policy whereby users are limited in their vocabulary to terms normally acceptable by a concrete or a formally, generally accepted guideline. See: - elviondale  (tahlk) 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets start with one of the most obvious arguments against this kind of policy: they are just words, by themselves they are harmless. It's the context in which they are used, is the intention behind them that can be offensive. A policy against trolling or disruption would, in my opinion be more appropriate than anything forbidding certain words (Carlin's Seven Dirty Words?) from being used. --Dirigible 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think any context of the F-word would generally be considered inappropriate for a wiki, no? - elviondale  (tahlk) 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Dirigible - words are only offensive given context. The "F-word" means only one thing on it's own, and I'm fairly sure what it is isn't offensive. Another potential problem: who says which words are "bad"? Is "bloody" allowed? Regulating word by word usage is doomed to failure, and rightly so. I'd support a policy against trolling or disruption, and I believe discussion has been started on that, although I'm struggling to remember where it is. -- AT (talk | contribs) 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I guess the discussion goes here. I suggest we start by looking at the rules behind the ESRB's Teen Rating...since that is what ultimately should control the content on this Wiki (since it can be accessed within the game).--Thor79•[[Image:User-thor79.png]]•Talk 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Filter content/articles, not Users. I agree with Dirigible. Readem   Hate Mail Goes Here  19:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * TEEN - Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elviondale (talk &bull; contribs) 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC).
 * No one is saying people should be filtered...we are discussing the CONTENT provided on their userpages...they are articles...just because they are presented in a user's userspace doesn't mean they aren't content.--Thor79•[[Image:User-thor79.png]]•Talk 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinnion is that offensive stuff like that on Raptors' page should be removed. A single fuck or shit in a heated up discussion isn't something to worry about, but a dozen offensive words on a parade spot on ones user page is definitely unacceptable. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * pat·ent·ly adv. In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly: a patently false statement. "Material patently offensive to others" is absolutely forbidden. Generally offensive material shall not be included.  Are we really trying to do something similar to defining "is"?  Patently conveys the idea of a standard.  If so, lets have one then.  Generally seems to be more of a consensus.  Either way, that content is not allowed.  To so flagrantly display obscenities is patently offensive.  Using one here and there in a heated discussion, while distasteful and advised against, is not patently offensive. - elviondale  (tahlk) 20:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)IMO The policies that govern conduct in game should apply here as well since all content on the wiki can be accessed from within game. If what you say on your userpage would earn you a suspension or ban in game...it should earn the same here..but at the very least it should be removed. This would take a bit more input from Anet though as to what they do and do not allow if someone reports something as being offensive to them.--Thor79••Talk 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on Gaile's talk page, I see no reason at all to allow profanity. It does not add to the wiki, and I think it's far easier to disallow it entirely rather than conditionally "well it's OK on its own every once in a while but not too often." I'm an adult, and the language itself really doesn't offend me. However I don't think that the language has any place on the wiki. Throwing out random curses does nothing to add to the content of the wiki. --Nkuvu [[Image:User_Nkuvu_sig_button.jpg]] 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a few ideas as to how we can resolve this.
 * Create a few pages with varying levels if obscenities on them- from one with mild expletives on it all the way up to something similar to Raptors headline.  We then revert them back and forth using the 1 revert rule and however the pages end up after a certain period of time, that determines policy.
 * Amend the policy so that if one user feels that the content is sufficiently offensive, they may tag it as such. If a second user also finds it offensive, they may remove it. (Maybe a template that doesn't interrupt the layout of the page and has no visible traces, except for maybe a category listing at the bottom.  That way, the first person adds the tag, the second person sees it, and removes the  content and  the tag.)
 * - elviondale  (tahlk) 20:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO This discussion should continue on User_talk:Gaile_Gray/Offensive_content_discussion because the problems we are seeking to solve involve more than just profanity (including inappropriate links, images, etc). Now that it has been moved off of Gaile's main talk page we can discuss it all we like till we come up with something. Whether it be Wiki-wide or limited to just the User Pages. Basically I'm saying this page restricts it too much...there are more issues here than just profanity. Either that or rename this page to "GWW:Offensive Content"--Thor79••Talk 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The name of the page is a baseline, not a boundary, so might I suggest worrying more about discussing the issue and less about the title of the page? It was moved here to put it in a user-neutral position rather than on a user talk page, beyond that the title really doesn't matter much until/unless a policy proposal is decided upon. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Who gets to decide which words we can't use? People are amazing; they can get offended by anything.
 * 2) Personally, I'm offended if someone is dishonest to me, including not saying what they mean.
 * 3) As for user:Raptors, a 'No Trolling' policy is much preferable.
 * Backsword
 * I agree with Backsword. The core of this issue is trolling. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the words then don't go on my userpage. --- Raptors
 * Ok fine Aiiane...whatever...this is my first policy discussion I just thought that it would be appropriate to be on a page that was clear to the participants what was being discussed...guess it doesn't need to be...whatever. As for what should and should not be considered offensive....since this wiki is tied to the game anything considered to be offensive and actionable in game should be treated the same way here. That way Anet can continue to host this wiki and keep it tied to the game without worrying about the content being stored on this wiki. That includes all pages, namespace or userspace. I thought the wiki was already under that policy at least for userpages because it has the whole "Material in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions." under the content restrictions. Under that definition I'm sure what he has posted to his userpage is in violation of the game's terms and conditions....isn't it? Or could I go into Lion's Arch right now and say the words he has plastered over his Userspace in local chat without fear of a suspension or ban?
 * As for a "No Trolling" policy...obviously we need one since the repeated acts by Raptors hasn't earned him more than a slap on the wrist anyway. There has to be a policy set so that we have guidelines as to when the admins of this wiki can clearly get rid users that repeatedly disrupt the wiki. I mean...what's it it take...the guy has a WikiSpecies named after him.--Thor79•[[Image:User-thor79.png]]•Talk 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow you have to be the smartest person Ive ever seen on this wiki. EVAR --- Raptors
 * Umm, NPA? - elviondale  (tahlk) 04:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jumping on the bandwagon with Backsword and Bex. I don't think banning swearing is the issue here - that's quite harmless when used in a casual sense - but we should have a method of dealing with people who are obviously trying to provoke a response (like putting flashing, out-of-context swears on their userpage ;) ). Biscuits [[Image:User Biscuits sig.png]] 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is serious? &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Says the user whose sig violates GWW:SIGN? Yes, very much so. Follow some back links and you'll see this is a hot item for the day. - elviondale  (tahlk) 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up a completely different subject. I'd like to meet the asshole who would crack down on violators of this policy. &mdash;The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * np, sorry about the double or triple post- the wiki went a little bazonkas. As to cracking down (on the language I assume you mean), it seems the content part of it would be users while any potential blocking would be via sysops. - elviondale  (tahlk) 04:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why it simply existing on someone's user space is a reason to consider it offensive or deliberately disruptive? I've never even seen most people's user space aside from A-Net employees and I would imagine 99% of the wiki community would be the same - we come here for encyclopedic reasons relating to the game, not to read up on wiki admin and their in game achievements and not to marvel at flashing text on this "Raptor" person's user page. The only reason Gaile even knew it exhisted was someone pointed it out to here - THE MOST DISRUPTIVE PEOPLE ARE THE ONES MAKING A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT. Had no-one looked at the user page and gone "ZOMG it's the end of the world because something objectionable TO ME appeared in thy holy land of wiki in a place I had to deliberately find" then this content would not have been a problem for most people as no-one would know about it. A rule should be made against idiots who turn these things into issues and band them as they are the ones causing the problem.... oh wait didn't someone mention "Don't Feed the Trolls" somewhere already? You will NEVER be able to come to a consensus on what people feel is offensive, most people are different. Someone gets offended everytime someone "swears", I get offended every time these stupid conversations come up or someone posts a comment not directly related to a question asked, Gem gets offended every time his name comes up in a less than complimentary way. This is the Internet - you don't control it, grow up or GTFO. 58.110.141.174 06:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Language such as yours just now passes into the realm of NPA. Take it easy. - elviondale  (tahlk) 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's retry this, with more reason...
I promised my therapist I would not get involved in any policy discussions, and yet here I am. All Dirigible's fault for linking to this in our conversation. Personally, I'm one who does not use profanity and would love to see no one use it. However, this is something I care about, so I think some separation of the issues is needed:

1: Profanity directed at others It's important to understand that this case does not need any regulation. GWW:NPA disallows any attacks on others whether they are filled with profane words or not. So, please do not bring up examples of users using cuss words at each other, because this is already well covered and well defined.

2: Profane words in general conversation I think it is pointless to try and regulate the kind of language people use. We can have a general guide-line/ettiquette point that users should try to avoid profanity to keep the wiki friendly to all ages, however, attempting to limit the words people use and (even worse) trying to punish them for certain words will never work. Instead of saying "Rurik ****ed Varesh" on his GW fiction section, Raptors will say "Rurik inserted his male reproductive organ into Varesh's female reproductive organ..." Does that make it less offensive? Are we going to start penalizing intentions?

People will find a multitude of ways to get around and make fun of such rules and regulations.
 * I don't think that would be a problem as long as they do it in a way that isn't offensive to the other players.Miss Innocent 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

3: Profanity and ANet Are there any legal rammifications that could harm ANet from having the game link or direct players to a site that uses profane language? Since the game is rated T, I believe there are none. But if anyone from ANet cares to provide extra insight, that would be most welcome.
 * Legally, I don't think it matters, but if it runs their customers away, it is a problem, and this is their website. I'm happy to be able to contribute and have fun with it, and not to be obligated to do more than I feel like, but ultimately the content is going to be their responsibility, and they are the ones who are going to get the heat if something makes a user mad.Miss Innocent 03:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is content in the game that jokes about and takes profanity quite lightly... Koss' famous line "I'm sick and tired of these balthazar blasted drakes on this balthazar blasted plain" is a play on the profanity laden line by Samuel L Jackson. In fact, as a wiki, we should have a Trivia note that says so in the quest article.

4: Removing profanity I think we need to make it clear to Gaile and all other users that they cannot remove profanity without first talking it out with the user and making a case that the profanity is harmful to the wiki.
 * It seems unreasonable to me that Arena net wouldn't be able to remove offensive language "without first talking it out with the user". This is their website.  I do think that harmful/offensive language should be removed promptly, and that the person who posted the language receive a warning (so that they know not to repeat it).  As long as Arena net uses good judgment and doesn't ban person who adds the page for Damned Cleric we'll be good.  Miss Innocent 03:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think after separating these issues that no new policy is needed. Maybe a suggested ettiquette in the User policy, but other than that, not much can be done. We've kept GuildWiki very clean by simply being mindful of what we say and just propagating the understanding that profanity is not "cool." I think people need to know that once in a while someone will come along and make a post to challenge their norms (like Raptors' post) and I think we should be pretty calm and civil about it. No need to rewrite policies over this. --Karlos 09:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points, especially the second. Trolling is the issue, profanity isn't; getting rid of the swear words will solve nothing.
 * Well put, Karlos :) - Auron 11:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 2, bad example. yes it is still offensive but just because it falls into the pornographic cathegory, which is/should be banned here.  Removing profanity wont solve trolling, agree, but will help against it (at least the trolling type raptors is doing) and will keep the wiki friendly to all ages. but thats just my inexperienced opinion.
 * "The community does not have to prove that this is a bad idea, the burden of proof is on those advocating the policy. I am yet to hear a good reason why this should be implemented. -- AT(talk | contribs)" The only neccesary reason to propose a policy should be because some users wants to have a wiki with that policy implemented. Then you have to argument what wiki would lose if the policy is implemented (or why it would be bad if implemented) and then voting. (i guess, i am new to this xD, if not, enlight me) Coran Ironclaw 14:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said, Karlos. I believe nothing more can be added to that. &mdash;Tanaric 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh apart from the fact that as we have found above, because profanity and the harm it causes are conceptual in nature, how does anyone fulfill requirement 4 without a bus load of people shouting "its only a word!" and "freedom of expression", simply you cant but ultimately this is a very bad tact to follow. We keep arguing over conceptual points which is useless. We all know what is acceptable behavior in public and we know that if we were talking to a 13 year old with their mother in the room, we wouldn't be effing and jeffing in front of them. This wiki is basically the same, the game is ranked T for teen, meaning that people from 13 up can play this. I know that the vast majority of 13 year olds wouldn't care but i'm also pretty sure that a massive group of parents of those 13 year olds would care. We have no right to circumvent a parents rights and duties to protect their child from the things that they deem to be harmful, but the current way that the policy stands seems to be ignoring this. This needs rectified and those preaching self-liberalism need to start looking at the rights of others over that of just their own. -- (Salome 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Plenty of thirteen-year-olds and their mothers swear back and forth at each other. I suggest you experience other cultures before making these judgments based upon your own. &mdash;Tanaric 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats not culture, thats just a lack of breeding and being common! I suggest you ascertain what manners are in regards to ones mother before you dismiss it as cultural to swear at ones parent and have them swear back at you, as that verges on racism. -- Salome 16:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Race has absolutely nothing to do with my point, and I don't understand why you've brought it in. Nevertheless, my point stands -- not all cultures in the world -- or even within the Western country of your choice -- have an issue with profanity or lewdness. In my experience, those lowest on the socio-economic ladder, no matter what country or race they belong to, tend to be okay with the sorts of things some are advocating banning. &mdash;Tanaric 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Salome, if you do not respect other cultures, I don't see why I should respect yours either. Please be a bit more considerate in your comments about other cultures, as it sounds like any other culture besides yours is wrong and ill-mannered. If a parent wants to "protect" their teenagers from profanity, fine. But don't make into our job to protect them, it's still the parents job. We should not hinder them, but I don't see how we are doing that at the moment. We are not tricking them into reading something they didn't want to read, and we are not forcing anyone to read anything. Karlos pretty much summed up my opinions in this matter. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To Tanaric and to Anja, To say that another's culture is okay with being verbally abrasive to ones parents and vica versa can be taken as being either racist or bigoted dependant upon what is meant by the term "culture". Culture can be a catch all term for both people of different ethnic backgrounds and people from differing social backgrounds. Either way, to say that one culture thinks its okay to swear at their parents is bigoted and offensive. You can not assume just because someone is from a low socio-economic background that that then means that both parent and child swear at each other. Also to Anja, i completely fail to understand what your on about. I wasn't asking you to respect my culture and i didn't disrespect anyone else's, unless you are trying to say that swearing at your parents and having them swear back at you is in and of itself a culture. This is an absolute ludicrous commentary on both of your parts. Please don't get my wrong Tanaric, I've read alot of your posts and i find you to be an even minded individual who i respect but the things you are saying now, you must see are offensive. To basically state that poor people swear at their parents and their parents dont mind as they swear back at them is complete snobbery and bigotry! Also Anja, what do you think censorship is for, it is about protecting people that we deem need that protection. As I have said before this is the OFFICIAL wiki for a game that is publicly traded and rated T for Teen and is directly accessible from inside that game. Therefore it should follow the guidelines of that rating, thus disallowing profanity. As simply if this continues and if anet gets enough complaints about profane material on this wiki, support of this wiki is likely to cease. Just read Gaile's comments and you will see that this is strongly inferred to be the case. We are not doing anyones job for them by upholding the T for teen rating, instead we are doing our duty to have an official wiki on Guild Wars which reflects the nature of the game itself. However i am starting to agree with Nvuku,no matter what i say or any other person who is for the introduction of some control in regards to profanity, people against it will continue to argue the same points and vica versa, thus this debate is doomed to stagnate and get us nowhere. I think perhaps the simplest thing to do at the moment is find out officially if continuing to include profanity within this wiki will jeopardize the hosting of this wiki and its status as being the official wiki, as i believe it will. Then at least we can make some choices in light of that fact. -- Salome 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also bigotry to say that they (as a rule) do/should not. Either way, you're applying preconceived notions from one's own sense of morality to the judgments of others.
 * In regards to censorship being "protecting people we deem need protection", I don't think we're in a position to deem what protectio na given wiki user needs with regards to profanity. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aiiane at what point does your logic stop though? Is it then bigotry to say that one should not attack another or that perhaps child abuse should then be permissible too as it is not our place to say that one shouldn't do it; isn't that exactly what led the issue of the access of child pornography right the way through the American courts, on the same basis as your argument; people saying thats your morality, but not mine. Using your logic all law would then have to be thrown out. I'm sorry but i think you're taking a very shortsighted and almost anarchistic approach to this which i don't agree with as your reasoning is ultimately flawed, in that all law and rules are based on an objective observer saying that we do not feel that you should be doing that regardless of your own personal morality, saying that it is bigotry to do so seems to lack the understanding of how legal systems and ruling systems operate. Also in reference to your response on censorship, your very welcome to your opinion, but it is also not our place to supply a forum for people to be exposed to profanity which their parents may want them protected from, but have allowed them to venture onto this site due to it being the Official wiki. As in a way we are tricking them into being exposed to it. people should be able to safely assume that the official wiki follows the sam eguidelines as the game itself, otherwise it should no longer be the official wiki. I therefore feel it is safest to instead inact a policy of no-profanity due to the fact that those who would be offended, arent offended and those aren't offended anyway, aren't offended. Thus no one is offended and we can all just get on with our lives in the knowledge that the official wiki reflects the same guidelines of the actual game and no one is venturing on to an anet endrosed site and being confronted with profanity. -- Salome 18:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to split this conversation- those in favor of continuing to discuss profanity, go for it- you'll be here forever discussing moral relativism to death. Personal beliefs aside, this is not something I want to continue in.  I'm in favor of an anti-trolling/anti-disruptive behavior proposal instead, since the incidences that come to my mind where profanity is a problem also fall very clearly under the heading of trolling.  - elviondale  (tahlk) 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Although i still think an anti-profanity rule would be good, i can see that your right in regards to the moral relativism of it all and how this debate will just continue on and on. I think that you probably have a point in that an anti-trolling policy will be easier to clarify. -- Salome 18:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a number 5: general blatant profanity. SHIT! Was that necessary? No. It doesn't serve any purpose other than to provoke a reaction. I think no matter how many freedom of expression / anti-censorship arguments there are, swearing like that, and in Raptors' flashing style, should not be a matter for debate. It's just trolling. So maybe we should start up a no-trolling policy, as that seems to be the general agreement. Biscuits [[Image:User Biscuits sig.png]] 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:No_trolling - elviondale  (tahlk) 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree an anti trolling policy would be nice. But if you believe this profanity police is difficult... I find the trolling policy to be far more difficult to be created. here we have an objective definition of profanity (words filtered by the game in normal chat filter). Trolling is... subjective and far more complicated in my point of view. Good luck on it. I want to continue on this one, however i wont like to continue the argument of salome.Coran Ironclaw 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Karlos:

1.- Agree, the policy already covers that.

2.- I see no argument against the hypothesis. Just opinion without explanations. Why it is pointless? Why will never work? It works in the game, it works in guru also. why not here? Your example is flawed as I already explained "it is still offensive but just because it falls into the pornographic cathegory, which is/should be banned here." I am not sure if it is banned but that does not fall into the profanity cathegory anymore, that's another problem. A note: the policy i would wish to be accepted does not include a punishment for posting profanity, unless it is reinserted after being deleted and so on.

3.- I do know very little about legal things. But being an official wiki, our standards should be the same as the game default. And the game comes with a normal level chat filter by default.

4.- yes that is the case right now. you cant remove profanity and that is what we are trying to change here. I really fail to see any reason why you think after separating these issues a new policy is not needed.

Coran Ironclaw 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Coran; this policy is pointless. It doesn't solve anything, much less the real problem (trolling). Arbitrary censorship is bad. We're not people's parents, it's not up to us to keep this wiki anything safer than T rated (hell, we don't even have to keep it at that tbh; the game and the wiki are separate).
 * You haven't offered any reasons as to why near-nazi censorship is needed... you'd have to do a lot of convincing people to get something like this passed. - Auron 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the game and the wiki are not separate, see game integration for more information. You can click through directly from the game and search the wiki from in game. I believe a-net is also working on an in game browser for the wiki? So claiming that as an argument against will not hold up. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also perhaps you should kerb the implication that any one who disagrees with you is in some way nazi like. As its a pretty childish stance and in no way relates to what we're discussing. -- Salome 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? GuildWars is neither the only nor first game to have an in-game web browser (EVE Online, for example, is another very popular rated-T MMO, with an ingame browser which allows you to browse the whole net, instead of just a wiki). And if ANet really cares that deeply about saving the eyes of teenagers from "naughty words", they can apply the same filter as the chat to their browser, it'd certainly be a much neater way of doing this. --Dirigible 22:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Salome; don't make the mistake of thinking I call everything I disagree with Nazi. I disagree with a great many things on this wiki, but pretty much none of them are nazi-esque; a baseless censorship policy would be, though. - Auron 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's retry this, with more arguments...
As i see the profanity in the wiki: There are two types of users here, the ones who prefer a wiki without profanity, and the ones who prefer a wiki with it. I dont know the proportion, only a poll would help there i think. But I want to make something clear, this has nothing to do with age. I am an adult, Gaile is an adult (i dont know the others xD) and we prefer a wiki without profanity.

What happen if wiki allows profanity, then the users who prefer a wiki without profanity feels unconfortable. But they can live with that.

What happen if wiki does not allow profanity, then the users who prefer a wiki with profanity feels unconfortable. But they can live with that. (Anything can be discussed regarding gw without using profanity, if you can't... well that is your limitation, not wiki's or policy's).

As I see the things until now, I find the two arguments even. There is still the consideration of the proportion of users who are on one side or the other. But that is not all, Furthermore:

Extra Arguments against profanity:

- To maintain the same level of ettiquete as the game default.

