Category talk:GuildWiki policy

Credit
When is it appropriate to put someone's name on a page as the author of a work? Clearly not always. Sometimes? Never? I ask not because I feel something is wrong, but perhaps unclear, in reference to Talk:Kepkhet%27s_Refuge (the Image Credits section), and the image shown on Kepkhet's Refuge. It seems quite strange to me for a relatively random person's name to show up. I'm not sure I'm against it, but it seems strange. Other than individuals like Gaile Gray, it seems like we generally avoid showing individual names for anyone. (And in this particular case, it's not clear to me that the original author of the image would want his name up our public forum.) --JoDiamonds 05:08, 8 March 2006 (CST)

I have no clue where to place this request, so I am placing it here. I am asking that all admins weigh in on this issue and to treat me in this matter as just another user. I would like the admins to please draw some lines on the issue of me and Tetris. I have no issues with him being on the Wiki and I never envisioned this as a me vs him thing, but...

If he does come back and continues to mock me and assault my person as he has most recently done in GuildWiki talk:Mission statement with this doozy:

''Nonetheless, at the end of the day I think Karlos is overreacting. '''As usual he is sitting on his high horse with his untouchable moral standards and "turning a moskito into an elephant" (German proverb). Even if he is basically right, he's got a way to say things (and to rub it in by strict insisting) that gets people up the wall.' It has happened to me and several other main contributors (not typical dumb trolls), so I can understand Gravewit's and Nunix' reaction to some degree.

Then I need to know what are the limits here.

While we all have our own personal opinions on the personality and character of others, I think we all agree that this sort of talk is unacceptable. I have asked him twice to be cordial, at the very least neutral, but he has continued to wave the "I'll diss you if I have to" flag which I completely fail to understand. Since when is such a diatribe "necessary"?

In any case, please advise on what are the limits in this conflict. Are there limits to what users can say to each other? Is there a penalty for assaulting a user's person? Your explanation is appreciated. --Karlos 05:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I could now write a foot-long reply in my defense, throwing in lots of quotes (out of context) and try to turn the accusal away from me, back at Karlos. But that would only mean to "pour petrol into the fire" (another German proverb). I'll give it a day or two and let others comment first. I am very much looking forward to see what other contributors and especially admins think about the matter. -- 06:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue looks to me like one person is overreacting to another person's perceived overreaction, which leads to another overreaction. This is fed from past issues and will likely continue to feed itself into the future onto other issues, until people learn to take things easy.
 * But overall, between the semi-regulars (regular as in those who frequent here, not as in they are "normal") here (or the once semi-regulars), there has been more incidents of heated issues between Karlos and others (as opposed to others vs others). Whether it's culture, personality, or some other factors, I think it is safe to say that given any particular style of writing and choice of wording might lead to greatly difference in perceived offensiveness when read by Karlos vs read by the statistical average semi-regulars here (again regular as in those who frequent this place, not as in they are "normal").  For example, had that bolded text employed by Tetris L been used against me in a discussion, I would not feel offended or felt that was an insult.  This does NOT mean Karlos should not have felt insulted and offended.  I am just pointing out that the same writing cam mean different things emotionally to different people.
 * I think Tetris's writing was inappropriate. On the other hand, I would not have considered it a personal insult upon individual integrity, even if it were used on me and it were completely false.  It was just the opinion of somebody based on some observation, that's all.
 * So, I want to make a general call to all the regulars here (including Tetris and Karlos): when dealing with other regulars here, pay attention to what kind of things have historically gotten them emotional, defensive, or aggressive, and avoid that type of writing. Even if you think it is unreasonable for the other party to get offended, or even IF you intend to offend the other party, realize that the wiki progresses better as a whole if you can soften things a little.  "The other party isn't being soft" isn't a good excuse for you to not soften up, because otherwise we'll have hard collisions all over the place. -PanSola 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Both what pansola and what Tetris wrote reminds me of my own note to you on your user talk page (jan 8th). Tetris used more offensive terms, Pansola less offensive ones compared to me, but I think we all want to say that what works perfectly well for most of us, is a problem for you when you read it. --Xeeron 09:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do very much agree with what Xeeron states here. When reading articles and comments on this wiki it seems to me that one person is really wanting to rub his/her opinion into everyone else. Any discussion (be it constructive or offensive) led with this particular person is somehow going in circles. --Si Tacuisses 09:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, actually I was more thinking that it works both ways... And it doesn't always start from someone wrote something Karlos had a problem with.  It could be (had on many occasions been?) the other way around too (Karlos wrote something that unintentionally irked off someone else). -PanSola 10:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Karlos: Ignore anything inflammatory that Tetris L says. Don't say anything inflammatory back, just move on with the discussion.


