GuildWiki talk:Community expectations

For the sake of completion, the reservations I expressed to which the article refers can be found at the Community Portal's talk page.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 21:06, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

I have to say, this is an excellent document thus far on our expectations of the wiki. In many ways I'm surprised that it has not existed prior to now. Good work Stabber.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 20:37, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The 'expectations' for User Pages seem to be quite loosely defined. Less expectations and more observations of the way User Pages have been used so far. Is it too much to say that User pages should be free to allow anything that is not deemed illegal? I would use the term 'inappropriate' but then we would need to define precisely what inappropriate actually meant.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 20:42, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * That reminds me, one thing worries me, and the user pages issue has brought it up. In O'Brien's post, he mentioned an issue with the link to Oblivion.  But what if a link to other games in competition with GW come up on user's user pages?  69.124.143.230 20:43, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh, but otherwise, real great job on the article, Stabber. Are you sure you're not a soulless, tireless machine bent on world destruction bent on world destruction? Lazy Evan 20:44, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Rainith has reverted a user's talk page before, due to offensive language. And there are cases when users have reverted the self-blanking of other users' talk pages because the former party wanted to discuss issues whose existence the latter party tried to coverup or something. - 21:09, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It wasn't just offensive language, it was threats, which in written form are illegal in the US, where our server is. Just wanted to clear that up.  I am against posting of offensive language here, but I won't modify someone's user page solely for offensive language.  --Rainith 21:41, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Great work Stabber. This looks good. Basically, I believe the User domain is a freestyle section for users to practice stuff, post info, boast, whatever, get their craziness discharged in that little space. The only time I would vote for any kind of limitations on User pages is if it affected the effectiveness of the wiki itself. i.e. we discover that 25% of the wiki's content is wasted on user pages and images, or a user puts up something on his page that can get the wiki sued or shut down (like racial slurs, porn or whatever). --Karlos 22:56, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * All my worries adressed on this page. I added a mention of information gathered of material not officially released such as the possible name of Campaign Three. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 01:30, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

User Pages
I was unhappy with the user page section, as there weren't any actual expectations in it, so I've added what I think the 2 paragraphs are getting at: Sysops don't have the right to modify user pages unless there is a reason to do so, either because the user is displaying illegal material or because the user is displaying something that is unsuitable (i.e. pornography). Is this reasonable?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:29, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, I think that sounds reasonable. -- Fenris [[Image:FenrisPaw.jpg]] 06:01, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, I still think the "never" should be changed to "rarely", because there HAD been instances that occured. Saying "never" to me feels like lying about past incidents and sweeping them under the carpet, pretending they didn't happen.  Going to revert that wording if nobody objects. - 06:33, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

Unrelated thread about the word "redact"

 * I have to look up what "redact" means in the directionary... - 20:58, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It's not a very commonly used word, but I believe it means to revise something. When has it happened before PanSola?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 21:03, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Redact means to hold back a portion of a text when it is released to the public. Not sure if that's what's meant here or not.  Perhaps the term should be "remove"? Beldin 22:14, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It can also simply be a synonym for edit, which was my intended meaning. Feel free to change it to a more perspicuous word. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 22:16, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I did not mean to make anyone iricund with my comment, sorry. I was merely replying to PanSola's own comment, which was probably tongue-in-cheek anyway.Beldin 23:22, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Governance
While I do not dispute that the current wording is precisely how things work and how the community would expect them to continue working, I do wonder one thing: Why are we still flying the final word banner on the issue of promoting and demoting sysops, when we seem to pretty much agree that every other aspect of the wiki is better governed by consensus? Or, to put it differently, why not enable sysops to promote and demote sysops and govern that final frontier by policy and consensus as well? --Bishop (rap|con) 05:07, 28 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Only bureaucrats (technical term) can op or deop users. It's a restriction imposed by MediaWiki. I would generally discommend having too many bureaucrats in a wiki. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 09:13, 28 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmm. Its actually imposed by the software, you say? I've never really been heavily involved in a wiki before so I didn't know. That seems contrary to how Mediawiki (and wiki in general) works. Odd. I would have thought it was possible to assign rights and priviledges seemlessly to all user classes. --Bishop (rap|con) 09:19, 28 May 2006 (CDT)