Old vote to recall

In my interpretation, the vote to recall was about the "Guild pages" section of the DNP policy. It has now been replaced with WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Guild pages, so I am archiving the vote to WoWWiki talk:Policy/DNP/Archivevote as it is about a section that no longer exists. --Mikk 17:01, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Inline linking

I've noticed a lot of inline linking to offsite images on the official Blizzard pages. Most web sites don't appreciate this. Using the images themselves should fall within what Blizzard allows if we host them locally, but I don't think they would be pleased with us using their bandwidth to display them.--Aeleas 00:06, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

as if you predicted the future a complaint soon arrives... Talk:WoW Equip--Ralthor 18:19, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

Proposal to DNP off-topic and defamatory content

Add the following to the DNP policy:

Off-topic content

Do not post content that has no connection with World of Warcraft whatsoever. Off-topic content can be deleted by any WoWWiki contributor, and whole pages that are off-topic are candidates for speedy deletion. Persisting in posting such content may get you labelled as a vandal and banned.

Examples of off-topic content

The now-deleted articles on various gaming consoles. They may be gaming machines, but they've never run WoW.

A guild page containing nothing but an encyclopedia entry on the bird family (the animal). (Yes, it's being deleted because of not following the guild page policy.)

Examples of tangential but on-topic content

An article on how to spec your PC/Mac to run WoW well is tangential, but on topic.

Defamatory content

Articles and/or talk page posts that are nothing but personal defamation not only violates the neutral-point-of-view policy but are also illegal in many countries. Defamatory content can be deleted by any WoWWiki contributor, and whole pages that are nothing but defamation are candidates for speedy deletion. Persisting in posting such content may get you labelled as a vandal and banned.

Note that a modicum of common sense has to be applied to this policy. While isolated cases of "I think you are being a jerk right now, because <well-formulated and objective reasons>..." as a response in a talk page isn't exactly good wikiquette, it isn't defamation, either. A whole barrage of why a person has to be an idiot, is.

When tagging a defamatory page {{speedydelete}}, you may want to remove pieces of the text pointing to specific people while the page is awaiting deletion. It's a judgement call. This goes especially for real-world contact information like phone numbers, real-world addresses, etc.

Please add a line below the {{speedydelete}} tag that the page is plain defamation and that that's why it's being deleted.

Policy ratification vote

Yes

Yes Mikk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (EDT) - (My proposal, so...)
Yes Kirkburn 08:41, 23 June 2006 (EDT) - (His proposal, so...)
Yes Shem 17:50, 23 June 2006 (EDT) - (Common wiki-sense, here.)
Yes Schmidt 10:53, 26 June 2006 (EDT) - ()
Yes Ralthor 12:31, 26 June 2006 (EDT) - ()

No

Comments

If you can think of another few examples of off- and on-topic pages that you've come across, please add them. --Mikk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
*nudges Schmidt and Fandyllic both in one swift move* Decree! Decree! --Mikk 12:17, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

If the page is getting speedily deleted because of defamatory content, leave it there. Why? It's easier for me (the one who will likely delete it) to determine how defamatory it is. If there is history of the page getting turned back and forth, it could be a protected page, if the useful stuff is worthwhile. Now I can obviously use the history function and see what's there, but still I would prefer it to be intact as you saw it. In this case, you'd want to just add {{speedydelete}} to the top of the page, immediately below it say "defamatory" or some such thing, an HR (----) and a space or two. This way I can see why it's up for speedydeletion. BTW, this should go on that page as well, which I thought was already there.

However, if the entire page will not be deleted because of such content, delete what's [what does] not [belong] there, and leave such a note in the edit summary.

How's that for a suggestion? Schmidt 13:16, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Hrms. Paraphrasing the speedy deletion policy.. "Leave the text in the page no matter the quality"... I agree as long as we're talking quality. But now we're wandering off into violating the law turf. Granted, it's not our violation. And it's certainly not me that the cops will come after so it's no biggie to me personally. It's just my opinion that slander gets yanked out of the page before being tagged for deletion. And, yes, it does mean more work for you admins when it does happen. =/ Does it happen a lot?

if the entire page will not be deleted because of such content, delete what's not there, and leave such a note in the edit summary

This line is getting syntax errors in my English parser. Think you could rephrase it? =)

--Mikk 13:44, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Curse IE6! It translated what I wrote into something that no one else can parse. /bonk IE6. How about "delete what doesn't belong there" (i.e. defamation or whatever).

