Guild Wars Wiki talk:Harassment

Initial response

o.0? Did I bring this about?.../signed though...--Ryudo 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I also support this in it's current state if no good arguments against it are brought up. -- (gem / talk) 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a little knee jerkish and redundant to me. I would rather see this in NPA than its own policy. I don't mean to say that its unnecessary, its just a part of NPA -elviondale (tahlk) 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not part of NPA. NPA consists of things that discuss a person, whether or not the person in question has actively asked them to stop. This policy, on the other hand, is the opposite: the things in question may or may not discuss the person themselves, but they are being discussed in a manner that the person cannot avoid and does not wish to be involved in.

Putting it a different way;

NPA is "User A sucks" posted on random page X.

This, on the other hand, is "I like bananas" posted on User A's talk page, and User A saying "I have no interest in bananas, please leave me alone".

Bananas are not inherently offensive, nor would it be unreasonable to discuss bananas somewhere else, but the user simply doesn't wish to discuss such a subject and thus they should be allowed to request that such a discussion not take place on their talk page, distracting them from things which they are interested in. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

NPA is no personal attacks, correct? How is harassment not a personal attack? I think NPA is a little broader than 'don't insult no one ya hear?' -elviondale (tahlk) 08:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Because NPA deals with comments that have a user as the subject, whereas this deals with things that have a user as an audience. The user in question may not even be the subject of the discussion for this policy. Is a telemarketer insulting you when they call you? Certainly not. Does that mean you shouldn't have a right to ask them not to call you? Hardly. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that makes a little more sense. Once again, after a good night's sleep and some logic a la Aiiane, I reverse my opinion -elviondale (tahlk) 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so wouldn't it be easier to just not say anything when someone randomly comes to your page and says "I like bananas"? — ク Eloc 貢 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just hang up the phone whenever a telemarketer calls during dinner? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad example considering I do that? — ク Eloc 貢 08:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the point is that just because you can ignore it, doesn't make it right, nor less of an annoyance to those who dislike it. You may not mind telemarketers calling during dinner, but others do.

As another example, what if I were (hypothetically) to, each day, post "Bananas" to your talk page. Nothing else, just "bananas", added to your talk page once a day, every day. Would you not find that at least in a small way distracting? Especially if (and I don't know your settings, but if) you have email notification turned on for modifications to your talk page. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

lulz. Couldn't resist, Aiiane. -Auron 09:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit, Auron. I lol'd irl. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment seems too subjective to be easily enforcable. Takes a judgement of the state of mind of the people involved. Unless harassment becomes an overwhelming issue on this wiki, I'd rather leave such user disputes to ArbComm. Backsword 10:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where do states of mind come into play? The policy says nothing about the intent of either party, is simply says if the conversation doesn't involve something related to the wiki, and party A asks to discontinue the conversation, the other party B should respect that request with regards to user A. That doesn't mean B can't go elsewhere and discuss the issue with others, or can't ever contact user A again, it simply means that one person said "look, I don't want to talk about this", and so the other should say "okay". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking about the policy in general. That example would be fine, most of the time, but seems to have more to do with our lack of talk page policy than harassment. Backsword 13:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual policy itself deals fairly specifically with talk pages, if you think the article would be better titled Guild Wars Wiki:Talk page harassment feel free to suggest a move, this title just seemed the simplest. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I really like this policy, and thus I support it. It's clear enough to not give room for abuse, while being broad enough to give freedom to each user about what is going to be displayed in his/her user page. Erasculio 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I read it, the actual policy text is very general and could be applied to any user dispute, something that is the realm of ArbComm. The examples are another issue. See Biro's post. Backsword 11:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Too open for abuse. Weak outlines for what is and what isn't termed as harassment. Not needed in its current form. Another example of sysop power creep. Why don't they just write a proposal saying "Sysops can do anything and everything they like when they like and can ban other uses when they see fit". None of these policies seem to take into account the wiki also includes feedback to A-Net staff which is a vastly different function from the rest of the wiki. If I don't want to reply to someone on my talk page that's my prerogative, it works really well to avoiding situations like this one is to protect you from. People can archive dead conversations, which most will die if you ignore them. Instead I would prefer a "turn off notice of talk page changes" proposal instead. This policy does nothing the wiki currently doesn't handle just fine aside from giving more power to sysop and more rules to read. Opposed. Dancing Gnome 12:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is "not involved with the content of the wiki or its operation" ambiguous? If I ask you a question related to an article, edit, policy, user, or file on the wiki, it's related. If I ask you a question about your social life, it's not. The policy is rather straightfoward: if it's not related, and a user asks that you not post about it directly with them, you don't. In fact, the policy is rather exclusive when it comes to what is harassment, because anything which remotely involves the wiki can't possibly qualify for action, so it's hardly a "give the sysops free reign". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how this relates to sysops in any way. More power to sysops, how? -- (gem / talk) 15:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider someone asking me what I'm doing on Saturday night harassment. That's ridiculous. It's not like they are hacking your computer to find the information, they aren't holding a gun to your head, they aren't stalking you. If you don't want to tell someone what you are doing on Saturday, don't tell them. Don't make a rule against asking. This isn't pre-school, we aren't all 6 year olds who need their interactions supervised. "Not involved with the wiki or it's content"... I have seen several of the conversations on this wiki, some which Aiine took place in herself, which were not involving the wiki. I don't see how being able to ban someone for asking these questions is any more effective than simply ignoring them. It's completely harmless, if I said I love cookies on someone's talk page are they going to fall over and die? Are they going to have a heart attack? Are there children going to be born without the ability to drive cars made in Japan? No. This seems like a ridiculous way of getting around the inability to delete said garbage from someone's user space. I'm sure there are many conversations which take place on the wiki every day which people like to talk about non wiki things. Any environment is a social environment, work, school, even the wiki. If you don't want them to know what you are doing on Saturday DON'T TELL THEM. Feel free to post what you like on my user page, I'll be glad to show you how to ignore comments like that - I've done it before - it's NOT hard. This is a ridiculous rule which we don't need. In response to Gem's comment above(isn't that clearer and easier?), this is more power to Sysops via: Harassment is considered to be in the same league as personal attacks and should be dealt with similarly, i.e. Sysops. I really don't understand why you asked that, it seemed pretty clear. Dancing Gnome 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gnome: you've missed one slight detail- its based on user request. You and I could shoot the breeze on my talk page till I'm blue in the face, but if I talk on yours and you ask me not to post regarding certain things, if its not game related, I must needs abide by that. -elviondale (tahlk) 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how that makes a sysop 'more powerful'. It just adds another task to their list, but it doesn't give them the ability to go around policies or anything. You are right, the wiki is full of non-wiki related discussions and most users are okay with them. However, there have also been situations where users have asked others to stop discussing something on their user page (not just the recent case, there have been multiple cases earlier), but the others haven't listened. Also, this acts as a way to say that discussing wiki matters can not be prevented in this way, which multiple users have tried before. With this policy we could just give them a link and say that people may contact them with wiki matters even if they don't want to hear negative feedback. -- (gem / talk) 16:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still ridiculous. You don't own your user page. You don't even have to read your user page. People can be ignored. This is just power creep and completely unnecessary. Dancing Gnome 18:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually a user doeshave very great control over both his user page and talk page, although some wiki policies limit this control in some ways, for example GWW:NPA and GWW:USER. It's wrong to say that you don't have to read your user page, especially if you meant talk pages which we are talking about here, since you get a huge disturbing orange box on top of every page if you don't view it. The use page and talk page are great tools for many users, and if the use of those tools is being abused to distract and offend a user then they should have the right to say no to that behavior, even if it doesn't break GWW:NPA. -- (gem / talk) 18:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. You don't have to read your talk page and you shouldn't be able to have someone banned for saying "i like cookies" that's ridiculous. This is the Internet, not the bubble half the users on this wiki appear to have been grown up in. Dancing Gnome 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is any power creep it would be for the normal user. They get more power over their talk page, which is a tiny bit considering the whole wiki. So I wouldn't say it's power creep, and definitely not for sysops. It's not the sysops' decision/responsibility to point out the harassment, it's the user's.
And currently you cannot get banned for just saying "You are stupid" either. Even when we have a policy against personal attacks. It isn't an on/off switch, there's a scale on everything. - anja 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying 'cookies' or 'banana' isn't going to get anyone banned. If the user doesn't like that message they can ask the poster to not post similiar stuff in the future. If he still keeps posting messages like that he will receive a sysop warning. If after that warning he continues he will be banned. So users will only get banned if they really ask for it. And if a user doesn't read his talk page he wont be there saying 'don't post this' so it's hardly an issue in that case.