 * Tetris L: Ignore anything inflammatory that Karlos says. Don't say anything inflammatory back, just move on with the discussion.


 * Both of you: Since you both have professed a desire to have this adjudicated for you, instead of working it out amongst yourselves, I'm going to ban the next of you to say anything to anyone in any tone I consider less than polite. This has gone on long enough. &mdash;Tanaric 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.
 * For the rest of you who commented on this issue. I come from a different tradition than most of you. I am an Arab and a Muslim. We have VERY different social behavior traditions. I think PanSola can relate the most because the Chinese people also have hightened social norms of honor and what is insulting. I have struggled with this in most on-line forums when dealing with Western people. Many have absolutely no problem to tell you off. And not because they themselves are without fault or perfect, but simply because they feel like it. Oddly enough, I do not have this problem living among Western people. The anonymity of the internet seems to embolden some people. Just like the amazing number of scammers in-game vs real life.
 * I have made it a rule in my life however never to accept this. I always fight back and I always resist and I always demand respectful treatment. Because I know that if we were in a company meeting and X got up and said "there goes Y with his usual high and mighty behavior telling the rest of us what to do" (when Y never made a single personal remark at X) that person would get a memo from HR if not get fired. So, I am comfortable in the knowledge that what I am asking for is not foreign or weird. I am simply being asked to accept that the Internet is a place where people can act that way and I am asked to get along with it. I refuse. --Karlos 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll add an additional comment to your User Talk: page since it's not germane to the overall point, Karlos. I will say that if Tanaric does feel the need to ban someone, it's going to set precedent. By which I mean if Guy A gets banned, and then Guy B is an asshole to someone a week later, Guy B is getting banned too. This is a really significant thing. Everyone needs to walk easy. --Nunix 01:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A system I would very much like to see in effect. Not because I am safe from it, but because I believe that straight forward professional communication is the best way to get things done. Name calling, personal attacks and turning differences of opinion over Golems into an analysis of why this other person is evil are, to me, not only unhealthy ways of debating, but more seriously, they will leave the wiki with poorer content. Because instead of following a scientific system of determining how to classify undead, one guy scared the other with accusations of being a troublemaker and we ended up with one person's personal opinion of what undead are.
 * I cannot believe how so many fail to see the danger in throwing around the label "troublemaker" at a contributor for questioning but readily accept another contributor's name-calling and harrassment as "normal behavior." I am trying to think of the long term consequences of open-debate and questioning vs the long-term consequences of allowing users to be harrassed and stereotyped and assaulted. Doesn't even seem comparable to me. --Karlos 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that you have "hightened social norms of honor and what is insulting". And you refuse to change your point of view. That is fully your decision, but let me make one thing perfectly clear: Your point of view on social norms is neither universal, not objectively correct (because ethics never are objectively) and on this wiki I highly doubt that it is even a majority view. When having to choose between saying something polite and saying the truth, I take the latter.
 * There are ways that make it possible for people with different points of view to live happily together - namely compromise. But I will not let you obstruct your ethic points of view onto this wiki and thus onto me.


