GuildWiki talk:Don't Be Stupid

Uuuhm, banning people who upload pictures with generic names is just really dumb/too much work/it would remove valuable people from the wiki. You should make a big banner flashing when they try to upload a picture with a geneirc name. If you start banning people for uploading like that, I'll be the first volunteer to be banned. I uploaded 3 images with generick names. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 17:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame on you! Seriously, it's in red flashy letters on top of the update image page, although making it bigger might be helpfull to prevent people from reading over it/not spending attention to the text above the actual upload stuff. But you forget they get a warning first. Maybe suften up a bit too: first a warning and if that doesn't work, the next 3 things are a ban, making the total 4 things before the first ban. ofcourse, if they have already been banned before for that reason, no more warning imo.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 17:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On closer look, it was only 1 image, the other 2 where named. And banning for something that is so easy to forget is just (dunno how to put this nice) plain retarded. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 17:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's so easy to forget. I didn't suggest this, this is my personal bar of standards. Mendel proposed this. +1 strike for arnout <3 &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

sigh. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I proposed this because acting on your personal bar of standards when it's not consensus gets you demoted. We need a discussion on what to do with stupidity anyway because there's no consensus on that either. -- ◄mendel► 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between being stupid and being retarded, btw. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "acting on your personal bar of standards when it's not consensus gets you demoted" <- did you just decided this policy without consensus btw? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Banning people without due justification? That's always been something we don't want sysops to do. -- ◄mendel► 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How is this going to prevent 'stupidity'? I can understand the generic image names are annoying.and having to delete them or rename them is gonna take up a bunch of your time. But thats part of being an admin right? doing the 'dirty work'. And those lame notes like FRENZY WURKZ GUD WIF MENDING or lame trivia are easily removed with a revert, which takes about, i dont know, 3 seconds of your precious time? So either I'm not getting the full picture of why this is here, or this is just an attempt to prevent the inevitable. Lยкץ๒๏ץ talk  20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with me. Mendel's been wanting to write up this policy for a while afaik. I don't actually mean most of that crap, It's just an attempt to intimidate people into not being retarded. They don't have to know that, though. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

this proposal is stupid AND retarded
I, User:PanSola, with the full rights of any fellow user of the GuildWiki community, declare my disdain and disapproval of this proposal worded in its current form. I can't even think about constructively altering it to make it acceptable. Depending on what behavior you want to exterminate, this proposal is unnecessary or we are breeding elitistism. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic'd &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * edit. It was immature of me to declare this proposal as retarded.  After some more thought, I have come to the conclusion that this proposal is only stupid, not retarded. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pan, have you checked out User:Warwick, User:Warwick/StrikeSystem? I am pretty sure this is a response to that, with an intent to do something productive for the wiki by codifying our "stance against stupidity". (It's been brought up a lot recently.) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Having read that doesn't help altering what I think of the proposal. Further discussion would be needed. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Further discussion is needed. It's been brought to my attention that some editors think stupidity on talkpages is not to be countenanced if this wiki is to keep its reputation (such as it has); my own stance is somewhat diametrally opposite (editors have a right to be stupid on talkpages), so much so that I'm falling out of consensus on the other side. I'm not sure if this is the best way to engage in this debate, but waiting for this issue to explode (again) strikes me as even less productive. I'm keeping back from posting a WoT because I don't know at this time what consensus to suggest. -- ◄mendel► 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I could understand if you banned someone disrupting the wiki by adding exceedingly stupid notes or by making the admins delete 50+ "gw123" images. But I wouldn't cite "stupidity" as the reason for banning, because it would likely create more drama than simply calling it "disruption." Being practical ftw. --Macros 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Throwing around words like "retarded" doesn't exactly make the wiki seem full of grown-ups. I'm glad PanSola recognised this, but, people, mental disability is not a subject for scorn. Saying someone is acting stupidly is fine. Saying they're "retarded" is offensive (to mentally disabled people).Lurkerabove 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Stupidity is subjective, it's not something you can codify into a policy. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are, too, and we've "codified" them. The questions is, what is acceptable to do when you personally subjectively detect stupidity? -- ◄mendel► 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We had to more or less "define" what personal attack is, and even with that, generally it is preferred to have an uninvolved admin to help judge objectively. At this stage, "stupidity" itself is still IMO a not very well-defined concept, and I am likely to object banning based on stupidity when we have well-defined it; partly because I believe most of the offenses quoted so far are not technically simple stupidity. So if we have well-defined stupidity, what Warwick would like to ban right now would probably not be considered actual stupidity, and so you wouldn't actually be able to ban those people via GW:STUPID.  Wouldn't that stupid (to create a policy that wouldn't let you ban who you created the policy to ban)? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are much less subjective than "stupidity". &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 00:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)