I disagree with users not being required to read their talk page if they contribute to the wiki regularily since it's often the only way to contact a user i any problems or questions about their contributions arise. -- (gem / talk) 18:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Without having 10 more people post saying the same things over and over. I don't misunderstand the policy. I think it is ridiculous. I know a complaint has to be made. I am saying this is not pre-school. This is not your own personal bubble. This is the Internet, people say banana, people will say banana whether you want them to or not. People will say cookie or cheese or any condiment they want and they will do it where they want. If someone REALLY wants to write "i like cookies" on someone's user page, banning them for it is not going to do anything, they will just make a new account, reset their ip or use a proxy. These rules are ridiculous. There is no need for this, I have only seen someone complain about the automated message appearing on their talk page which they couldn't remove. Allowing people to clear their talk page and turn off the damn auto "you have a new message on your talk page" thing the wiki does, seems a lot more logical than creating this policy. Like I said, feel free to post about cookies or bananas or what you are doing on Saturday night as much as you want on my talk page. I will prove how incredibly ridiculous and unneeded this policy is by ignoring you. Btw Gem, I don't remember ticking a box saying I would regularly read my talk page, let alone respond to anything there. I would find it humorous to see what you would do if someone you wanted to "bring an issue up with" just ignored you. What are you going to do? Tell a sysop? Ban them? If you proposed a rule like this in real life people would laugh at you because you would be demonstrating how much you fail at life. "If anyone in high school asks me what I'm doing this Saturday after I have asked them not to, I am telling the teacher and they will get detention". Get real people.Dancing Gnome 19:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Turning off the 'new messages' box is definitely not a solution, it's one of the most helpful tools. A user who is very active and receives comments often on their talk page really needs it but can still be irritated by random commentors like Raptors.

Quote: "Btw Gem, I don't remember ticking a box saying I would regularly read my talk page, let alone respond to anything there." You didn't. However, if you are making a big crusade of edits and there's something wrong with it and someone posts you a message about it you should read it. If your edits harm the wiki and you just continue and continue without reading your talk page there is little the others can do about it and in the long run there might be no other chance than to ban that user. Ofcourse this is an extreme case, but shows why one can't just ignore his talk page. -- (gem / talk) 20:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, this isn't pre-School, but many users act like it were, that's why we need this. See Raptors, and a bunch of the others. -- (gem / talk) 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh do we get cookies for snack time? --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

(ri) I take the side that we shouldn't be limited to talk about things that are only wiki, that would make this place a lot less fun :( Vanguard 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. Talking non-wiki stuff is allowed. Talking non-wiki stuff on the talk page of user X wouldn't be allowed if X said no to that stuff. The whole point is to protect users from stuff like what happened at User talk:Ryudo (see the archive, admin notice board, npa talk page, eloc talk page and raptors talk page for more details on the case). -- (gem / talk) 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's just the impression I got when reading all the replies >_<. It seems I'm not the only nub here who misunderstood. Vanguard 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Those references are stupid, Eloc was just being weird - the guy got upset over the automated greeting, I got one too when I created my account: Hi Dancing Gnome, welcome to the wiki! Just wanted to say 'hi' and point you towards Help:Contents, a good place to start if you have any questions, as well as Guild_Wars_Wiki:Helpers, a group of people who have offered to help and give assistance where needed. If you have any specific questions, feel free to leave a message on my or anyone listed as a Helper's talk pages and we'll sort you out. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Did you see me whine complain or whatever? No. It was helpful - I've even clicked on the link to the helpers thing a few times to ask questions. If people get upset about automated welcome messages they can GTFO of the Internet. All the cases I've seen where someone had an issue with these was where the message was given, someone removed it (violating another incredibly stupid policy as these users common sense actions show) and their removal was reverted with a "lecture" about removing posts by the original auto message user. Sure it's not an ideal situation but it's a ridiculous reason for this stupid policy. Just allow users to delete shit from their user pages, it's not like it's valuable anyway. I've seen the argument for archiving instead of deleting numerous times now and it looks like a waste of time, space and a source of frustration - I've never been convinced. I get archived talk pages for actual content but this is ridiculous. Dancing Gnome 22:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The most recent case was poorly handled by everyone, including Ryudo. There have been other cases in the past if you've been active enough on the wiki to have noticed them. I surely have seen many. (And no, I'm not going to dig through months of talk page histories to find them just to make you happier) -- (gem / talk) 22:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

By active enough on the wiki you mean wasting time reading other peoples talk pages as opposed to adding/fixing/altering/editing content to perform the actual function of the wiki? I'm pretty sure there are two cases somewhere in this discussion which basically follow the same pattern which leads me to my new policy idea I might actually write up. Here it is: User talk:Kalsion Dancing Gnome 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

People bump into this stuff because A) they patrol recent changes in case of vandalism and click on edits there B) they are sysops/bureaucrats who are asked to help with a user behavior issue C) some other method. For you this wiki might only be about information and that's totally ok with me. For me and many other regulars this is sort of a way of life and a place to hang out, meet friends, talk about stuff. It's a community. If that wouldn't exist and this was only work that I do for a company for free I would have quit a long time ago.

Back on topic: I haven't seen any real points in your posts, just sarcastic critisism and the below stuff with suggestion for ridicilous policies. It's your turn to make a point, I've made several already. -- (gem / talk) 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

indent reset @Dancing Gnome. Your assumption is that I was upset about getting a welcome. I was not. Although I was really, really, really confused why someone felt the need to send me a rather elitest automated welcome message six months after I created my account, it wasnt until the userbox was posted and she refused to leave me alone that I started to get upset. My intial comments were a bit cold, I admit. But I was having a seriously bad day.--Ryudo 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry homie but "my day sucked" is not an excuse for lashing out, a fact I have learned the hard way in real life and in game. Vanguard 23:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I didnt so much lash out as attempt to make it clear I didnt want to be bothered. But now we are getting off topic again.--Ryudo 23:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any real points in your posts is more direct than when a certain other user said "still waiting for someone with viability/'something like that' to post" in a skill balance discussion, which if I recall they were reprimanded for. I haven't seen any real need for this policy, does that mean /rejected? No. Dancing Gnome 23:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That also doesn't mean that I think your a bad person or stupid or anything. I'm just saying that I haven't seen a real argument against this, just an opinnion which shortly said is 'I don't like this policy proposal'. The other case which you quoted is directly saying that 'everyone who posted doesn't know anything about the subject and shouldn't even be posting here' in a very aggressive manner. There's a huge difference. -- (gem / talk) 23:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well aside from your above comment looking a lot like denial, this policy is just being overly sensitive to a few people who got upset by a welcome message, including one who said the reason they didn't like it is because it "implied" they were noob. Knee jerk reaction for sure. The only two cases I've seen to demonstrate this policies need are pitiful at best. Power creep and no need. Dancing Gnome 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. While Ryudo's incident may have been the triggering one that tipped me to actually write up the policy, it is far from the only incident that contributed to the motivation, and my writing it was not solely to help in that specific case.

Out of curiousity, would you consider the Bill of Rights to be "power creep" over the United States Constitution? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from not being from the US (shock there are other countires on the planet! OMG my world is blown!) and not caring about the bill of rights I think even Americans know their government systems = major fail. I've heard people say before "This is GWW not Wikipidia" how about "This is GWW not the American Government, or my French tour guide or your grandmother's place where she says you can do it there. Dancing Gnome 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Where, exactly, did I imply you were from the U.S.? I used the example because it is one I know. Please, address the question at hand rather than branching off into nationalist arguments? I asked a simple question, of what you considered the Bill of Rights to be in relation to the U.S. Constitution. If you're unfamiliar with them, feel free to simply say you do not know enough to answer the question. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

American government = fail? The the contrary, Saddam's government = fail. We're only the most powerful country in the world. I don't want to turn this into a US vs the world thing, but don't insinuate that my country sucks. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, US has it's problems which the rest of the world is very aware of. The justice system is based on how the judge interprets written text instead of how the law is meant to be read so that meanings can be twisted, innocent peolpe can be condemned and guilty people can be freed. The anti-terrorism war is a means for the government to keep the nation concentrating on external problems instead of the internal problems and it's causing a lot of trouble to innocent civilians in other parts of the world. Ofcourse that's just one side of the ball. There's a lot of good in the US too. I'm just saying that nothings perfect, and sadly it's hard to notice the weaknesses in yourself or the system that you are a part of. (and Fox TV is good at brainwashing, lying and propaganda as far as I know :P )

Don't take this message the wrong way. -- (gem / talk) 17:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying its perfect- not at all. But by no means is it "fail". I have more conservative libertarian tastes myself, so I won't indulge your war philosophy, and (forgive me if I'm wrong) but for Kurd's sake I won't say "Nuke them all", but you have to be a bit looney to think that Saddam needed to stick around. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Bush doesn't need to stick around. I know more about him than Saddam, though. Now, back to topic but related, this policy is like patriot act.reanor 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The patriot act? I don't want to sound rude, but I question your understanding of either. One allows domestic spying, the other allows users to refuse an off-topic discussion on their talk page. They are in fact so unrelated, you can't even contrast the two or speak in metaphorical terms about them. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What's next?

