Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft-2007-9-16

Wouldn't "acting systematically or maliciously in a manner disruptive to the wiki" be something in the realm of user conduct, and thus already subject to arbitration? --Rezyk 07:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but as the current approved version of policy reads, it's mostly being interpreted as "issues between 2 or more users", not issues between a user and the wiki as a whole. So if nothing else, it's a clarification. However, if you've a better idea for wording, feel free to suggest it. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is alot clearer, I would never have read that part that way in the current policy, or I would have contacted the ArbComm already on those cases that have caused a stirr now. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 09:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems hard to understand it being interpreted as only for between users -- wasn't the last arbitration request focused towards a sole user? Anyways, I've tried rewording it to make the clarification more succinct and more general in scope. --Rezyk 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Expand to potentially disruptive content?
I'd sort of like to propose expanding ArbComm's consideration to cases where users believe certain content is disruptive to the wiki itself. Specifically, ArbComm would not deal at all with presentation or whether or not something should be retained (that's spelled out in GWW:CONTENT and is under sysop jurisdicition), but rather content that, in its nature, is perceived as needlessly disturbing the general wiki community (yes, I'm thinking of certain recent highlights when I write this). Naturally, this is going to be a rather subjective area, which is why I'd suggest making it fall under ArbComm jurisdiction. Thoughts? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the negative effects of such disruptions can potentially be very bad to the wiki as a whole, I'd support this. We really need a clear way of resolving such issues. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this, with the same reasons as Aberrant. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we would need to rephrase or re-scope this somewhat, to something other than "needlessly disturbing". I know that there is some sentiment against ArbComm being able to decide things like a builds wipe..and it's plausible to argue that some forms of builds sections are a disturbance (due to inherent disruptiveness) and needless (since they can be managed on other sites). Note: I don't wish to argue that myself, but I do see it as a potential point of (endless) debate.
 * Given the nature of recent issues -- what if we do something like have ArbComm judge level of content offensiveness? So, suppose we determine on using some level of restriction like "ESRB Teen equivalent". Then if/when some instance is disputed enough, we ask ArbComm to judge whether or not the instance goes too far past that line. (And hopefully the majority of cases will be clear-cut enough to everyone that we wouldn't need to bring it to ArbComm that often.) Wouldn't that be enough to address the recent issues? --Rezyk 19:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would work all that well, Rezyk - it's possible to be disturbing without being outright offensive (trolling is a good example of this). What I don't want is for another scenario to arise where it doesn't fall under clearly one jurisdiction or another to resolve the matter, such that it ends up just becoming drawn out with no release. I don't think the example you provided (re: builds) is an issue, because ArbComm can always reject the case if they feel its not reasonable for them to rule on it. If necessary, explicitly state that ArbComm decisions may not overrule established policies, which would effectively make a ruling regarding a builds wipe or the like impossible per GWW:CONTENT (assuming the Builds proposal is accepted). [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You really think censoring everyone on the wiki will decrease "disruptions"? That's by far the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. &mdash; Skakid9090 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please at least read the proposal, as well as realizing the intent behind it, rather than making sensationalist statements with very little basis. There is a mile gap between "censoring everyone on the wiki" and allowing the potential for evaluation of whether or not given content is detrimental to the wiki as a whole. An example: should you be allowed to run through a building screaming "Fire!" when there's no such hazard? Are you being censored if someone makes a law that if you intentionally mislead people into believing there's an eminent danger of fire, you will be fined?
 * Please, quit it with the kneejerk reactions and actually think about the concepts at hand. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What does yelling "Fire!", a possibly life-threatening accident, have to do with saying Fuck, a word used by your average teenager to express emotion? &mdash; Skakid9090 00:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said that allowing ArbComm to consider whether content is needlessly disruptive would disallow saying "fuck"? Where do you even see that mentioned in this proposal, or anything of that nature? This isn't Guild Wars Wiki:No profanity, please don't make assumptions towards this based on that. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. Ignore me then. &mdash; Skakid9090 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's not about "level of content offensiveness". It really doesn't matter if content is offensive or not. If it becomes too disruptive, then it falls under ArbComm purview to remove such content and to stop further conflicts. Should it be expanded to user behavior as well, rather than just content? Although that would kinda make the bureaucrats seem like moral police. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 06:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support finally giving ArbComm a job to do. :) &mdash;Tanaric 06:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is unnecessary, and changing it at the time of Skuld's "trial" is fishy. Not that there is any doubt that ArbComm can look into Skuld's case anyways. I find the change in wording unnecessary and I find that no one has challenged ArbComm's authority to look into issues of user vs community so the whole thing to me seems to be uncalled for. --Karlos 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note: This draft predates the request for arbitration regarding Skuld by 3 days. --Xeeron 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of giving ArbComm this kind of power. I don't believe there is a great need for this change to be made and this power to be given - I haven't seen considerable disruption to the wiki - just a bunch of egos being bruised on talk pages. The wiki is here as an encyclopaedia for the game, and I believe the specific issue this policy change is targeting was profanity and actions of select few members who aimed for this kind of reaction - and didn't even do so on actual wiki pages. I don't trust the ArbComm with the ability to call judgement over user actions or conflict between users in this way, it's too much. This just seems like a way of saying, "well we don't have a policy against it so I can't do anything but ArbComm can just make the call I was going to make anyway". This is too general to be put into effect - what constitutes a disruption? I find that many Sysop and wiki regular's comments, like many of Aiines on Izzy's talk pages, are more disrupting to the question asked and discussion than someone screaming at other users because they didn't like the latest nerf. This proposal looks like a proxy no-profanity and no-trolling more than an actual help to the wiki. 58.110.141.174 04:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fail?

 * 1) Nothing for a month.
 * 2) Many felt this was unneeded.
 * 3) Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration policy is current, and would make this redundant.
 * Backsword 13:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)