User talk:Tanaric/Guild Wars Wiki:Block anybody the IRC channel suggests

Support. --Dirigible 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me we have consensus. Any last objections? If not, I'm going to move this to accepted policies first thing tomorrow. --Dirigible 06:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First thing tomorrow? What's with this bureaucratic nonsense? These delays are killing the wiki! Let's get this thing pushed through already! - Tanetris 06:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

i agree, we seem to have complete concensus here. further delay is unnecessary. purple llama 06:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's get this ball rolling!Mortimer 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Count me in. Wolf2581 06:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

what is the "irc channel"?, why people idle there are so important? is this some kind of joke? even if you dont care, i want to make it clear that Policy draft Guild_Wars_Wiki:No_profanity is completely objective. Coran Ironclaw 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And completely misses what matters. Being objective doesn't make up for being wrong. -Auron 08:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's for the greater good. -- Scourge 08:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this. How about for our next policies...

• Guild Wars Wiki:Dysfunctional Oligarchy
• Guild Wars Wiki:Dictatorship, gogogo
• Guild Wars Wiki:Users r who, lulz?
• Guild Wars Wiki:Rights are baed kidz!
• Guild Wars Wiki:LOL Choices?
• Guild Wars Wiki:Censorship for Dummies
• Guild Wars Wiki:Communism, it's good for the people!
• Guild Wars Wiki:Bound to Fail
• Guild Wars Wiki:Who needs Policy?

What do you guys think? I think all of them own face. Also, what is the IRC Channel. I would like to actively participate. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 08:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Readem, a slippery slope fallacy won't work. The objective of this policy has been properly explained, your fear of censorship is unjustified. Besides, if you behave, we'll leave you alone anyways. It's just that some people really feel the need to vandalize, and prevention is better than recovery. IF you however plan to thwart this system after it's been pushed through (which I hope it will), then of course, you might be a victim of this. The best thing, however, would be to join us in the irc channel: GameSurge.net, #gww

Feel free to pm me or anyone on the list on the project page, and I'm quite sure at least one of us will have time to help you out :) Saphatorael 08:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I love sarcasm as a way to make a good point. Nice policy proposal and nice talk page. Saphatorael's comment, however, is so awesomely good, it is outright scary. --Xeeron 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do behave =), and I oppose. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 09:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose. Just to prevent consensus in case someone decides it's funny to make this official. But I'm beginning to see Tanaric's point of view. -- ab.er.rant 08:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. However this should not have been marked with the real policy proposal tag, I'll correct it in a sec. --Xeeron 10:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

SUPER OPPOSE, this is outrageous, not everyone uses the IRC channel. Problems with the wiki should be taken care of on the wiki. -Hyrule 14:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you prefer to have a community with vandals, take care of the vandals? 'Equal politicologies' have failed, so we might as well have a 'government' to monitor the wiki, we don't even demand any tax!. We think this is best, and will allow anyone in, if that person is willing to join us in the irc channel. Just like in real politics: you won't get a governor's seat if you never join a party. The decision on which people will get banned isn't just taken by a dictator, several people will analyse and judge. Besides, I myself am not able to ban people on my own, even though I'm thoroughly frustrated by some people on here. The actions will still be done by the people who have the power to do these things as of right now. I'm just willing to contribute for the greater good, discussions won't go the way 'we' exactly want them, else they wouldn't be discussions, eh? Saphatorael 16:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant that to be a joke, though I do suck at internet sarcasm :S - Hyrule 00:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty funny. It doesn't make the No trolling discussion any less valid though. :p Biscuits 14:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, nice one - even if I was first really scared (especially after reading "Seems to me we have consensus. Any last objections?" xD) poke | talk 16:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

After all this exhaustive, far-too-lengthy, and overly-bureaucratic process, it's pretty clear to me that we have a consensus aside from the vocal but obviously overwhelmed minority. So, time to move this to policy, and I say the first on the chopping block should be the dissenters. I put forward User:Ab.er.rant, User:Coran Ironclaw, User:Readem and User:Hyrule for 2 year bans. - Tanetris 00:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

lol? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Coran Ironclaw .