Guild Wars Wiki:Naptime? Honestly, if you find things people say offensive, just ignore them. Or don't use the internet. Lord Belar 19:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh you should totally write that one up! I would love to see how much blind support it gets. No posts after 6pm GMT? Dancing Gnome 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that'd be Guild Wars Wiki:Curfew. GWW:NAP would mandate a 2 hour break in the middle of the day where no one posts. Anyone caught posting would be banned. Lord Belar 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Joking and sarcasm doesn't really help discuss this policy and wont help you to make a point. -- (gem / talk) 20:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm serious. I'm concerned some users are missing their nap time causing them to be cranky or make stupid policy proposals. Dancing Gnome 20:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Will you people please grow up? A policy proposal is exactly that - a proposal. It's supposed to create discussion and see if the wiki actually wants that. It's good that you've put forward your opinions, that's the whole point. But if you don't like it, saying it's stupid or that the creator of the proposal is "missing their nap time" is just plain childish. br12 • 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are serious, create the proposal and we can start discussing it on its' talk page. -- (gem / talk) 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a policy against user pages which contain more than the bare essentials? The current ones distract users from the actual purpose of this wiki (like 95% of these policy discussions and many of the users involved in them), waste bandwidth on storing their details, could be offensive to some people, don't contribute to the wiki's main goal and *shock gasp horrror* might give someone incentive to ask a personal question or non wiki related question of a user! OMG RUN! Oh btw I find being told to grow up offensive and I want a policy against that to, (if there already isn't one). Maybe it should be included here? Oh what about Guild Wars Wiki:No Sarcasm policy? How about we ban people for posting comments we don't deem constructive or useful to the discussion? Dancing Gnome 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and propose those policy changes on the relevant policy talk pages if you want them. Then we can discuss them and see if the majority wants to make those changes. -- (gem / talk) 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget GWW:Timeout for those "bad egg" users. If they break policy they should get a stern talking to and many shakes of the finger at them. In extreme cases they may have to stand in the corner for 5 minutes. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a list of red policy links somewhere that people decide to fill at random. Shit happens. Deal with it. Don't hide behind "A policy proposal is exactly that - a proposal" - there's no reason for it to be created in the first place, so why is it being created? There's nothing that says we have to discuss, shape, or even give a damn about any policy proposals. The only reason I'm contributing to these policies is because they're stupid, and I'm trying to point that out for those that do not realize it. Armond 10:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The ideology of maximum security and preventing of all risks will end in apoplexy quite quick. Face the problems anc resolve them as they come is another way to do that could be tryed. I don't say we should supress all rules, i say we should only keep the biggest lines. When something happens, trying to search where "it was wrong ! ", searching for guiltyness is way to deal i found twisted. If something happens, can't it just be repared or improved instead of rejected in accordination to a previously stated rule ? thinkink for the best also mean thinking you can and will be wrong someday. lussh 10:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG

They said condoms! Thats offensive, ban plx. Lord Belar 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, what i really would like in forums/talk pages/etc is a ban over sarcasm, because there will always be someone who doesn't get it and starts a flame war for it (that, and because people use sarcasm to start/support flame wars without being able to be blamed for it). Luckily, i am never in charge :) --Fighterdoken 20:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to be "ha ha im so funny lol", you're making yourself look stupid and childish br12 • 20:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This policy proposal only handles user talk pages. Make a new one for guild names if you want to. -- (gem / talk) 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ok, so you can't delete user boxes off your talk page, right? And theres nothing stopping you from posting userboxes on other users talk page. So what if, using eloc for example (as he has the most userboxes, to my knowledge) I were to just copy all of his userboxes and post them into his talk page. And say I decide to do this every hour, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Theres nothing stopping me from doing this?--Ryudo 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I have no intention of doing this, its a hypothetical situtation.--Ryudo 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that falls under vandalism and will result in a ban. The problem we are trying to take care here are smaller cases, such as the one on your talk page. -- (gem / talk) 21:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the proposal which limits this to user talk pages. Dancing Gnome 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this conversation went quite a way overnight. — ク Eloc 貢 22:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the policy: "If you cannot deal with the requests of a user, and the communication is not essential to the purpose of the wiki, refrain from interacting with that user on their talk page." -- (gem / talk) 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from policy: especially on their own talk pages which implies this policy has application beyond their talk page. Kinda raises issues of how well this was written seeing as exact application is a bit vague there. One of the many issues with current policies. Dancing Gnome 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about everything Gnome, why don't you do something about it? -- scourge 23:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Modified. -- (gem / talk) 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do something? I wrote two policies this morning to deal with flaws directly related to this issue. Dancing Gnome 00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Now go do something useful. — Skuld 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My intentions with these proposals are to contribute usefully. I have identified conflicts and proposed solutions to them. I don't like that you have implied my contributions are not useful to the wiki. Dancing Gnome 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care, so where shall we go from here? — Skuld 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I should complain to Aiine so she can propose a policy which would make what you did against the rules. Dancing Gnome 01:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The strawman arguments are getting old.

What this policy does

• Allows a user to choose how far conversations go beyond wiki issues on their own talk page

What this policy does NOT

• Does not allow a user to dictate what can be talked about in any space beyond their own talk page
• Does not allow a sysop to "do anything they want" - in fact, doesn't allow to a sysop to do anything more than current unless a given user specifically states they find something intrusive on their own userpage
• Does not hold any jurisdiction over non-talk pages (which Gem clarified, thank you)

Now, I have to ask: to those arguing that someone should just ignore everything they dislike posted on their own talk page - why do you believe you should have the right to post whatever you want on someone else's talk page? How is that beneficial to the wiki? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal, but I think that its' scope is narrow enough that it would be more appropriate as a proposed amendment to the user page policy. -- Gordon Ecker 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather it not be Gordon - GWW:USER is complex enough with just its mandates for the user pages themselves. I'd prefer something that can be referenced specifically. Pretty much everything on the current GWW:USER speaks towards what a user can/can't do in their userspace, this policy is more aimed at what other users can/can't do. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