Anyways, I saw it a few times last night. I just don't like the idea of blanking a page on such an occasion. It makes sense to me to leave it there. As long as everyone knows it's defamation and that it will be deleted soon, why blank it? Schmidt 14:24, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Mkay. *scratches head*. Like I said, it's not my problem. I just want the "DNP defamation" in, really, so that people don't have to stand around and wonder what the heck to do with such pages. (It come up in NP patrol recently). I'll go poke Fandyllic too and see what he thinks about the whole thing. I can yank that sentence if he's also on the same note, no problem. --Mikk 16:37, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the issue still is. If there's defamation, call it what it is, and go ahead and flag it for speedydelete. Like so:

{{speedydelete}}
''This article is nothing but defamation, so it's being flagged for deletion.

----
;List of stewpid peeps:
* zOMG [[user:Mikk|Mikk]] is teh suxor. I PWN him. Such a |\|oo|3!!!eleven!!!eleventyone!!1111
* [[user:D. F. Schmidt|Schimdt]] is also teh noob. can't play a pally worht jaxor. Newb admin. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(lol. I don't do the leet thing.) That's it! You don't have to delete what's there, and it will be clear to anyone (even law enforcement) who comes across the page – before it gets deleted – that it's defamation and that it'll be deleted soon. It saves me time checking the history, and it gives anyone who comes across the page the reason that it's going to be deleted. So people don't have to wonder "hmm. Why is this page here, and why is it being deleted?" Schmidt 19:57, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Haha, nah, I wouldn't care jack shit about that content. But here's another example: "Mikk of Bloodhoof-EU is a ninja! Never group with him! Here's screenshots of him ninjaing

[Maladath, Runed Blade of the Black Flight] and

[Lok'amir il Romathis]!" (assume photoshop cookup) "If you really want to screw him over, call him in the middle of the night at +46 123 12345678, or, better yet, here's his mother's phone number! +46 234 23456789!!!"

Obviously, if something like that showed up, someone had it in for me bad, but... Well? Anyway, like I said, not my call really. Just waiting for Fandyllic to stick his head in here. I left a note on his page. --Mikk 04:54, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

Well in a case like that, obviously use better judgement and remove specifics such as phone numbers and cooked images like that, but not the entire thing. But I think the stuff that was being blanked the other night was just simple stuff and wasn't critical like that. That's what I think of it. Schmidt 08:23, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

Okay, I rephrased it to be only about personal identification and "being a judgement call", which works well imo. Some people take policies a little bit too literally sometimes, so a clause like that makes them feel they're actually allowed to use their heads. Votey-votey? :-) --Mikk 08:46, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

Broken window theory basically says if you leave small vandalism and don't fix it, then it will encourage more and escalated vandalism. This applies well to the wiki and I think we do a good job of removing it. However, the point of the vandalism (especially on the wiki) is to get it to stay up as long as possible. The longer it stays up the better the vandalism. Back to a real world analogy. This would be like placing a sign next to a bunch of graffiti saying, "We will be repainting this soon." It shows that you do care and helps prevent future graffiti, but it isn't nearly as effective as taking a paint crew out right away and repaiting it. Again, we do a good job, as far as I can tell, about removing vandalism, but I think it would be more effective to mark vandilism speedy delete and clear the content with the first person that noticed it rather than leaving it up for everyone to see until it gets deleted. --Ralthor 09:01, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

Interesting. In any case, it's not as though these pages will not be deleted in a short amount of time anyways. This way it makes it a little easier on me, and I get to deleting it a little sooner – perhaps or perhaps not. I see your point, though, Ralthor. Schmidt 10:40, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

Are you actually going to vote one way or the other one of these days? =) --Mikk 10:43, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

ugh. If I have to... Leave me alone now. ;) Schmidt 10:53, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

That was fast Mikk, were you just sitting there watching the recent changes for the fifth vote?--Ralthor 12:35, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

No, I was stuck in a vicious downward spiral of need coffee → check mail → check IRC → check watchlist → need coffee even more → wash, rinse & repeat. Luckily I managed to close the IRC window and get coffee shortly after :-) --Mikk 13:02, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

Wowpedia

Talk: DNP policy/Archive02

Contents