Not being involved with the wiki's IRC channel, I feel the need to request that someone who is request a ban on User:Edru viransu. --Edru viransu 01:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I put forward Tanetris, for abusing the IRC Channel suggestions, trying to censor comments through two-year bans, and ignoring the fact that three of the four users are innocent of all/any charges. Bias will be spotted immediately within the ranks of the Administrative pool. Viability will be lost, and mistakes blatantly pointed out on this page (I will do so personally). Any against the creation of this Policy, may join me and some others in the pvx irc Channel. Have a nice day. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 05:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to mention, that our discussions will hopefully be more valid then the flaming of Auron's Mother, silly propositions/suggestions made by User:Aiiane (My sig is Bold+Grey=Ban), and other completely irrelevant topics such as "have you hit puberty?". Once again, ty for your time. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To arms! Burn the heretics!!! -- ab.er.rant 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And ban the fellow conspirator who forgot to sign!! Muahahah.. .ahhah.. *ack* *choke* *clears throat*, ahem... -- ab.er.rant 07:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

deletion

You should be ashamed. I can understand you needed a vent, but please get rid of this page now. It's casting a really bad light on everything you stand for. ~ dragon legacy 17:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are you directing this at? And I oppose deletion on the grounds that it is good faith humour :). --Indecision 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this should remain in the GWW namespace. Whilst it is funny, it doesn't belong here. Perhaps move it to a user subpage or something. --Lemming 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It amuses me greatly. It's possibly the best use of sarcasm I've seen on this wiki so far, and it should not be deleted.

If it has to move to a user subpage (I'm fairly apathetic either way), I volunteer my userspace =P MisterPepe talk 18:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved to tanaric's userpage (he was initial and biggest contributer) due to concern mentioned in delete tag. Tanaric, if you do not want this in your userspace, please move to MisterPepe's who seems ok with having it. --Xeeron 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Imo this contributes AND amuses. — Skakid9090 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw, no more argumenting fun? :( Saphatorael 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this move and have reverted. This article is satirical commentary on the Guild Wars Wiki and thus belongs in the Guild Wars Wiki namespace. Unless a policy is made to restrict the contents of this namespace, or unless general consensus feels it doesn't belong, it should stay where it is. —Tanaric 00:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -Auron 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that there is no policy yet that forbids this article in the GWW namespace. However one user expressed the justified concern that this may be taken for a real policy proposal. The satirical commentary works just as fine when in user space and the distingtion would be made clearer. Is there any reason why this should not be in user space? --Xeeron 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose that if this is left in main space, it should be moved to an article of identical name except with "(Humor)", "(Satire)", or the like appended, simply to make it clear. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we've agreed on not having nonsense and humor in wiki namespace back then. If anything, we at least took it over from gwg without making it policy. Same reason why Gem's Fun page is on Gem's user space - we've always done it that way. ~ dragon legacy 11:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like it you can always propose a policy about humor articles, I suggest GWW:FUNPOLICE. -- Scourge 11:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I dissent. The proper place would be GWW:CONTENT. ~ dragon legacy 11:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete or move to userspace. This article wasn't all that funny to begin with, not funny at all now. A joke that plays out this quickly doesn't belong in any space aside from user. Besides, it sets a bad precedent. Since humor is subjective, if the wiki starts to allow "funny" policy articles, the floodgates are basically open to all sorts of utterly unfunny bullcrap.--Drekmonger 14:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is neither nonsense nor humor. It's satire. —Tanaric 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And the place for 'satire' is...? It's right here. Community space is for community matters, not parodies thereof. We've got the user space on this wiki so grown-ups can satisfy their teenager needs. Use it. ~ dragon legacy 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with either deletion or move to user name space, which ever the ones defending it want. -- (gem / talk) 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Move or delete, the Guild Wars Wiki namespace was not meant for jokes/humour/satire, imo. - anja 22:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that anyone would have mistook this for actual policy, but it doesn't really matter where you put it. I find it somewhat disturbing that we're getting consensus on getting rid of humor but no consensus on how to deal with profanity and trolling :/ -- ab.er.rant 16:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you guys understand the difference between humor and satire. Humor is a joke -- its primary function is to entertain or to make people laugh. I completely agree that humor doesn't belong in the GWW namespace. Satire is commentary about serious issues -- while satire can be funny, and it often is, it being funny does not detract from the seriousness of the topic. Many of the best political works in Western history are satirical.

Note that I should really refer to this as parody, but I don't think I'd ever convince you of the serious and appropriate nature of this if I did.

This is a satirical essay about the oppressive nature of many current policy proposals, and as such is not a User:Tanaric matter. Many other editors contributed and supported this. It applies to the whole wiki, it's about the whole wiki, and it's incredibly relevant. There is no precedent for removal, but there is a tenuous precedent for keeping it -- the precedent from GuildWiki is to allow articles about culture in the project namespace, as they are directly applicable to the project. If I wrote an essay describing the emerging trend of oppression among editors in a straightforward way, it would be allowed to stay in this namespace. Why should this work be any different?

In case this matters, Wikipedia has humorous articles in the Project namespace. In fact, they have a category dedicated to it -- many of the articles in that category reside within the Project namespace, and many (most?) of those articles aren't even satirical in nature.

—Tanaric 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you guys understand the difference between being right and doing the right thing. Being right is simple -- it can be rationalised and objectively measured. I completely agree that you are right: This could stay in the main namespace. Doing the right this is less simple than being right -- while doing the right this can be easy, and often is, this fact does not detract from the problem that many people often just don't do the right thing. Many of our recent edits here attest to this.