People seem to be having double standards on how decisions should be made. "How is that beneficial to the wiki?" is something I see a lot and most of the people who talk like have interesting definitions to "what is beneficial to the wiki". This is just a knee jerk reaction to minor cases that arose recently. A user got upset over a welcome message which appeared on his user page and came to you. You have no power to do something about said users overreaction (which upsets you) so instead you and others use your position to bully the user who posted the welcome message likely in the best of intentions and then go as far as to create a policy which would give you more power. Witch hunts for people who are trying to help the wiki isn't useful to the wiki. It has been demonstrated that at least one of the specific users involved actually does intend to be helpful yet he has been bullied and crucified by the admin here. Dancing Gnome 08:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you finally explained why you think this is power situation for sysops. I'm not sure if you are aware, but I'm not a sysop and I still support this draft. Note that sysops aren't theones deciding what you can do here and bans aren't given lightly. For example in the Ryudo case a warning would have been given first and if the users had continued after that only then would any real action have been taken. Sysops aren't trigger happy bastards who want to ban everyone, they are wiki loving users who want the best for the wiki. -- (gem / talk) 09:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And that, friendly neighborhood seven trade contracts, is exactly the problem with this wiki. Armond 10:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Again. What benefit to the wiki does not having this policy entail? Obviously, it provides a benefit to users who wish their privacy to be respected, and thus provides at least some benefit to the wiki. So again, I ask: how would not having this policy be more beneficial to the wiki than having it? For what purpose is it necessary to give people the right to post whatever they wish on a page specifically designated as corresponding to another user? Unlike policies such as the current form of GWW:USER or GWW:SIGN, this policy is designed to not be restrictive to the average user. It's not something that puts up a giant brick wall in the face of expression, because if a single user asks you to stop something, there are many, many other places one could go to express it. Furthermore, I am not proposing this as an admin, I am proposing it as a user. Dancing Gnome, if my being a sysop is what would, in your eyes, prevent this policy from being adopted, I would gladly give up my sysophood. I hope that is not necessary, however, I would like to state that so that you do not think I am proposing this simply because "I'm a sysop and want more power". You seem to want a wiki where the sysops don't dominate users, Dancing Gnome, yet at the same time you're arguing against the ability of users to maintain at least some semblance of order in spaces designed for interaction with that particular user. What exactly is it that you want then? Anarchy, no rules and no holds barred? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the user talk pages section of the user pages policy is the most appropriate place for this, since it would give users authority to regulate the content of their talk pages. -- Gordon Ecker 10:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree keeping related stuff in one place is the thing to do, I feel that section of the User polcy was a mistake; it was included with the understanding that general talk page policy would supersede it, but no such policy exists as of yet. I'd rather remove that section of the user page policy and have a proper document on talk pages. Backsword 12:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a talk page policy. There's currently a talk page formatting draft, which I think would be sufficient. -- Gordon Ecker 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Note my choice of the word "document" over "policy". I do think there is need for a policy mention somewhere tho', for open cases of abuse SysOps need to be empowered to act. But the general style of debate is well handled by a guideline, especially once we get a revert policy. Backsword 10:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A possible alternative

I don't know if this alternative would please all parties, but how about a policy that says:

If a conversation takes place on a user's talk page and it does not directly concern that user then that user can request for the conversation to be moved elsewhere.

I expect that in 99% of cases this is all we need. We could add that continued addition of content that does not apply to a user being added to a user's talk page could result in administrative action.

How does everyone feel about this? LordBiro 08:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first part of that proposal. I'm a bit iffy about admin action, I understand the desire for some kind of mitigation procedures though. Dancing Gnome 08:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that version is that other users can still harrass the user with stuff that is related to him without relating to the wiki and which the user doesn't want to discuss. That version wouldn't have solved the Ryudo case for example. -- (gem / talk) 09:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nor would this version. Or any other. One cannot legislate away miscommunication. Backsword 12:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What I find funny is that DG is willing to accept that version although it totally fails by his standards which he posted below. It doesn't adress any wiki issues = not needed. :DDD I love hypocrites. -- (gem / talk) 09:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the user even need to make a request before moving it to a more appropriate talk page? People currently move discussions to more appropriate talk pages without asking, and the current draft talk page formatting guideline would endorse the practice. -- Gordon Ecker 10:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, integrating this stuff into that formatting guideline would probably work for the best. -- (gem / talk) 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some things, Gordon, simply don't have anywhere else to move them to, because they're related to the user only, but the user has no interest in discussing them. For instance, if I posted a series of questions about your social life on your talk page, and you were not wanting to discuss your social life on the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out that the above alternative wouldn't do anything. Users can already make requests, and they can already move unwanted discussions off of their talk pages. Our only disagreement is about whether it should be documented here or in the user pages policy. -- Gordon Ecker 12:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the general scope issue, which is valid for all talk pages, not user talk pages. It's rather unrelated to harassment, as the word is commonly used. Actuall cases of harassment can be taken to ArbComm, so we need no policy on them. When something needs to be policy, it's because we need SysOps to act on it. Which would be true for vandalism and abuse, but not user disputes. Backsword 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Having a clear line for some things would help to avoid having such user disputes escalate in the first place - such as backing off on non-wiki topics if someone asks you to. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One would have to ask why someone would not back off on their own is uch a case. Backsword 12:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We could as well ask why someone would vandalize a page, why would someone add improper comments to a talk page, and so on. Yet all those things happen. Erasculio 12:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith illustrates why this needs to be left up to ArbComm, not SysOp discretion. Backsword 12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? When an anon user makes an act of vandalism on an article, we don't call the ArbComm and question whether that was out of ignorance or out of bad faith (or the ArbComm would be stuck with a lot of things to do per day). This policy is the same - it's one thing to say that a random comment in a talk page is bad faith, and another to say that, after being asked to stop, an user continues to edit someone else's talk page and that's bad faith. Ignoring the later would be, IMO, "ignoring bad actions" such as stated on GWW:AGF. Erasculio 12:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"why someone would not back off on their own is uch a case." - Because some people may not realize that backing off is the right thing to do. Good intentions can still lead to bad consequences, and assuming good faith does not rule out helping people towards correct actions. Because AGF is intended to work in cooperation with policy, not as a ruler over it. AGF deals with how to apply and use policy, and is specifically not a policy itself. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with your own inclusion of exceptions in the policy now? Or does this just seem contradictory somehow? Backsword 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On the policy page you have a section with examples of situations where requests should be disregarded. Backsword 13:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because wiki-related communication is necessary for the operation of the wiki. Yes, there will be some times when it would be better to back off in wiki-related communication as well, however there are also times when it is not, thus the policy specifically leaves those out because it's not certain either way for wiki-related topics. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Aiine said a series of personal questions have no other place on the wiki. Perhaps they can be moved to the talk page of the person who asked them? This would move a discussion off of someone's talk page if they don't want it there - providing it was a non wiki related topic. It would also allow the user to continure the discussion as it is without harming anyone else, because it's now on their personal talk page. Dancing Gnome 14:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you seem to be drawing at straws - what, exactly, would be the point of user A asking user B a series of personal questions about user B on user A's talk page, if user B doesn't want to answer them? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that there are cases when requests should be ignored and that Erasculio's assume bad faith thus is unworkable. Yet you think there will be a plethora of situations where someone are, in good faith, disagreeing with multiple people requesting them backing off and at the same time, the situation is so clear and 'mechanical' that it's a matter for SysOps, not ArbComm? Backsword 19:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Aiiane, I think this policy is brilliant. You know something is a great idea when Aiiane proposes it and Erasculio seconds it. It is clear that there are little to no drawbacks from this policy. It allows users to control unrelated content on their talk page (which to a certain degree offensive content might be classified under). In reading arguments against, most of it is baseless- and lets keep in mind the user who already actively moves unrelated talk to the correct talk page and archives things most vehemently, Gaile herself. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is This Proposal Needed?

Seeing as this is not a policy yet I will just ask the question here, (perhaps asking it successfully will demonstrate the policy is not needed). I want to know if this policy is needed. Why should we introduce this policy. I am specifically requesting:

• An example/s of an incident which has occurred that the proposal is intended to deal with it.
• An explanation/s for why this incident is not wanted on the wiki.
• An explanation/s for why this incident justifies the existence of a policy.

"I can't be bothered find the examples but they are there," is not evidence.