- To become all ages friendly. Not mainly because 13 years old are offended. But mainly because it is truth that in some cultures (I just need some, i wont even discuss if they are mayority) parents are worried about thier childs reading profanity, and that is also a gw market.

- Anything regarding GW can be discussed without using profanity.

- There is no need for the wiki to discuss explicit profanity words. And even if that is necessary they can be referred not literally, like many did here before by writing "The F-word" and everyone knows what is it.

Extra Arguments in favor of profanity:

- ? I see none.

I am really not used to this discussions or policies, but is nobody is going to write the policy proposal i will. Coran Ironclaw 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion page reeks of insta-fail. I promise to curse 3 times for everytime you don't curse. &mdash; Skakid9090 21:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be an argument? I did not even understand in which side you are.Coran Ironclaw 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Guild_Wars_Wiki:No_profanity, I dont need more than that, you can add details if you want. Furthermore if the word indeed does not offend anyone, then nobody is going to delete it. Coran Ironclaw 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "arguments" against profanity don't convince me:
 * To maintain the same level of ettiquete as the game default. &rarr; The last time I checked, turning on the public channel in GuildWars was a similar experience to a Kevin Smith movie; it wouldn't exactly leave you with the impression that the speakers are aristocratic ladies and gentlemen. Alliance battles, major outposts, they're all swarming with so much "offensive" speech that nothing on this wiki will ever even get close to.
 * To become all ages friendly. Not mainly because 13 years old are offended. But mainly because it is truth that in some cultures (I just need some, i wont even discuss if they are mayority) parents are worried about thier childs reading profanity, and that is also a gw market. &rarr; Once again, the vast majority of 13 year olds know all these words already (13 years old = 8th grade, almost in high school). If their overprotective parents want to keep their children's ears pure from the moral corruption and vileness of hearing naughty words, they're certainly free to supervise their children during gaming sessions, use nanny software to censor and limit what they're doing on the web, or other such stunts. It's not up to us to do the parents' job. GuildWars itself needs to stick to the T rating so they can sell more copies in stores, we don't.
 * Anything regarding GW can be discussed without using profanity. &rarr; And everything about GuildWars can be discussed without using the word "spaceship", "syphilis" or "tax evasion". How is this a reason in favour of banning these words?
 * There is no need for the wiki to discuss explicit profanity words. And even if that is necessary they can be referred not literally, like many did here before by writing "The F-word" and everyone knows what is it. &rarr; I'm extremely honest here, not trying to be sarcastic: I'm genuinely offended by you expecting me to type "f---" instead of "fuck" with the reasoning that "it's ok, I got what you mean"; if you got the meaning, what offended you, just the three letters u, c and k? Just because you can use euphemisms instead of any word, it doesn't mean it's unnecessary and can be scrapped. That's called mutilating the language.
 * Arguments in favour of allowing it:
 * They're part of the English language. William Shakespeare used them, Pierre Trudeau uses them, U2's Bono uses them. They're part of everyday speech. They have their meanings, they have their uses, they have their purpose.
 * They are just words. As it's been repeated a dozen times during this discussion, by themselves they're harmless, it's the intentions that count. For offensive intentions we have a bunch of policies that regulate them and the ArbComm. For non hostile intentions, why is there a problem?
 * Because banning something just because we disagree with it is just shortsighted (see the Prussian Blue example that Tanaric gave above).
 * --Dirigible 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I love you Dirigible. And everything about GuildWars can be discussed without using the word "spaceship", "syphilis" or "tax evasion". How is this a reason in favour of banning these words? Gave me a good laugh. &mdash; Skakid9090 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dirigible is syphilis awesome. - Auron 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

lol we couldn't even quote the game verbatim if we ban the words filtered by the normal chat filter (ie: damn). -- 77.232.66.107 22:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I Oppose this current policy....
And here is why....

I feel the policy is too specific. it would not do as we wish. And it would certainly not prevent future sources of problems. I think that the answer is a much broader 'No Offensive Content' policy. The problem with banning Profanities is that they are individual to the country of origin, and since this is an international wiki there is a HUGE grey area! I stated my concerns (briefly) before about a policy such as this one.

I don't oppose the policy because of what it is trying to achieve...i also want a wiki that isnt' full of "fuck this skill its shit..." etc etc. I just feel that this is NOT the way to go about it. People can say very offensive things without swearing and they would be perfectly able to within this policy, and they may not be breaching NPA either, this doesnt make it ok!

A broader 'No Offensive Content' policy would be much more effective. A user would flag something as offensive, and a Sysop (or maybe more than one) would then look at the material and deem wether or not it is offensive (not necerserily to the user in question, just to anyone) and if it was, remove the offending content and warn the user who posted it. Like always, not taking warnings would lead to Temp-Bans and the Perma-Bans.

Please discuss...and lets take make sure the policy does what we want it to do. -- ChronicinabilitY  01:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I've been saying. - elviondale  (tahlk) 01:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Am i the only one who feels that we've just come full circle and ended up right back where we started again? -- Salome 02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm against this policy for a few reasons.
 * 1. Most (normal) people have enough sense and decency not to go around on a website with people on it that they don't know and go "Hey, f*****, what the f*** are you doing. That s*** doesn't belong here!!"
 * 2. Like many previous people have said, where does it stop? Boy scouts? Churches? Gay/Lesbian? Race Supremacy?
 * 3. Also, FILTERING OUT words is where I'd draw the line. I don't want to be reading a discussion and have a few blaring "PROFANITY!" signs jumping out at me. It's one funny thing to go around Hell's Precipice and see "S---h Mal Hacto!", but it's another to see "PROFANITY" on posts. If a person says f*** in a bad way, like f***er or something, then they could get a link to GWW:NP or something, or a 24h ban if they went on a rant. But as someone said, does somebody get punished for saying "Yo, the new buffs make this build f***ing awesome!!"? Hopefully not.

Just my opinion, maybe I'm totally outnumbered. I'm for a wiki that doesn't go "if you say one bad word, then you're gonna be punished", but I'm not for a wiki that has everyone posting like it's the script for an episode of South Park either. A happy medium, not encouraging (obviously), or SEVERELY punishing swearing. If somebody goes on a huge swearing slur against someone/thing, then they have punishment coming. But other than a situation similar to that, swearing shouldn't be filtered or punished.  Calor  - talk 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image-Image-User Readem Trolling2.gif
 * This Policy. This Picture. Also, stop being baed, and censoring what I say. ty. It is all I ask. Readem   Hate Mail Goes Here  02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

___.-~"~-._  __....__                .'    `    \ ~"~        ``-.               /` _      )  `\              `\              /`  a)    /     |               `\ :`       /      |                 \        <`-._|`  .-.  (      /   .            `;\\         `-. `--'_.'-.;\___/'   .      .       | \\      _     /:--`     |        /     /        .'  \\     ("\   /`/        |       '     '         /    :`;     `\'\_/`/         .\     /`~`=-.:        /     ``       `._.'          /`\    |      `\      /(                     /  /\   |        `Y   /  \               jgs  J  /  Y  |         |  /`\  \                   /  |   |  |         |  |  |  |                  "---"  /___|        /___|  /__|                         '"""         '"""  '"""  —ǥrɩɳsɧ  ƿoɲ  03:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC) I think now i understand why wiki discussions are epic and legendary, and also endlessly. I am amazed how you manage to mantain a community.Coran Ironclaw 03:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is one of those cases where I believe having a single person/group in power is beneficial. This sort of thing simply would not happen on the GuildWiki. &mdash;Tanaric 05:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's because people respect Guild Wiki. Respect makes a huge difference. Readem   Hate Mail Goes Here  05:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, having a single person with power did turn out quite well over at Guild Wiki. ... ... --Drekmonger 08:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Readem, even if you don't respect this wiki and the community here, please atleast stop posting worthless comments. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 09:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reciprocal ;). Readem   Hate Mail Goes Here  09:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In the end...
The best way to impose such guildelines is to deploy admins who are instilled with human intelligence (not the bots and glorified Janitors we currently use). In the end, even the mighty Tanaric agrees that an approach where the admin uses discretion, reasons with offending people and weighs freedom of speech vs perceived offense is the only way to achieve a policy that can actually help the wiki and not get abused.