Note that I should really refer to this as "doing the decent thing", but I don't think it'd help my argument along if I did.

This is a satirical essay about the danger of doing the wrong thing while being right and as such not soley a User:Tanaric matter. Many other editors contributed and edited in the same way. It applies to all of us, it is about all of us and it's incredibly relevant. There is no policy mandating doing the right thing, but there is a more than tenuous case to be for it -- the case that we all are better off when we get along with each other. This would have achieved all its ends just as well in your user space, but you would not have the trouble of people argueing against you now. Often it is just the clever thing to compromise. Why should this be any different?

In case it matters, guildwarswiki has satirical articles in the user namespace. In fact, there is a perfect precedent of a satirical policy proposal residing very well in userspace, and many (most?) of the other humour articles on here do as well. --Xeeron 21:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not really fair, Xeeron. I count six users supporting leaving this in Project space: Auron, Indecision, Skakid9090, Saphatoreal, Scourge, and myself. I count six supporting move or delete: Dragon Legacy, Lemming64, Drekmonger, Gem, Anja, and yourself. Three more (MisterPepe, Aiiane, ab.er.ant) express no opinion on the issue. In any case, there's nowhere near consensus for move/delete -- there's not even a majority. As I stated earlier, I would happily move if moving the article was supported by consensus.

To more directly reply, I disagree with the claim that this would do just as well in my userspace. While my userspace is watched by more than the average user's, perhaps, it's not nearly as visible as the Project namespace. More to the point, this isn't just mine -- it's a reaction by many users of the wiki to the oppressive censorship movements that we're beginning to see. As such, it patently doesn't belong in my userspace.

—Tanaric 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You do present good points Tanaric. After seeing some of the stuff on Wikipedia I'm not as strictly against having this in the GWW name space. I'm not happy with it, but it's not too bad either. Maby some additional content and explanation would make this more suitable and make the point clearer. -- (gem / talk) 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me, what exactly is not fair? The fact that I used parody to respond to your comment? (This is an honest question btw, I have no idea what you are talking about).

Anyway, away from wasting time and effort to make comments that might amuse and draw a smile and back down to earth dry wiki comments:

I don't follow your count: Skakid9090 said "Imo this contributes AND amuses." which seems much more a disagreement with deleting it, rather than moving. Same goes for Saphatorael and Indecision. Scourge's comment is unclear about whether he opposed moving or deletion as well, leaving you with a rather weak case userspace. Then, you moved the article right back, without even gathering any support first, so tell me what is your stance on revert wars on moving? I could just as well have moved the article back yet again and than posted here "I would happily move if moving the article was supported by consensus." to rob you of the opportunity of moving it back.

But away from that all, back to my original point: There is a good reason to move it and no good reason to keep it here. The reason to move it is: Many people are worried about having this in GWW namespace due to that namespace being misunderstandings about the satirical content. Yet it will reach the exact number of people on your user page as here. Do you honestly want to argue that anyone watches http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=&namespace=4 ?? All people came here due to following links or watching recent changes. Both works exactly the same for user pages. And there is tons of precented of pages sitting in userspace that are edited by more than one user.

A last point, why do you link wikipedia, instead of our humor category? Maybe because all our humor is in user space? --Xeeron 09:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic. --Karlos 07:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, satirizing poorly conceptualized policies is a danger to the wiki. -Auron 07:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed my name, I don't want to be part of it, and I never were. Do what you want with it. - anja 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

...never was? Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just to clarify my position, I don't want to see this deleted however I'm ambivalent about having it moved to other namespaces... I'm also curious as to how people think it violates the NPA policy. --Indecision 12:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Disregard all my above posts and move the article whereever you want

I just read the more recent developments on the Wikia Move. Basically I am a complete moron for believing that people are good and honest and possess some morals. My complete line of reasoning here was based on the assumption that wiki editors are not selfish, which could not be further from the truth. Rather than waste my time here arguing about name spaces, I should head over there and secure my share of the pot of money wikia is silencing the community with, or maybe campaign for my next position of power in the guildwiki fork. Disillusioned. --Xeeron 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah, someone's been reading too many Karlos posts lately. :p --Karlos 13:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion based on NPA?

Tanaric rebutted the mostly unsupported "omg its just a joke plz deleet" arguments, but I've heard nobody talk about the NPA bit. Where on earth is the NPA vio? -Auron 08:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

IT INSULTS THE DUMB CHILDREN AURON, DON'T BE DUMB. I would like to see this moved to a satirical category, as what purpose does it truly serve? Besides being not very funny (though I chuckled for a bit), poorly formatted (Red Links/random ass people ftl), and supported by Tanaric (which is beyond faulure imo), this policy is pointless to even lay eyes upon. I want everyone to know, that the thirty minutes of my life I wasted, discussing this policy, I will never be able to get back. Damn you all (<--- not making a funny) Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 10:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What just happened?