Obviously the more the better, one example is weak, several are strong but it is possible to go overboard. I don't consider this an unreasonable request, I'm not asking for every incident in the wiki, just enough to convince myself and others that actual events have demonstrated a need for this policy - you can decide when you are happy with the number of examples you are prepared to bring, (I welcome anyone who wants to accept the policy to do so, not just the original author). It would also help clarify specifically how the policy would deal with said incidents. I believe a policy should have to work hard to exist, not just be proposed because it seems like a good idea at the time, or in recent circumstances but rather took into account the big picture and tangible examples. Please try to use strong examples, at least two of the ones I have seen seemed very weak. Dancing Gnome 08:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Like said before I'm not going to search for stuff just to keep you happy and no one else is trying to be difficult 'just because'. Without brigning to you the example cases I can still answer to some of your questions. 'Why not wanted on wiki?' Because they cause drama and distract users from contributing to the main name space. 'Why justifies this policy?' Policies are here to make sure that people can and will keep contributing to the main name space. This particular policy prevents certain e-drama situations and also keeps some people happy in these situations, it might even prevent them from leaving. -- (gem / talk) 09:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Then don't post in policy discussions if you are not prepared to back up anything with evidence - you take away from a discussion when you show blind support without requesting reason. Hitler isn't a bad man because someone said so. Red meat isn't good for you because someone said so. Someone isn't an overly-sensitive, effeminate euro whack-job just because someone said so. Go to university, or even high school. Write an essay which does not cite a single reference to back it all up, just say "because I said so" and you will fail immediately. Like I said before, this request in not unreasonable. Even original research is required to show logical evidence equating to reasoning for a conclusion. Your posts and beginning to show inconsistencies claiming there is no need for policies I have proposed and then saying there is no need to demonstrate a need for this policy. You are moving into the realm of harassment yourself, disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Dancing Gnome 10:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There are policies which are very understandable without having a case that breaks it before. Gordon or someone posted a nice list of the policies that we have atm that are required but do not meet your 'is needed' standards. For example the copyright policy. -- (gem / talk) 10:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Answer my question, then: what benefits are there to not having this as a policy? You ask for evidence, yet supply none of your own reasoning beyond simply "power creep" (which has been addressed, repeatedly) and "knee-jerk" (which I've already stated this is not, but I suppose you'll just have to trust me or not on that one). You take away from a discussion when you show blind aversion without reason, as well. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane, please also see the above section. He is willing to accept biros version even though it fails by his own standards. He isn't really believing in the 'no need' standards, he just uses them to drive his personl interests. :D -- (gem / talk) 10:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy for you to move this draft to a proposal without any examples. Like Gem said in the Guild Wars Wiki talk:Is This Proposal Needed? If a proposal has no reason then will most likely not be implemented. All of the implemented policies so far have met one of your criteria since users do not support policies that don't have a reason to exist. If in doubt, you can always use the talk page to ask for the reasons. I have done just that and have not been given a reason. No need for a proposal has often been used as reason for refuting a proposal and the need for this has not been demonstrated, likely because there is none. I have seen past discussions involving the users who support this proposal, where evidence was given to support their point of view, it was rejected and refuted by the people considering the issue because the examples given were weak, (iirc one of these discussions was around the same time Gem was opposed for reconfirmation). Don't answer a question with a question, that leads us nowhere. If you can't provide examples which demonstrate a need I say this policy is a waste of our time, this should really be a simple request if you would just stop digging your heels in like a stubborn bull. Oh btw the strawman analogy is likely not relevent as many misconceptions of this proposal were a result of it being poorly written and easily misunderstood. Like I said, provide examples which demonstrate need, otherwise I would be inclined to it simply because it is not needed. Maybe if you answer my question I will answer yours. Gem, please read Guild Wars Wiki:Assume good faith. Dancing Gnome 10:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know I didn't ask anything. -- (gem / talk) 10:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, he's just sarcastic i think. lussh 10:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One (more) example was when an user posted an advertisement of a vaginal lubricant on Gaile's talk page. Obviously this isn't content productive to the wiki, also obviously Gaile wasn't pleased with such content in her talk page, but per policy she could not delete it (and we could not revert it) and, since it wasn't a breach on NPA, per policy the sysops couldn't really act against the user in question. Another example was when an anon user was spamming talk pages (literally, he said he was spamming talk pages since no policies forbid him from doing so, and we couldn't delete or revert any of it anyway). It also wasn't a NPA breach, so per policy there wasn't really anything a sysop could have done. This policy would solve this kind of problem, by allowing those users to be dealt with, per policy, as today we deal with those who breach NPA. Plus it helps users to control what happens on their own (repeating, "their own") user page. Erasculio 11:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eras. :) -- (gem / talk) 11:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically we need a policy for every little thing? It's vandalism. Revert and ban the fucker. Armond 11:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet, one of the arguments Dancing Gnome is using against the proposal here is how it would be sysop "power creeping". I think it's the opposite - without a policy, we give free reign for sysops to interpret and then act based on what they think is best. With more policies, like this one, we lock the sysops into performing very specific roles, taking away their own interpretation and therefore making them weaker, not stronger. Of course, too many policies are bad, IMO, because they add too much complexity into both the wiki and the sysop role; but I think we either give sysops freedom to interpret and apply the rules as they see them, or we give them the rules exactly as they must enforce them. The entire "janitorial" role here is favoring the later approach (regardless of how that role may be currently in discussion somewhere else), so until there's a change in how the wiki sees its sysops, I think this policy is useful. Erasculio 12:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The example of vaginal lubricant sounds a lot like vandalism which is already covered. Dancing Gnome 12:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a policy on vandalism. Erasculio 12:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is not covered for talk pages. Which is a problem. Backsword 12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a policy for it. Revert and ban. Armond 14:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As things currently are, yes, we need a policy for it. If you want to campaign to change how the wiki works so this kind of policy is not necessary in order for action to be taken, it would still take time before that paradigm shift (I have always wanted to say that : D) happens, and in the mean time the policy would still be needed. Erasculio 14:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. Just do it, and if anyone cares, they can cry about it. I would guess people have more respect for a sysyop with a brain than a drone. — Skuld 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think we need to have users "crying" to a sysop and asking for his reconfirmation when we could simply prevent such problems with a policy like this one. Erasculio 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

QQ moar. What problems are we preventing with a policy? Making a rule is asking for a vandal to break it. Revert and ban, trust your sysops. Armond 23:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The problems we are preventing are, for example, those I have mentioned above. I trust the sysops to do their job - which consists entirely on applying policy. If there's no policy about it, there is little for a sysop to do. Erasculio 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, because sysops are brainless and can't do anything without a policy. Armond 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes you wonder how GW and PvX function then... Lord Belar 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean, makes you wonder that they actually do function? I don't see a lot of that around here. Armond 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's not because sysops "are brainless" - rather because, like any other user, they're bound by policies. If you want sysops who are above the community, as if they were able to do anything they want without need for consensus, then I think you have the wrong word. Erasculio 11:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it's like many policy discussions lately, it ends up being about "I'm afraid of giving more power to sysops, they'll do whatever they want". Screw that, sysops are not idiots. Just revert and ban, serious users will support it policy or not, don't worry.reanor 19:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To take that one step further, the idea of super-powerful admins is a bit .. dumb? Why? well first of all, you as a user can choose to leave any time. Its not like this is a country with closed borders and a dictator controlling it. 2) Stop threatening to use guildwiki because its better. Go use it a leave this one alone. (kind of a rant, but a seemingly commonly echoed thing lately) 3) admins and sysops alike ultimately answer to Arena Net, who, given enough prodding, might step in.

In closing, the quips about power hungry admins are ultimately false because they do answer to a higher authority. If I got tempbanned for some reason, I wouldn't be too distraught because (uh oh another list) a) its not the end of the world and I can still get my info. b) I probably deserved it c) and if not, I could explain my case to them. They're admins for a reason and part of being an admin is doing administrative tasks. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

People not wanting to give more power to sysops is not dumb... This isn't your wiki, this isn;t their wiki. If someone is concerned about something and doesn't want a change to be made then it's their right to say so. Just because you don't feel the same way they do doesn't mean they are wrong. Al these arguments about GuildWiki as "proof"... this isn't guild wiki, the audience to this wider than guild wiki and many of the moderators here are too. I disagree with quite a lot of decisions made by moderators here, hell the rejected proposals pile from many of the moderators here shows quite a lot of people have different values. 58.106.236.144 16:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notice

Armond would have breaken a revert plicy if we had one. :P

Anyway, the deletion notice is moot because this policy covers a fully different area of discussion than NPA. This covers discussions like "bananas and cookies, yummy" which aren't a personal attack, but might still distract the user and which the user might not want on his talk page. If Armond or someone else doesn't back the deletion notice up with some good reasoning then I'm removing it. -- (gem / talk) 10:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The differences between this and NPA were already covered above (in the first section), it's not a duplicate. (On a side note, Gem, Armond would not have been in violation of 1RR, only 1RV. However, the point is moot since neither of them has yet to be adopted.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge it into NPA. It's damn similar enough that we don't need to clutter up the policies pages. (Also, I could argue that I was reverting an edit I believed to be flat wrong/vandalism, so no harm done.) Armond 10:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In an above section I actually suggested a merge to the talk page formatting guideline by allowing users to move stuff to other places. -- (gem / talk) 10:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna be ignorant and not read that huge wall of text. How is that relevant? Armond 10:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to read it. :) I proposed this alternative here since you proposed a merge with NPA. Don't go offensive. -- (gem / talk) 10:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to, though as it's 3 am, I'll apologize if I did. I'd like to know what merging this with a formatting page would accomplish. Armond 10:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd make people stop this idiocy. I just woke up and I'm tired of fighting with a troll, so I'll opt for any reasonable and easy-to-do solution that keeps this stuff somewhere. -- (gem / talk) 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bigger question: Why a policy on a formatting page? Armond 11:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thinking clearly anymore. -- (gem / talk) 11:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific issues and concerns