Re-inventing wheels is so much fun. --Karlos 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the "best" way i agree. but not the only one. And since that do not happen because i dont know what problems, having an objective and simple policy would be best, just because you actually can have it. Still you have not explained to me why it wouldn't help at least to have a better state than the current one.Coran Ironclaw 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no objective way to measure offense, because offense by its very nature is entirely subjective.
 * Administration needs to have a backbone or there is no point in having one. An admin should be allowed to make a call on whether someone is helping or hindering this wiki and then do something.  So an admin might make the wrong decisions once in a while, but that is it - they're people.  If they make the wrong decision too often then remove them, but at least give them the power to make the decision. --Aspectacle 23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But here i do not dare to measure offense in general, just a small part of it named Profanity, or even more explicity, Profanity words which can be identified objectively. Take this if you want like the first step towards a no offense goal (not that i am willing to go with the further steps). So if you really want the more general policy that engloves all offenses go and make it somewhere else and discuss it. Saying that some policy or way could be better than this policy is no argument against this one unless you have it written and accepted.Coran Ironclaw 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But again, as the discussions above indicate it isn't necessarily the words but the sentiment which is offensive. I don't want to see any policy about offensiveness - specific or general. I want administrators with the power to make decisions about the disruptiveness of the user, or the real offense they've caused by looking at the effect on the community.  They shouldn't need common sense legislated to do that. --Aspectacle 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then go and create the policy or do whatever is neccessary to give such a power to administrators. And when you have achieved that and administrators can do the things you describe you can come here and say that this policy is not needed. But not before. Coran Ironclaw 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that you have completely missed my point about policy. The policy already exists: GWW:SYSOP.  It states;  "Sysops are granted reasonable discretion, but they are expected to apply policy rigorously and respect consensus." which I interpret as if there isn't any policy they should use their discretion and the feeling of the community at the time to make a decision on the users action.  This no profanity/banning/no offensive content policy rush is only appropriate because somewhere along the line the 'discretion' was taken out of administration.  I say that existing policy should be followed and this policy is unnecessary because it is already covered by current policy.  --Aspectacle 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If according to you, the current administrators already have the capability of taking action against profanity (specially disruptives ones like raptors) then can you explain to me (or anyone else) why they are not doing anything? It is because they are bad administrator or because they dont know their policies or because they dont think that is not disruptive enough to be eliminated? or something else? Coran Ironclaw 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly as i see it. I also see the recent 'inaction' of all the admins regarding this truely diruptive behavior just a complete failure on their part to use their common sense and the power that we as a community have given them. -- ChronicinabilitY [[Image:User Chronicinability Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|18px]] 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that assessment is entirely fair. I see instead a desire to follow the rules and when there isn't one for the case, or the appropriate one is incomplete to err on the side of caution, perhaps to the point of detriment to the wiki.   Admins have lost power to bureaucracy and policy - they need to get some of that back, it isn't like they're selected lightly by the community and can't be trust with it. --Aspectacle 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the plot thickens. You see, they ARE chosen lightly by the community (see Lemmings' election) where we are told it's okay to promote him into an admin because he's not really expected to provide leadership, just delete some files, splash some windex on the main page and vacuum te carpets. It IS a popularity contenst. It's a broken system in my opinion. I would be opposed to giving Lemming the power that, say, Gares has in GWiki. It'll be Gem all over again. --Karlos 00:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Human intelligence is necessary, yes - but those humans do not have to be the sysops. Hence why the entire proposals regarding ArbComm are under way. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And what I'm saying is that Arbcomm is too high a power for resolving these problems. You sit on your hands waiting for a decision while disruptive users continue to undermine discussions - particularly those set to stop them.


 * Karlos your reference to Gem is lost on me I'm afraid. But I agree you have to be known to get selected for admin, how would you get support otherwise?  Wiki's are imperfect - unfortunately. :) --Aspectacle 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Karlos, I'm fucking tired of being insulted always when you or Tanaric discuss admin roles. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that. There's no need to bring up Gem's name all the time. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Gem's example is very pertinent. He was elected on popularity, nice acceptable guy, occassionally potty-mouthed, nothing too terrible, but he lacked leadership skills and conflict resolution skills, moreover he was at times easily gauded into action. This is all documented on his reconfirmation page, none of this is a personal attack on him or his person. Gem sometimes acted simply because he felt others expected him to act. I feel Lemming is the same kind of sysop. Henche the reference. It's not to keep dragging Gem's name into discussions, it's because the two cases are similar. Skuld is another person who got adminship because he was popular, but he was not impressionable like Gem and thus it's not relevant to bring him up. --Karlos 08:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They were promoted because they contributed at least 15 times more then the average user, on a day-to-day basis. Readem   Hate Mail Goes Here  09:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To ChronicinabilitY and Aspectacle (and to all those who share their opinion on the rather lackasaidal attitude of the sysops):