 * And since you complained that people dont take up your examples, in the firms I know, noone would get fired for saying "there goes Y with his usual high and mighty behavior telling the rest of us what to do". Not would I fire someone for that sentence alone if I where the one in charge. However I would fire someone who is unable to teamwork with the others. --Xeeron 05:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I guess your corporate experience is vastly different from mine. No where to go with that example I guess.
 * As for the hightened social norms. You seem to be misreading my statement and mis-analyzing what I am saying. I am not saying I have "higher ethics" than you. I am saying I have "hightened social norms." It means my society, the way I grew up, places much greater emphasis on polite speech, showing respect (sometimes excessively) than your society. i.e. If I see an American child telling their parents they stink, I would not be totally surprised (not to say it is acceptable in an American society), but if an Arab child says to his parents the same phrase, much turmoil would ensue (justifiably or not). That is not always a good thing, sometimes people tip-toe around the problem instead of tackling it head on. I am simply giving you the reason for why this seems to be a much bigger issue for me than, say, Nunix.
 * I have not bound you guys to that norm, I have presented rational reasons for why we should adopt such a policy in my previous response. I did not ask that we adopt such a policy because it would make me more in my element or that I would throw a tantrum and leave if people don't call me "sir." :) --Karlos 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can say the truth without being insulting. For example, Karlos is incredibly stubborn, which makes debating with him difficult at times.  That's a perfectly valid way to express a sentiment.  It's a lot different than saying "OOOooh, Mr. Never-Wrong is up on his high horse, flaunting his higher morals and fancy grammatical constructs."  It's a level of maturity.  I expect contributors to disagree.  I expect some of them to disagree so much that, if discussion is left to only those two, the article in question ends up at a stalemate.  That's why I'm happy that there are thousands of people here; two stubborn people are very easily gotten around by a few others who chime in.  However, when they disagree, no matter how vehemently, I expect them to do so in a manner that does not detriment the wiki.  Personal attacks detriment the wiki.


 * Karlos's ethics, debate style, or moral standards are not in question here. Feel free to discuss those with him on his Talk page.  The issue here is when contributors decide to stray off-topic into attacks on others' character.  Regardless of how stubborn Karlos is, I have yet to see him do that.  If he does, I'll come down on him harder than my level 20 warrior comes down on the Charr. &mdash;Tanaric 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tanaric, is it acceptable to state that someone's behavior is simply because he is mad, or on a pride trip? --Rezyk 23:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC), confused


 * I have no intentions of moderating anyone's behavior beyond Karlos and Tetris L. They have both requested this.  I'd really rather not have to do any babysitting at all, but I'm willing to do so for the good of the wiki. &mdash;Tanaric 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But, I am talking about what Karlos said (sorry, should have been more clear). Basically, I need to understand why you didn't see this, which occurred right before this discussion, as full of attacks on my character. Honestly, I didn't even bother arguing the really insulting parts there because they seemed so overtly gratuitous. --Rezyk 01:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC), still confused