I've added subsections for various specific issues. -- Gordon Ecker 03:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Abuse potential / admin power creep

Non issue. This is about giving power to the talk page owner. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, because users will be the ones banning violators...reanor 03:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin power creep is never an issue. The folks who fear it most don't really know what they're talking about; empirical evidence over 2 years on GuildWiki supports strong sysops, the most those people have is their paranoia to back up their claims. There isn't some conspiracy for the admins to take over the wiki - get real now, folks. -Auron 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not an issue for this policy, but it is an issue at GWW, where sysops aren't strong and feel the need for policies. The real issue is the need for policies, but it has nothing to do with this being a policy or not, so I guess this argument is out.reanor 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

People keep saying "weak, weak" when in fact the majority of issues that have arisen have been dealt with swiftly and fairly. Bans are given for short increments without much hesitation in the hopes that users correct their ways, guidance is given readily when requested.. I think you mistake low volume (dB, not cm³) for weakness. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this is an issue of power creep, just a wish to have a policy to cover every possible eventuality of user edits and sysop decisions against those edits. There is a limited total power that sysops can draw from, a sliding scale if you will with discretion at one end, policy the other. If the sysop draws more power from policy, they loose it from discretion. I don't think that you can completely remove either discretion or policy from the equation. At the moment it seems we're at the point where the value we are getting from additional policy governing sysop (user?) behaviour is fairly minimal for each new policy proposed. Particularly given the resistance that seems to be going around for each one. ;) I think the status quo seems to be working well enough. One off issues which seem to spawn policy documents such as these, are being well handled by the sysops. An all-encompassing set of policies is impossible to obtain so at some point discretion is going to be required from the sysops, so why make policy for every possible case particularly if the issue isn't shown to be a systemic issue for this wiki.
Is this the right place to say this? Probably not. But there have been so many discussions recently which mention 'sysop power' I just picked here to say my bit. :) --Aspectacle 05:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elviondale. This gives power to the owners of talk page, as they finally will have some degree of control about what is said on their own pages. Erasculio 11:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do note that the community is the owner of the talk page. Backsword 11:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So my talk page belongs as much to me as to you, and both of us have (and should have) the same limits on how we may edit it? Erasculio 11:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I guess you're right. I don't own my talk page, the community does.. so when it gets too long, archive it for me. Oh wait, you can't. Only I can (or request someone else do it). My talk page is a part of my userspace. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

While a talk page is (in general) "owned by the community", the user to whom it belongs has a vested interest in that particular talk page, and I believe that they should have some reasonable discretion regarding what goes on there beyond topics directly related to the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

/Agree, it's the harassed user who gets the "You have new messages" message spammed, not every user.reanor 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

i can think of endless wiki related comments I could legitimately spam on someone's talk page if I wanted to make the new message to come up. That's a fucking stupid argument. Auron you're prolly one of those people who wants to give the government as much power as they request because he's afraid of the terrorists (read: vandals) are hiding under his bed and are going to get him. Read George Orwell's 1984. 58.110.141.210 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For one, Auron's not participated in this part of the argument, wtf are you on? For another, he has read 1984, along with a number of other books you probably haven't =\ For a third, no, you can't legitimately spam someone's talk page, because spam isn't legit. The problem is that the wiki has no policy against it, and are limiting their sysops to do nothing if a policy doesn't specifically say so. Armond 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Armond look up about... 11 comments. Or perhaps the third from the first? 58.106.236.144 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Auron iz ninja. Never saw that earlier. Armond 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you liken this to giving the government power, when the entire essence of the policy is to give users power. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Would assume Anon posted to the wrong pagem because both those things. Since power would go fro mArbComm to SysOps(not users) one has to wonder; if SysOps are the government, what is ArbComm? Backsword 15:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Secret Society that controls the goverment from the shadows :Preanor 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Run! It's a cabal! Lord Belar 22:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF is a cabal?reanor 03:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

W:Cabal (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a lot :)reanor 16:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane this doesn;t give users any power. I can't ban a single person for doing a single thing to me with this policy, I have no more power than the next user. The only person this gives power to is the person who excercises that power, which is not a user. If this was really about power to a talk page owner then they would be able to remove non wiki related comments from their talk page instead of this round about way which involves the sysops. Cabal is a very appropriate word for this, glad I didn't need to say it. Most of the policy discussions and approvals, especially the first ones, were made by guild wiki users who moved over. Most of the policy discussions here are made by the same group of people who often share similair views, most of them admin or guild wiki users. 58.106.236.144 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. This gives users the power to request sysops to intervene on their behalf. Sysops have no power over a case unless that user requests intervention, thus the user is granting them that power, and thus there must be power for them to grant. One cannot grant power one does not have. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just another way of putting it. The truth is, giving a bit more power to our rightfully elected and trusted janitors is not as potentially damaging as giving more power to "registered users". There's the vandalism issue, too. Manipulating information is serious fucking business, se we need to keep it under control. Now, the minority thing and the power in the hands of a few is true, I've myself put that issue foward in some occasions. However, the small active core of users doesn't share similar views, believe me. Also, those who oppose the current policies can always review them and propose a new draft, remember this is a wiki. Actually, the "95%" of users who, for whatever reasons, are not involved in wiki-related matters, are mostly ppl who just comes here for the info, and don't really care about the behind the scenes of the community.reanor 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>I didn't elect the admin and I don't like a lot of decisions admin make. I'm just pointing out admin don't represent everyone, or even most people, just those who had a say at the time the decision was made, like these policies. Manipulating information? Most information on a user page isn't serious business, it's just people whineing about things or asking non vital questions about articles, most of it doesn't need to be preserved. I don't truly understand the strong desire to keep records of everything that is ever posted on the wiki (especially on a user page), it's usually only stuff like violations which are ever brought up again aside from ongoing non game related discussions. Being able to request something isn't an exercise of power at all, it's an indirect way of dealing with a problem. I beleive the reason this was brought up is simply someone had an issue with a few greeting messages and because of the nature of the messages nothing could be done, the admin who were asked to intervene had no power to do anything because no rule was broken. Had this policy existed would something have happened to eloc after his posts on ryudo's talk page? Probably, but it has since been demonstrated that the same message eloc has posted on other user pages has been met with thanks and appreciation. This is just admin upset they couldn't do something about something they shouldn't have been able to do something about and example of where admin judgement can have adverse impacts, especially if they have this kind of power, they clearly showed in this situation they couldnt handle it. Had they been able to ban over it the situation would have been worse. Furthermore it is likely Ryudo leaving the wiki was a result of this proposal and all the drama this unnecessary reaction caused.58.110.137.152 16:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeping records helps resolve fact-related discussions, and the wiki's history is important for it's development as it is for any community. That's why manipulating information on users talk pages is serious business, too. Yes, not everyone elected sysops, and not everyone approved policies, but as I said before, there are reconfirmation requests and there are policy proposals, so if anything goes wrong, we can fix it. Wich leads me to the following issue, there is no evidence that supports the allegued "admin power creep", the current proliferation of policies is only evidence of sysops's supresed discretion. After many discussions on different pages, we ("the small active core") have decided to dealt with this problem by changing GWW:SYSOP, and a proposal draft came foward, aiming for a new policy that really validates admins discretion, instead of crippling it. We hope this change we'll end with admin's dependance on policies, so they can do their job without further drawbacks. And yes, most likely harassment issues can be handled with consensus and admin discretion, but the way the wiki is working now created the need for this policy. I don't like having unheard of, new policies approved by a small group affecting all users either, but I admit that it's necessary, at least for now.reanor 17:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether you elected the admins or not really isn't the point here. That's akin to saying that you didn't elect the current president because you were 17 at the time of the election. (US politics) That being said, this policy merely formalizes a way for users to have more control that they otherwise would have had. You could just as easily take this to ArbComm and if they see harassment, the perp would probably be blocked. Admins have the power to block. This does not provide a way for them to initiate a block of their own accord. This is not power creep. This allows users to notify admins that they are being harassed and they can deal with it according to this policy. I would rather have a formalized way than depend on ArbComm to make a decision. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But this issue was never common enough to deserve a whole policy, all harassment issues should've been taken to ArbComm instead.reanor 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been several cases where harassment has ensued but no one knew to do anything about it. I would prefer to have user disputes left to arbcomm, but not when it comes to something a user can request. I don't want to assume that a certain user lives in America, but there's a reason why we have laws and not just have the supreme court decide everything. -elviondale (tahlk) 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no great problem with harrassment, all we have are small cases which this policy blew out of the water causing more damage than the harrasment itself. The average user won't even be aware of this policy and so requests likely won't happen. It makes more sense to allow a user to delete info on their talk page, fact discussions relating to the game are about something current, and thus a hard copy already exists in the form of the game, or should happen on the talk page of their relevence. This policy is just causing drama. The logical thing for a user to do when someone is posting on their talk page and they don't want it is to remove it, policy should follow the logical natural action which Ryudo did but it broke the "keep all redundant information" policy. If this policy is targeting not wiki related edits on a user page, then it shouldn't cause any harm to allow a user to remove them from it because there is no sense in archiving it.58.110.137.152 08:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What about adding "Users may remove undesired off-topic comments and discussions from their talk page without archiving them." to the proposed talk page formatting? -- Gordon Ecker 09:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While I think that's a good idea, I like this policy more - the ability to remove pointless comments from one's talk page is not the same as being able to tell someone to stop posting nonsense on said talk page. Deleting the comments are good after the problem has been solved, but it does not help to stop the harassment itself. And I think this is something too small, and too obvious, to warrant an ArbComm request.