I first ask, where were you when we were all getting so worked up over Karlos's reaffirmation. Next, I would like to state that both of you have taken Sysops are granted reasonable discretion, but they are expected to apply policy rigorously and respect consensus out of context. It was meant to apply to the first sentence: Sysops are administrators who perform cleanup tasks (deleting pages, undoing page move vandalism) and can block accounts and IP addresses according to the rules of the Guild Wars Wiki policy. And this was very much re-affirmed again and again on both Karlos's reaffirmation talk page and several other places as I recall. It is not that we do not want to act, we are not allowed to act. That's why my user page explains that I'm just a janitor - I remove things that I'm told I can remove, and block people that I'm told that I can block. The hostility against sysops who do not follow the policy to the letter is rather pertinent reminder for sysops to toe the line, which I believe has now resulted in a situation where sysops are now unsure of the extent of "authority" that they have. -- ab.er. rant  07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't think there is a need for sysops to be unsure. The idea that's been dominant in policymaking is that this wiki should be in a Rule of Law system, where those that makes the rules are not the same group as the ones that enforce them. Also why ArbComm can't block people themself. What I see on the page is mostly new users expecting the culture of a more hierarchical system, which is not surprising as that's how most sites are organised.
 * Backsword
 * Firstly i am by no means a new user. I have been a user of this Wiki since before it went live in client, and several other wiki's before this. My views on sysops are that they are not acting as a human being should with situations that have recently arose. Intelligence is needed! If you think of yourself as being just a janitor then i wouldn't support you're adminship. I'm sorry but sysops that feel they get the extra power but no extra responsibility are mistaken! Difficult situations will occur, just as the most recent set of issues, and as Sysop it's you're responsibility to sort them out (by following the policies, yes, but if a specific policy doesnt exist then dont just leave it and move on, use some intelligence). I have lost confidence in a lot of sysops here. They all seem so 'scared of going to far' that none of them ever seem to go anywhere near far enough. -- ChronicinabilitY [[Image:User Chronicinability Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|18px]] 14:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So would you rather have them ban you for so agrueing with them? And while they are at it ban everyone they always wanted to have removed from the wiki anyway? Or ban Erasculio because Karlos says so, Karlos because Auron says so, Skuld because Aiiane says so and Readem because his own Sockpuppet demands it? I, for one, am very happy that our admins are showing restraint and acting according to clearly written policy instead of pandering to hot feelings. --Xeeron 14:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Xeeron, they are showing ineptitude and impotence. There IS a level between "nothing" and "ban." They need to talk and observe these situation and metigate actively, not wait till all hell is loose and then come pleading on my talk page (or Auron's or whoever's) for sanity. Anja and Aberrant both came to plead to me and Erasculio to stop. It was too late for me by then. I would have LOVED it if they had intervened from the first time Erasculio was harrassing me during that reconfirmation process with something as simple as "Hey Erasculio, you think you can tone down your debate style a bit, I am not taking sides in terms of whether you're right or Karos, but just try to make your points with less emphasis on Karlos' personal traits and more emphasis on his points."
 * Such a statement THEN would have gone a LONG way to preventing the events of today. Just simple care and leadership. But to stand there and do nothing until it falls under NPA or GWW:Policy is inept and impotent. --Karlos 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aberrant, I was on a 4 month holiday. It was not only impossible that join in such discussions but I was frankly not particularly interested in them at the time. :)  I return from this holiday to find talk pages filled with trolls and everyone doing what amounts to pretty much nothing to effectively shut them down.  I'm pretty sure that policies such as the one discussed here is not the way to fix it.  Sysops have been castrated - someone needs to give them back their balls. I would have double signed Karlos' sysop-ship if I could - you need to have someone to have the courage to do the right thing for the wiki rather than following the group on the topic. --Aspectacle 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. We should apply that logic everywhere. If police don't have a warrant, well... they know you're doing the wrong thing, and they don't really make mistakes, so they should be able to bust down your door, tear apart all your belongings, and arrest you with no evidence.


 * Yes, I realize the situations aren't the same -- but the motivations are. GuildWiki very much had a dictatorial system, whereby the sysops were invested with the authority to act as they saw fit. People rebelled against that when this wiki was founded, and made it very clear they wanted sysops that had no such authority. It is entirely unfair to call them cowards when they're doing what the community demanded in the first place.


 * If you wish to change the sysop role, make a policy proposal. Don't blame the sysops for doing their jobs.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What I saw with the trolls was more like the police watching someone deface a public building and the police then going to the DA to get permission to arrest the offenders. Certainly nothing like searching a house without a warrant the reality seems more like getting a warrant for what already should be an arrestable offense.  Reflecting on this analogy I concede that perhaps it is a hole in policy if policy is the way this wiki fixes things and returns power back to sysops. --Aspectacle 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange Aspectacle, as my view on the matter is completely different. I saw idiots walking in the road, so I (and and few others), pushed them back into the gutters =). Also, your last sentence is in dreadful need of comma's. (Very late here /yawn) Readem   Hate Mail Goes Here  10:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Karlos here. Probably the single greatest difference between GWiki and GWW is the sysop role; and that's something GWiki never had a problem with (and something that GWW is failing miserably at). I remember on the discussion pages, people bitched and whined about sysops having too much power and people being unable to discern what was a violation and what wasn't, but in the end, they made the wrong choice. Sysops that are not allowed to act in good faith for the benefit of the wiki (banning me for a week for trolling, even though no policy explicitly states I can't... banning Raptors for general asshattery, banning Skuld for NPA and trolling) are near useless.
 * ArenaNet went to GuildWiki and requested help in setting up a wiki because they were impressed with how GWiki was run; one of the most distinguishable factors was the sysop freedom. We sort of missed ArenaNet's point by putting pointlessly-tight chains on our sysops here, and we're finding out now how bad we screwed up :/ - Auron 10:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If we get the ArbComm system rolling perfectly it will balance off the changes in the sysop role. Currently we have split the former GWiki sysops to the GWWiki sysops and ArbComm, but the ArbComm isn't working as well as it could, so we are missing half of the stuff really. When the ArbComm system starts working we should have a fully working sysop/bcrat system that can do the same as the GWiki system but keeps the decisions and the actions apart from each other which, imho, is a good thing. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 10:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The model in which sysops have more powers is one that is possible (it's seen on the other wiki, and it's more or less the same we see on fansite forums), but it's not one that I like. I think that model has two big problems, one of them being how here, on something so community driven as the wiki, I believe the community itself should be allowed (and incited, even) to solve their own conflicts without the need for admin interference. This is one advantage of very clear policies - they allow any user to point when there has been an infraction, and so for the users involved to just talk about it themselves (without any admin interference) and solve the problem. Admins would be limited either to those cases in which there is nothing to discuss (vandalizing done by random IPs, for example), or in the very few cases in which the community itself is not able to talk about it and solve the conflict without anyone "from above" interfering.
 * And then there's the second problem. Punitive action is bad, IMO. What Auron described above is exactly the first thing that I think, too, when I think about what a more powerful sysop would do - ban people. That kind of punitive action is needed in places like the fanforums, in which there is no idea of a community driving the site foward; but here, in the wiki, I don't think it works. I would rather have educative action, aiming to improve both the user and the wiki, instead of just throwing punishment around. We have a very good example in Skuld's arbitration, I think - Skuld was not really punished. He's not going to be blocked, he's not going to be banned - instead, he decided to try to lower a bit his agressivity, and a system has been created to help him to do so. This is the kind of action I believe is better (both for Skuld and for the wiki); this is the kind of system I would like to have, as opposed to sysops just blocking and banning or whatever the users. And for such system I don't think we need sysops with more powers than they have today, rather a community willing to listen and discuss within itself to solve problems. That, I think we already have. Erasculio 12:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then, in the spirit of number one, I say: go solve all your problems with Karlos! Solve them now! Stop commenting on policy until you do! (Sorry, maybe I'm not so good at inciting.) More seriously, people generally do solve their own issues here -- admin interference is rare, and I agree that's good.