 * Tanaric, I hope you realise that that sentence was not mine. I didnt say not be polite, I said when having to choose, I will choose truth over politeness. Thankfully, So far I didnt have to make that choice often. --Xeeron 11:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do. I also believe that anyone, with enough time to consider their words, can say any truth in a polite way. :) &mdash;Tanaric 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Karlos, I deliberatly did not complain about "hightened", because I assumed you mean that your ethics are different from mine, not better (I indeed would have a problem with you, should I be wrong here). My whole point was that my ethics differ from yours, and, just like you, I am not willing to discard them. So the only way to reasonably deal with each other here is to compromise. That means on the one hand, to try to not step over other peoples lines, even if it would be something completely normal for you, and on the other hand, it means not over reacting when someone steps over your line, because they might have simply used their ethic instead of yours. --Xeeron 11:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * After 4 days it's about time that I reply on the matter. I had lots of time to write the draft, so the reply came out a bit lengthier than it was supposed to be. I appologize for that, in advance. ;)
 * On the matter: I think we all agree that it must be allowed to criticize people on this wiki. It is a fundamental right of any democratic system. So if GuildWiki is democratic (which I hope), then nobody, especially not admins, should stand above criticism or be untouchable. If Gravewit or Nunix make a little doodoo (*cough* IE pop-up *cough* ;)), then sure as hell anybody around here should be allowed to dip their nose into it.
 * When I say nobody should stand above criticism, that includes myself. I'm aware that I have a few bad habits: I'm a smartass and I'm stubborn. Sometimes I'm impatient and overly eager, sometimes I'm shilly-shally. But: I don't have the slightest problem with anyone criticizing me for any of these bad habits, as long as they say it in words that they wouldn't be ashamed to use if we'd sit face to face. (Consider that I'm 6'7"! ;D)
 * Clearly, there are limits to criticism. First of all, language. "Free speech" is no excuse for namecalling or abuse. You don't have to be overly polite, but any kind of swearing or cusswords disqualifies you for the discussion. Furthermore, the primary objective of criticism must always be to improve things and to move on. That's constructive criticism. Repeated critisizing for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble is unrightous and makes you a troll.
 * The text that Karlos quoted in his first post marks the climax of our quarrels, and even here I didn't use any particulary bad or offensive language. (What I wrote could have been broadcasted on MTV without any words being beeped out. ;)) Plus, in the first paragraph of the post (which Karlos didn't quote here) I warned everybody to take it with a grain of salt. Granted, my post wasn't perfectly according to netiquette, but it wasn't particulary offensive either. Compared to the average level of politeness on the web, this was "peanuts".
 * Some background info: I've been an admin on BeyondUnreal, the second biggest Unreal website on the internet. I was in charge as forum moderator. The forum is pretty busy, with currently 1.8 million posts by 29'000 members. We had to deal with a lot of flame wars. I had to censor posts and ban people on a daily basis. Numerous Eninem-wannabe's complained about restriction of free speech, tyrany and abuse of power, called me a "nazi admin" and all kinds of other names. If I had applied the kind of standards that Karlos suggests here, I would have had to ban 50% of the forum members.
 * I know, the fact that manners are generally bad on the internet is no excuse to adopt bad manners yourself. But in this case, if a forum member on the BeyondUnreal forums would have filed a complaint about a post like the one Karlos quoted or even asked for the poster to be banned, I would have told him to take it easy, and that he should grow a thicker skin if he wants to survive on an internet forum. By that I stand, basically.
 * However, I admit my criticism of Karlos has not always been constructive, and that I regret. You all know there is a history behind this. One word lead to another, and things were gradually getting more and more heated, childish even. There are some things that I'd like to take back if I could, but I've lost faith that this wouldn't be acknowledged, so instead I'll make a resolution to refrain from such behaviour in future.
 * Compared to the average gaming forum, discussions on GuildWiki are by far the highest "quality" (level of intelligence, maturity, politeness) I've seen so far. I appreciate that we maintain that level with rather strict policies, but we must also be careful not to cross the line to an overly stringent moderation. As many here pointed out, drawing the line between reasonable and justified criticism and offensive flames or trolling is often difficult, and very much a matter of subjective perception. I feel that this matter is in good hands with the admin team and if the admin team decides that I'm a troll who deserves a ban, I'll accept it.
 * I really hate to spend too much energy on discussions like this when there is still so much to do on this Wiki. I'll get back to work now. :) -- 09:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The apology to the community in general is much appreciated. I assume we can get back to business as usual, now? :)


 * On a quick side note, I'd like to address your comparison between this and any internet forum. I, too, have moderated large communities before.  However, attempting to treat this place like those places is a bit misguided; though both communities discuss in large volumes, this place discusses in order to create something.  The GuildWiki is not merely entertainment, like a forum typically is.  This is an endevour through which we all cooperate.  A more cohesive community is required for that, compared to your average internet forum. &mdash;Tanaric 23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, fellow users, for being open to suggestion and willing to deal with problems.--JoDiamonds 05:08, 8 March 2006 (CST)