And to the anon: what you have described is the nature of almost all policies here. Almost everything that says "Do not do X" is talking about small cases that most users won't ever see. If we consider that the great majority of users just looks for the articles, and never bothers with actually editing something in the talk pages (or even looking at them), we would figure out that the great majority of discussions, policies and etc only matter to a very small percentage of wiki users. This is what keeps the "drama" in check - despite all discussions, policies like this one are almost irrelevant. The question is, do they improve the wiki, even if just slightly? In this case I think yes, this one does. Hence this discussion. Erasculio 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

These policies don't keep drama in check, they escalate it and drive people away from the wiki. It takes focus away from the content pages of the wiki and wastes everyone's time with redundant conversation. There is no need for this, just give the user more power and allow them to delete non wiki related conversation from their pages, there is no reason to keep it and you are defending something which annoys a lot of people. 58.110.137.152 13:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be a guideline

How would this work as a guildline? This is about the expanding the freedom of the talk page owner, not the restriction of the talk page commenter. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If it needs to exist at all, it must be a policy. I'm not supporting or disagreeing with the idea, but it would not work as merely a guideline. -Auron 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Guideline: "Talkpage commenter": don't harass the "Talkpage owner". It's doable.reanor 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

People acting in good faith shouldn't do it anyways. Either it's a policy and thus can be enforced, or it's a guideline and can't be enforced. The latter is no better than it not existing at all, because anyone who would heed the guideline doesn't need it in the first place. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're talking, that I can cope with. So, no guideline here, another issue off.reanor 05:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But a guideline can affect the way a policy is enforced. For example, the proposed blocking policy would explicitly authorize blocking for spam and vandalism without defining either term. A guideline could provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of spam and/or vandalism, such as undesired off-topic conversations on someone else's user page. -- Gordon Ecker 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll make one if such an add-on is needed. For now, let's stick to the policy idea.reanor 05:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be part of the user page policy

I don't object to the policy, but think that it would be more appropriate as part of the talk pages policy. -- Gordon Ecker 03:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm split in my feelings for this. I'd hate to add to another policy out of concern of it becoming bloated, however it might be advantageous to add as more of a User Rights clause- the ability to refuse unrelated conversation on one's talk page. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure...As part of the user page policy? Sure, given how that policy already exists, and we would be just adding a bit to it. As part of the talk pages policy? No - that policy does not exist (as far as I know). I would rather have this policy implemented now, and later, when the talk pages policy is created, merge the two of them. Erasculio 11:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary

See the is This Proposal Needed? section.

Deleted post

[1] Gordon, you erased a whole post, why?reanor 03:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd ... I don't know how that happened, but it was unintentional, and it's fixed now, sorry. -- Gordon Ecker 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording/focus

The wording in this draft seems to drift in a few directions:

1. don't harass
2. Do not unreasonably cause discomfort or difficulty to any wiki user.
3. For non-wiki matters, honor user's requests regarding their talk page.

I generally consider 1 to be a special case of 2, while 3 is both more and less than both (the intersection being certain types of harassment on user talk pages). I suggest keeping the wording focused on 3, and dropping 1 and 2 -- not that we want to allow harassment and such, but the scope for those is much larger than the meat of this proposal. Let me know if you want me to try editing the draft to fit this suggestion. --Rezyk 08:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement: Reporting

I just like to say (hopefully as closing words) a few things. Policies like this one, wich deal with a sort of vandalism and something that is "bad for the wiki" (whatever that means for you), are specially related to admins enforcement. Well, GWW:CONTENT allows admins to deal with vandalism in general articles, GWW:USER allows them to deal with it in Userpages, and GWW:NPA was supposed to cover talkpages, but harassment escaped that. Since most of "harassment" issues seem to happen in Users talk pages, I'd suggest that only the user who "ownes" the talkpage was allowed to report harassment against himself on it. Of course, harassed users in all types of talkpages can report too, but the user should be the one choosing what he considers harassment against himself in his own talkpage. With that written in this policy, I'd support it for sure.reanor 19:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The essence of the proposal itself is that the owner of the talk page must make the request for others to stop, before the policy even applies. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right. It is already there.reanor 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So...

I think this discussion got a bit side tracked above, and some suggestions to change how it's worded apparently got lost in the following confusion. What is the current consensus on this? To accept it? To reword/implement as part of another policy? Or just to refuse it? Would be good to have some closure to the discussion before it dies out, especially given how this kind of problem continues to happen. Erasculio 10:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not support this. From the wording it is unclear whether this is a general "dont harrass" rule or a specific "users can remove stuff from their talk page" rule, but in both cases I would not make it policy (the first is to vague to become policy, the second to minor to warrant a separate policy). --Xeeron 12:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with it. I think we've already established that it fills a gaping hole in the current 'code of conduct' here. I also think we've discussed this to death and should make a decision on it. -elviondale (tahlk) 13:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like 58's proposal, I think it's "user power creep", but I agree with the policies issue. A good example is the GWW:SIGN + GWW:IMAGE combo, it happened to me. Being a GuildWiki user, I knew my way around, and as soon as I got here, I did what most users do, get a recognizable signature with a nice image (user fame creep). And then, out of nowhere, bam! admins messages on my talkpage (picture naming mostly). Now all that is in my "Early noobish misakes" talk archive, and I know this is a real issue because I remember to have seen a "Noobish errors" archive in someone else's talk. I think we all agree that those 2 policies help keep many things in order, but their enforcement (by our "by the book" admins) creates persecution and drama, wich as 58 said, drives ppl away. I didn't drive me away, but who knows, with more policies, how far can it get? That's the problem with policies, they are fought over and approved/rejected by a small group of users, but they affect every user. The less policies the better. This particular policy is only necessary as long as admins are "by the book" bots. If someone keeps spamming in your talkpage or stalking you all over the wiki, you should (and this is freaking obvious): leave him a message asking him to stop. If he doesn't stop, contact an admin. Admins should start with a scary "admin warning" asking him to stop, 'cause he's being disruptive and it's not helping the wiki and all that mambo yambo. If that doesn't work, the admin should then use discretion and ban the sucker. If no admin considers her/himself able to take that kind of action (the case is not clear enough), the issue should go to ArbComm (like with Karlos vs Erasculio). It will then catch users attention, consensus will be reached, problem will be solved. And that should be it. As usual, we don't need this policy, we need admins with discretion. Each policy is less discretionary power and more by the book power to sysops. Having discretionary sysops improves the way they are elected (you don't want any punk to have power) and the amount of respect their job gets. By the book sysops are janitors, and treated as such, users over sysops like Erasculio argues, but also users bullying sysops like nobody wants. The new GWW:SYSOP draft is supossed to create a middle ground, and I hope this policy will be no longer needed when that happens.reanor 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading at "I think we all agree that those 2 policies help keep many things in order, but their enforcement (by our "by the book" admins) creates persecution and drama,". It's usually not the admins who message people about their sig / image breaches, it's regular users. And no one has ever been banned and most likely not even been threatened with a ban due to those reasons. -- (gem / talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the admins and Eloc. I know user are not banned, but they might feel uncomfortable with the messages. And that's my point, to the bone policies and by the book policy enforcement may drive ppl away from the wiki. I think it's one of the reasons this community has a bad reputation, like you said Gem "The GWiki community in general is better and warmer than the community here".reanor 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

but their enforcement (by our "by the book" admins) creates persecution and drama, wich as 58 said, drives ppl away - I couldn't agree less. In fact, its ironic considering the most publicized/talked about instance of someone leaving the wiki lately was entirely due to harassment. I have alerted people as to the naming of their images/sig image size myself. Why? An image needs to be named correctly- especially user images so that you don't have users fighting over who 'owns' the file name "sig.png". Why is the size important? To keep with the line spacing. The rules we have now were created with careful, collective thoughts and are there for reasons.