 * As far as number two, I think that's flawed. Skuld's acting the way he is to avoid an imminent punitive action. He's not doing it on his own -- it took that threat to motivate him. As such, without punitive action, nothing would be happening on that front.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let A-Net Decide
This is not the same as GuildWiki - A-Net has a direct responsibility for this wiki as they link to it in their game and pay for the hosting. The word "official" is also present. You might be used to making your own policy decisions but ultimately if A-Net don't like the decision that is made they will change it. So let them decide in the first place. I have no problem with swearing in the wiki as long as it is kept to talk pages and other pages which can't be directly reached from the in game search function but like I said - let A-Net decide. 58.110.141.174 04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ANet wont decide. They have directly said that they let us run the wiki and decide on the policies. They will only interfer when they deem our actions and decisions harmfull, so we are the ones who need to decide, and they'll only voice their opinnion if we screw up big time. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 04:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See Guild Wars Wiki:About. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And allowing profanity in the wiki which is linked directly from the game which at best result in bad pr and worse change the rating for the game would be a major screw up. If you have reason to believe they are willing to allow profanity in the wiki while they officially support it and link to it from the game then show proof, otherwise re-read what I wrote. I am aware of the above linked page and I believe my point still stands. Is Arena Net willing to allow profanity on an official endorsed, supported and linked to wiki? There is no point in anyone here making a decision on this matter if they are not. Relinquish your egos and let them make the decision. At the moment no "harmful" action has been made but should this policy go ahead to support profanity and they deem it harmful, time was wasted discussing something they were going to decide on anyway. 58.110.141.174 05:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was, partly, an action from Gaile that started this whole discussion. And she has since commented that she did this as a wiki user, not an Anet employee. I therefore think she is aware of all these discussions, but no one from ArenaNet has so far said anything in them. I think that's reason enough to believe they think we should decide this ourselves. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 05:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone said somewhere in these discussions, the content on this wiki does not affect the rating of the game. Also, iirc, swear words may be present in a T-rated game. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe fuck or shit can be present but there are words like c*** which are not. Also not forgetting it appears a lot of people in this discussion suffer from the belief America is the only place on the planet, which it is not. Ratings are not unversal and whatever rating the game is given in the US it certainly isn't given the same in other places, such as Australia. This is just another example of how pointless this discussion is. Where do you draw the line on what is considered offensive? I don't even consider damn a swear word yet the game filter does. Even if you call out "I'm attacking Damned Cleric!" it will appear as ed cleric because of the filter. Not only are you dealing with personal perception but cultural as well. I find it highly offensive that someone else should be allowed to say "I don't believe these words should be used in the wiki because my family and I find them offensive and it my cultural background which says they shouldn't be used on this wiki," - someone else shouldn't be allowed to force their etiquette and belief system on me and this policy is a blatant attempt at doing that. Just because you find it offensive doesn't mean I do too, and it certainly doesn't mean it should be cencsored. Let's not forget the in game chat filter is OPTIONAL. 58.110.141.174 08:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The chat filter is optional, but is on by default. If someone disables their chat filter, they did so knowingly.
 * Secondly, swearing isn't a problem in any of the pages that the game would link to. If you wanted to look up a green item or a dungeon or a specific elite skill, sure; I bet people do that all the time. Those pages on the wiki don't, and never will, contain swearing; the only pages to have swearing are talk pages. When was the last time Joe Guild Wars Player typed in "/wiki Talk:Energy Blast," and got offended by the swearing? That's something I'd like to call a low-percentage scenario. - Auron 08:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, your text is fun to read, but I didn't see what you want us to do? What's your point? -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 08:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In my personnal opinion, I think that a wiki is a place where we pass on knowledge objectively. If there is no swearing/cursing, knowledge can still be understood in an objective point of view. If there is swearing, which is subjective by its own nature, the meaning of the words written in this wiki could be altered or being not appreciated by people who prefer not using generally offensive words. I am sure people used to swearing could read a wiki which should be beneficial to all, both to people who are for anti-trolling policies and to people who are against them. Needless to say, I would prefer a wiki without ideas that prohibits trolling and/or active swearing/usage of unnecessary vocabulary.

Once again, its only my 2 cents. Thank you for this mighty talk. 209.197.135.176 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Elhehir
 * Even though I've not contributed very much yet, I thought I'd weigh in... I agree that excessive swearing could be offputting to new members of the community. Why not just implement a guideline saying please avoid swearing? That way, casual and harmless swearing is not against the spirit of the guideline, but we can still point at people who attempt to shock or make others uncomfortable and say "please stop this." I think that would capture a nice middle ground between all of the concerns voiced so far. --Ari 15:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As a quick followup, I think this should also nicely run around the problem of "but what if someone else finds a word offensive that I don't use with any intention of harm?" Well, seeing the policy only asks you to avoid swearing, one incident is really not a huge deal, so you try and work out a compromise like adults. Even if you technically aren't an adult, it's never too early to learn. :) --Ari 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Never a final word
This debate could go on endlessly, as has been said many times. People get offended by everything nowadays, from swear words to chickens. The game has a teen rating, with the understanding that some swearing does happen. In-game dialogue FROM CHARACTERS BY ANET has swearing. So I suggest a policy of common sense: swearing is fine as long as it isn't all you do. If you swear at someone, that falls under NPA. Policy aside, anyone who does swear simply makes themself sound less intelligent. -72.245.37.84 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines would be more suitable. You can't really have a policy of common sense, as again common sense and what you would expect from it differ wildly from person to person. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am just waiting for this to cold down a little bit more, and for me to have more free time. Not everything has been said and most of the things said does not really has any argument.Coran Ironclaw 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the opposition, I would like to move this to rejected. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 00:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree.Coran Ironclaw 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Coran has further arguments that he thinks can sway opinion then this is simply stalled. I doubt he can, but it is is his prerogrative to try. Backsword 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate and argument can continue as long as it's necessary. But this policy proposal as written is obviously not going to garner support. I believe the logical next step from this is to either let this drop to rejected or rewrite it and re-propose either as a policy or a guideline (a guideline would appear to have a greater chance of success). -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 10:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost a month of debate an no noticeable progress towards consensus over this policy, I'm marking it as rejected. As ab.er.rant mentions, it'd be better to rework this and re-propose it in a form that you think can gain consensus support. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do think this can gain consensus, i just don't have the time to do what is needed to be done. And all the no relevant and senseless comments makes it a lot harder. At least I think i can reject all arguments given against this, and still keeping with more to favor but I know this sentence is woth little if I don't do it. so do as you want. Coran Ironclaw 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought- what about a wiki module that would censor certain words- similar to the in game chat filter? Anyone know if such a thing exists? - elviondale  (tahlk) 00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked here about that time ago, the answer were that there is, but i guess anet won't activate it unless the community request it. Coran Ironclaw 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another question, a guideline could allow users to remove specific word? In fact, rather than prohibit profanity words, all i want is giving the users the power to remove those words if they like, please don't start the "i find the word hi offending!!" just words currently filtered by the game. Coran Ironclaw 01:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to... fight for this policy? It solves nothing, it helps nothing, and is unnecessary to the tenth degree. I'm sure it's a fun feeling being able to censor thousands of wiki editors at whim, but until your proposed censorship actually achieves something, there will never be support for it.
 * A censorship guideline would recieve just as little support as this censorship policy did; I wouldn't waste my time, if I were you. - Auron 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * you didn't answer the question. "I'm sure it's a fun feeling being able to censor thousands of wiki editors at whim" not for me, it is actually pretty boring. Coran Ironclaw 03:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * RAWR jeepers. I'm asking if there's a way to implement a filter of some sort.  As this would be implemented on a per user basis, this would have no bearing on whatever you wanted to write.  If you think this is unnecessary, why are there so many people disagreeing about this?  In fact, why is there a page on here at all if this isn't a big deal?  Just as you might claim we have no right defining offensiveness, etc, etc, I would expect the same would apply for what you think is "unnecessary". - elviondale  (tahlk) 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are there so many people disagreeing about this? I'm pretty sure it's just you and Coran that think swearword censorship is good. Take a look at the entire rest of the talk page for the arguments that debunk the idea, I'm not going to waste my time reiterating them.
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a by-user word filter, that way I could ignore all the "OMG YOU NERFED MY ____" posts. Such a filter, however, would probably be hard to implement; I've never seen nor heard anything like it on any other wikis. - Auron 09:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * why you can't ignore them now? Coran Ironclaw 03:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly &mdash; Skuld 07:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point, Coran. I'm glad you think it's a waste of time too. - Auron 22:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't prove anything, i asked a question which you didn't answer, you tend to not answer questions. after you answer that question you can question me with it, no problem at all. Coran Ironclaw 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe his point was that you can just ignore any words that annoy/offend you. --Edru viransu 23:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. If I can ignore people's posts, so can you, Coran. - Auron 23:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) First, every person is different, so your argument is invalid. Second, it happens that you just implied you can't ignore them in the current state of the wiki. "I wouldn't be opposed to a by-user word filter, that way I could ignore all the "OMG YOU NERFED MY ____" posts." I just want to know why. Coran Ironclaw 02:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My "argument" was in response to this entire shitfest of logic. If you're getting worked up about profanity, I can get worked up about retards posting in balance threads.
 * Luckily, you countered yourself for me. My getting irked by idiots in balance discussion is every bit as valid as your getting irked by profanity; thus, when you asked "why can't you ignore them now?" I felt that you just shot your entire argument here in the foot. If you can ignore stuff so easily (as implied by your post), what is your big issue with profanity? Just ignore it. - Auron 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think my question implies that I can ignore "stuff" so easily? Can't you just see that as a question and not as a statement? (and now I do imply it is easy to see that as a question and not as a statement) If I would wrote "Why you just can't ignore them now? Then I would totally agree that question implies it is easy to ignore them. But the only thing my question do is to request an answer, it do not suggests ignore them as an easy solution. You implied "I can't ignore them now" What am I supposed to ask if I want to know the reason? -> "Why you can't ignore them now?" Seems to me a simple question without statements. But I am not native english speaker, so tell me if that question do imply or not anything, because that was not the intention.Coran Ironclaw 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your asking in such an offhand and flippant manner made it seem like more of a dismissal than an actual question - and that implied that you thought it easy to ignore whatever caused the discomfort. If that wasn't your intent, I apologize for mistaking your implications.
 * I have no problem ignoring anything on this wiki. If some guy suggests Xinrae's Weapon as a counter to Searing Flames, I smile a bit, but ultimately, if it bothered me enough, I could ignore it. Nobody is forcing me to read it, and I would be a dick to tell them to stop posting.
 * This whole "no profanity" thing runs counter to the "just ignore it" logic. If we applied this policy's logic to my scenario, I would be lobbying to remove stupid posts in balance threads (or, more specifically, replacing them with "STUPID POST"); it would be unpopular, sort of like this policy.
 * What do you see in this policy? It's unnecessary, and most importantly, wouldn't improve the wiki if implemented. - Auron 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I could make a quick answer but that will do little good. What I need is a very big answer and the time to reply/refute all your replys, and a good cleanup of this talk page. I can't/don't want to deal with that now. I might come in a month to do it. Coran Ironclaw 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to avoid adding fuel to the fire, but Auron... chill. You're not debunking a scientific theory or a religious idealism, so you don't have to go on about someone contradicting themselves, etc, etc.  You can choose to ignore discussions about skill balances and the like by simple avoiding those pages.  If you find a subject to not be worth your time or offensive to you, fine, ignore it.  Profanity is different.  People don't normally have a topic about profanity where long strings of words all nothing but.  You can't ignore the usage of profanity in this wiki. Its there, its intermingled with conversation, and its not like there's an H2 header at the top saying "We swear a lot in this discussion".  So no, you can't ignore it, just you like can't ignore tubgirl or goatse or Rick Astley the first time you get Rickrolled. - elviondale  (tahlk) 02:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Auron's last post is actually quite "chilled" and quite logical. It's true that profanity can pop up anywhere. But his argument is valid too - stupid comments can pop up anywhere too. Stupid PvE questions that are blatantly obvious, stupid questions that I sometimes feel like shouting RTFM, and stupid comments by kids who just hit puberty. So yea, you can ignore them. You don't have to skip a whole page, you can skip the lines and ignore all the comments by the user who offends you. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 14:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