I don't understand why Xeeron, Anja, and Poke are reacting so violently towards this discussion. It's just a discussion. We discuss everything on this wiki. If I said anything that was inadvertently offensive, I apologize -- I honestly don't understand the reasoning for this reaction. —Tanaric 15:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply feel I don't want the GWW namespace to go into homur/satire namespace. For me, this namespace is for maintenance. But, because of the general feeling in most parts of wiki now, I'm so tired of discussing minor stuff back and forth with people mud-slinging at each other. Maybe it was just the wrong time to bring this up, but I felt offended by this whole article, and that's basically why I'm choosing to back off now. I'm taking things too seriously. - anja 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reacting violently, I just don't want to be in connection to this as long as so many people are against / have a problem this. I think the idea is great but when so many people misunderstand the complete thing as violation against NPA (or similar)... When I first saw this page I thought this was real (because the notice wasn't that clear visible) - I don't think that this namespace should be used for things like this as it can be too easily seen as real. poke | talk 15:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's causing harm to individual contributors like this, it's not worth the discussion -- I've moved the article. Maybe when things are calmer I'll make the case for a more permissive Projectspace again. —Tanaric 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we also just remove the list of users? I don't see how it really contributes to the satire. --Rezyk 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll just delete the article -- I made my point. —Tanaric 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Call me idiot if you want, but i didn't undertand the point. Coran Ironclaw 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's the problem with this wiki :/ -Auron 21:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

and what's exactly the problem? people dont understanding the point of a completely subjective dictatorial-type satire about a completely objective and well-intentioned policy proposal? because the only point i saw is to amuse over the effort of others. Coran Ironclaw 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions. —Tanaric 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All that phrase says is that not all good intentions arrives to better things (or good places), which i agree. Is that all your answer? Coran Ironclaw 22:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of the recent "wars" that has taken place on this wiki? If not, you're better off not knowing. I'm thinking that this whole "too-serious" attitude is one of the causes of all the heated arguments. Perhaps we should make User:Xeeron/Guild Wars Wiki:Be Happy more visible. -- ab.er.rant 02:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nop, I am not. I am new here. well, maybe i don't know what happened, and maybe i dont want to expend lot of time looking at it. I just really wanted an explanation from tanaric about the point of this article because i really found it offensive to me since i wrote the no profanity policy, which is completely objective and there is no way a policy like that could end like the subjective-dictatorial type this article expressed, then i fail to see why this article was relevant, and obviusly (or maybe not) i didn't find it funny. I found this article selfish with the pure intention to amuse some users mocking over elviondale, salome and me. It was not really the idea i had when i was trying to enter the active community here, specially when this came from a user with such high title as Tanaric being there since guildwiki initiated. At last it was removed, but only remarking that her/him point was made, which again, i fail to see. Coran Ironclaw 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It was not directly targeted at you, elviondale, or salome. It was just his way of expressing his dislike of a certain trend the policy proposals are taking. -- ab.er.rant 03:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to explain my guess (although I don't agree with every direction the satire went). It was mostly directed against the view that profanity / offensive content / trolling should be outlawed so that blocking would start being used to enforce it. Note that on this wiki, there tends to be a trend of strongly equating "policy violation" to "behavior that should be restricted by blocks". Regarding the no profanity proposal, I think it may have been missed that it wasn't made with that intent. The slippery slope being highlighted is the approach of restricting things just because they are generally disliked and not particularly valuable. Following that approach can lead to over-restriction, with the usual resulting cultural fix being something like: putting restrictions on other users' behavior should have a decently high barrier of entry (a really strong reason) and you have to consider how enforceability will really play out. I think that support for no-profanity suffers mostly because many do not see it as having a strong enough reason (just some weak or moderate ones). --Rezyk 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rezyk and Ab.er.rant, for explaining my actions better than I could have.

Coran, I now realize why you were upset. The Project talk for No profanity is really what bothered me -- I honestly didn't notice that anybody had actually filled out the proposal article -- for most of the discussion, it existed in talk only. I agree that your policy proposal is objective in its implementation -- that is, it requires no discretion at all to enforce. However, it's a totally arbitrary line to draw -- just like this satirical policy was -- and thus I think this parody was an appropriate reaction to your proposal too, even if I didn't design it that way from the beginning. —Tanaric 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Which policy is not an arbitrary line? Coran Ironclaw 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What IRC Channel?

Looking through archives to read up on our current candidates I keep reading references to this "evil" IRC channel? I have never heard of it? What is it? How can I get on it? 58.110.136.10 07:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

#gww @ irc.gamesurge.net — Skuld 07:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)