I don't understand why the constant negativity about the admins. People either say they don't do anything and are weak, or do too much and take matters into their own hands. Now you say they are "by the book"? Wouldn't you like having an admin that operates by the book? If by that you mean that they restrict themselves in what matters they handle and how they respond to them, then help us re-write the 'book'. If your argument is that this gives the admin too much power, consider this: These harassment requests are user generated. Only I can request that action be taken against you if you refuse to follow my request that you not talk about non-wiki related stuff on my talk page. Considering that it would be fairly certain that some sort of action be taken against you if I took the matter before ArbComm, why not implement the policy that would forgo the red tape? Its a fairly cut and dry case that can be dealt with swiftly and fairly and doesn't require all the drama of an arbcomm case. -elviondale (tahlk) 01:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ereanor appears to be the lone voice of reason here, and his entire post can be summed up as "The government that governs least governs best"... Armond 07:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time you see the admins passing legislation, let me know and I'll give you back your "This quote can be applied here" points. -elviondale (tahlk) 07:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll also work towards making the wiki a bit more anarchist -elviondale (tahlk) 07:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops.. Triple posting and a violation of Guild_Wars_Wiki:No_Sarcasm -elviondale (tahlk) 07:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Triple posting and twice prompting me to violate my vow against posting on policy discussion pages :o I want those points. Armond 08:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, we could argue Ereanor's point for an eternity, but the fact that "admins" enforcing some policies may lead to some users leaving the community is, IMO, a weak one. First there's the "problem" of how many of the most active users here are admins, so every time an user tells someone he has broken a policy, it's very likely said user will be an admin anyway. Second, the admins don't have to act on policies "by the book" - no one has ever complained to an admin that he has not warned an user about the size of his signature, for example; the admins (and users) who do that are the ones who believe what they are doing is right, and therefore would likely do the same even in the absence of the policies. Third, the fact users would leave the community over this kind of thing is hypothetical, as we don't have examples of that happening. Meanwhile, we have an example of one user who left because of harassment, and we have other examples of such behavior happening against different users as well.

Anyway, all of this is digressing on the main point of this draft policy - it's not about whether admins are weak or not (that has already been discussed at lenght at the Admin article), it's not about whether the policy limiting signature size is good or not (that belongs to say article's talk page), but rather it's about whether this policy against harassment is good or not. I would be glad if we could continue the discussion about this draft without getting side tracked (again).

(And for the records, I don't think this community is worse than the GuildWiki one. And it's definitely better than the PvX community.) Erasculio 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my point is, in very few words: Discretion > Micro policies.reanor 11:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean your point was unclear or not related to this discussion - I think you stated clearly why you don't like this policy and the reason behind it. I meant that I would like to keep the discussion on this policy draft, instead of delving only into one of the reasons why someone is against it. Erasculio 12:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I know, that's why I said it, the main argument of most ppl against this policy is that its designed to solve a problem too little, wich can be solved without a policy for it. Therefore this policy draft is considered an exaggeration considering the consequences of a policy's implementation.

I have an idea. Let's test it for a month, just so that Harassment issues appear in the Admin noticeboard (Quantitative research), and we can tell how hard it is for discretion and consensus to solve them (Qualitative research).reanor 12:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as this sounds like a compromise, I don't agree with it. We have had demonstrated cases of harassment, therefore its not necessary to 'test the waters' to see if anything bites. As to this being a micro policy, there are several policies that have a much smaller scope, such as GWW:SITES (I'd never even heard of that before I went looking for "micro policies") -elviondale (tahlk) 15:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GWW:SITES can't ban ppl, you won't even get a warning if you violate (is it even possible?) GWW:SITES, but you will be poked by this policy. Show me enough cases of harassment that couldn't have been solved with consensus+discretion+ban, show me real borderline cases that rendered admins powerless and unable to act because there was no policy, and not because of their lack of self-determination. Then I'll see the real need for this.reanor 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Why does there need to be an overwhelming need for a policy for it to be implemented if a gaping hole in user conduct is evident due to one incident? Why do the admins need to take things into their own hands? Why shouldn't they follow policies to the letter and, as a whole, we determine that in cases where a user is harassed and requests that action be taken, an admin will follow up with a warning and, if unheeded, punitive action be taken? -elviondale (tahlk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Policies are serious business, they are the only written-down legal instance of this wiki and should not be taken lightly as they affect everyone, even if you weren't involved in their proposal process or if you have no idea about them. You can't have a policy for every little thing, it's too much.reanor 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes.. because Ryudo being harassed to the point of leaving the wiki and taking with him all of his future edits is just a little thing. -elviondale (tahlk) 18:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) One example (and ironically, when that user went to Cursed Angel's talk page asking him to not make comments on his own, he was told that "He [Cursed Angel] can post w/e he wants on your talk page as long as it's within bounds of GWW:NPA", as seen here). I think that's exactly the kind of thing this policy would have prevented. And on a more personal note, there's always this problem. It also would have been helped by this policy, IMO. Not to mention Hyrule's example - Raptors may be banned now (if the ArbComm decides that), but this policy would have been able to stop his behavior against Hyrule earlier, as he would have been punished before his last contributions in that talk page.

I think most of our policies are about small things - like I mentioned before, when you consider how few wiki users do anything more than reading and bother to contribute on talk pages, it would be a very small fraction of the whole userbase. But I think that's the point of most of the "behavior" policies - only a few users have breached NPA, and one could argue that we could use an ArbComm every time instead of making NPA a policy, but I don't think it would really improve the wiki. While making too many policies could be bad, I think this policy falls within the reign of policies that could not hurt the wiki - a new user may make common mistakes like having an user page that is too big, or a signature outside what is allowed; but an user who insists on harassing someone is knowingly doing something disruptive, and I don't think it would be a problem to let this user know how "outlawed" such behavior is.

Anyway, I have the feeling this is mostly pointless - while of course we are not voting (which doesn't work for anything), I think there is a huge lack of consensus to aprove this policy. The lack of participation in this discussion (what, we have four users really discussing the policy now?) is, IMO, a sign that the community does not consider this important enough...At least right now. Erasculio 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Erasculio, the problem is just that people are tired to fight with people like E... E.. - too many names that start with 'E' - E... Ereanor. atleast I am. -- (gem / talk) 18:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I laughed when I read that. Then I remembered mine started with an E too. :( -elviondale (tahlk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the main problem is not being able to resolve this kind of conflict, but the time it takes to do so. If a strong policy is raised (and enforced, kinda like the 1rr where you just "do or do not"), sysops would be able to deal with these kind of things faster enough as to avoid having more people "commenting" on the issue and aggravating it more. And i think the last example would be User:Problem. for this, where he (even if not done nicely at all) asked people to not post over other things beside game balance, but people just keep coming and coming, same as with Ryudo. At least this user started archiving now (but with NPA calls and all).--Fighterdoken 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to fight with me if you don't want to. I actually have fun and learn a lot doing this.reanor 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm out. I'm pretty sure if I stop and none of the other oppositors comes back the fight will be over. Just approve the thing, then we'll see.reanor 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if Ereanor says to go ahead.. lets do this thing Kilroy. Would this be the time to post it on the RFC page? -elviondale (tahlk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment is considered to be in the same league as personal attacks and should be dealt with similarly. Why can't we just merge this into GWW:NPA and rename it Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks and harrassments? -- ab.er.rant 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Rezyk basically said what I think at the NPA talk page. - anja 14:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane addressed that towards the beginning of the page -elviondale (tahlk) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ereanor, you took me the wrong way. -- (gem / talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So...Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks/ChangeA

I guess this should've been done from the start, but who cares, it was worth it.reanor 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

All comments regarding that should be posted on Guild Wars Wiki talk:No personal attacks/ChangeA. -- ab.er.rant 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean we can reject this now, even though it was never proposed? Anon