by-user filter

 * An issue with a per-user filter is that it utterly destroys the wiki's caching system. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily... something as simple as a js search-and-replace scheme would run on the browser- implemented the same way as GWWT - elviondale  (tahlk) 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You would be better off asking about this at GWWT:TECH. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 00:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, anything browser-based doesn't need policy to enable it - just find something suitable, and add it to your custom monobook.js file - just like GWWT. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Guideline
How would a suggestion like this have any value as a guideline? I don't see swearing as a common enough thing on the wiki to provoke a policy, this looks like a knee-jerk reaction the incident involving Gaile. As a guideline I believe this would just be ignored when it would have been applied anyway. If a person is going to swear it is likely either a common habbit which a guideline is unlikely to impact on at all, or it is in the heat of the moment, which a policy let alone a guideline is unlikely to prevent. Many users on the wiki don't follow the policies let alone even read the guidelines. Dancing Gnome 06:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing other users' comments can be construed as vandalism. As a guideline, this proposal would create a profanity removal exception. -- Gordon Ecker 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean if I swear on the wiki other people are allowed to remove the swear words? More disturbingly, if I do something against a guideline someone can edit what I did to make it follow the guidelines? Dancing Gnome 13:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They've always been able to do that in articles. As for talk pages, the only things the proposed talk page guideline would allow people to do to other people's comments are archive them, remove unambiguous personal attacks, remove links to shock sites and other patently offensive material, remove unambiguous vandalism and spam and move them to a more appropriate talk page and mark the move with moved, add unsigned to unsigned comments and clean up page formatting (scale down screenshots, fix indentation, close unclosed tags), and this would add the removal of profanity to that list. The proposed talk page guideline specifically disapproves of the removal of talk page content for any reason not explicitly permitted by policy or guidelines, which would make any talk page content removal not explicitly permitted by guidelines a violation of guidelines and arguably vandalism. -- Gordon Ecker 02:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No-one will be editing my comments. &mdash; Skuld 13:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh snap- you told him :P - elviondale  (tahlk) 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

References to the game
For anyone who says this wiki should follow the game's lead... I was given a three day block for "inappropriate language" during the Mad King Festivals. Anyone who saw it and decided to report me turned the filter off knowingly. (In my opinion, if you turn the filter off, don't complain, and if it still goes through, ANet needs to fix it.) My point is, while I got a three day ban, User:Raptors got a one day ban for tricking people to visiting a shock site, and months after he began contributing, a two week ban for NPA. It did not take months for me to get banned; it took about an hour (assuming a 72 hour block; I wasn't actually kicked out of the game, so I can't be sure).

Don't get me wrong; I knew when I made my statement about the filter that I was quite likely to be banned, and I accepted that, and I have no regrets; however, the game is not run like the wiki (and, more importantly, vice versa), and due to the immense differences that should be resolved, it likely never will be.

Food for thought. Armond 06:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

tl;dr
But banning useful fucking users just because those fuckknuckles can't keep their fucking language clean is pretty bat-shit retarded. Misery  21:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * thread fucking revival, dude. - Auron 21:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ups, I read the policy and there was no intention to ban, by all means, implement this. I will find it hilarious as people have to start censoring every second word I type. Misery  21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which means I'll have to start saying "The F Word" →[ » Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png  (talk)« ]← 16:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)