A Special Request from The Evil Dr. F
Great and terrible care has been taken by yours truly to insure flaming was never prohibited on this wiki. The wisdom of this effort has been called into question by recent events so I put it to you gentle reader - what are we to do? Shall we outlaw flaming and restrict the context of our disputations? Or will we agree to set of circumstances which all afirm are "out of bounds"? I believe a good row/spat/cat-fight is good for users all around as a relief valve and as non-participatory theatre. This show becomes problematic where it expands to too many pages, rather like channels with an over verbose politician usurping all broadcast stations on account of her need to draw everyone's attention away from her domestic policy the better to keep an eye on those "with stars on thars" (apologies to Mr. Geisel). Thus arises the need for some form of containment protocol for the prevention of a meltdown (see: China Syndrome (in China see(inexplicably):Mexico Syndrome)). So I open the floor to you folks, what would you have me/us do? 1600 local 12SEP10
anyone (c) jumping into an a-b conversation shall be blocked. the abc ruleshouted down
- flame wars should be limited to user talk pages or forum where it started. upon spreading to any further page participants (all) shall receive mandatory time-outs (24hrs?).
- when a flame war erupts on a forum page the content should be copied to each of the involved users' talk pages and deleted from the mainspace page. The Evil Dr. F disagrees see 2 above.
- personal attacks, personal wishes of ill will, and excessive name calling should result in progressive action, based on the discretion of an admin.
Maybe have them duel old timey style, pistols at dawn, no i personally think if it gets to personal there should be some kind of punishment, the 24 hrs block sounds good to me, also if i put this in the wrong spot 1000 pardons. XBOX GT SinisterNobody22.214.171.124 09:17, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Having almost myself gotten involved in an undesirable flame war, I approve of this set of suggestions and policy. --00:10, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with Zaph's set of rules. Just ignoring or politely telling the other person you disagree is enough for me.
- Anyways I am Switzerland when it comes to taking sides to a flame war.
- Also - I think that Flame wars should be limited to the Forum page and if need be (for the sake of the community) the users involved talk pages.
I'm lost. What are you talking about? You want to make rules preventing/limiting flame wars? Where? Why? Flame Wars always die out. Why waste your time trying to govern them? Please provide exact examples of the kind of flames you're trying to prevent/limit? All I'm 'hearing' now is a bunch of 'big government' nannies wanting to protect us from ourselves. -- 04:25, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
To respond to the three suggestions:
- ABC Rule - I disapprove. Sometimes it takes a community to dissuade a divisive element from preaching.
- User talk has the advantage of keeping the poo from flooding the main streets, but comes with the disadvantage that one combatant controls the toilet that the other combatant is trying to crap in. The ruling works if associated rules controlling talk page use are enforced. For example, Users must keep all texts on display, without editing the message of such texts - Archives are recommended for busy talk pages - Comments violating the no-personal-attacks rule can be construed as vandalism, and therefore removed from any talk page by any user. Or something like that anyway. There are plenty of wikis around to steal rules from.
- Personal attacks can be an arbitrary thing. I don't think it's too much to ask for contributors to keep discussions civil though.
And have you thought about mediation? There is a point where a user might request the assistance of someone with a higher access level to lock a page or otherwise quell the riot. -- WarBlade 05:49, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
Agree with WarBlade ...
- 1. ABC Rule - NO. Sometimes ppl need 'help'.
- 2. Personal attacks in forum pages should be considered vandalism and may be removed.
- 3. Outright attacks with no bearing on the topic should be addressed by an admin for locking etc.
--09:06, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Same, just, I don't wanna see butthurt Wikia personnel and numerous flame/troll/name-calling edits to some article/forum/user talk page.... -- 12:42, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
- How can "big government nannies" protect you from your (not to be taken as offense & in singular) own harmful desires like gambling... drinking... flaming... vandalising..? Well... we can't... but, that's where you come in... only you can protect yourself, so we need to state what you must do (i.e. make Dispute Resolution Guideline & Policy, duh!)... -- 12:42, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Have to think about that... really good idea... -- 12:42, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
a template will be needed to caution users to contain their wrath. candidates should link to as yet non-existing policy page (i should fix that now) and include at least one image. something similar to cleanup or warn would be nice. candidates should be sanboxed under your user namespace and linked here. 1930hrs local 12SEP10
I can't find it now for some reason, but earlier I was reading the the proposed policy page, and one thing that I take issue with is disallowing attacks on other user's ethics, which was a listed item.If actions taken by other users are affecting gameplay for the community, we should have every tight to confront and discuss it.GT: ConceitedJarrad XBOX360 02:01, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
- Borderlands_Wiki:Flaming_policy. yes, unfortunate writing on my part. flaming at its heart is an attack on another's ethics, philosophy and soft white underbelly. 02:08, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
I think a preliminary warning ought to be part of due process under normal circumstances.GT: ConceitedJarrad XBOX360 16:28, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
- agreed. excepting the spastic clause. 16:37, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Also this seems confusing to me: "Note however, that references to previous edits which appear in history only WILL be ignored. Only unadulterated, verbatim archived edits are admissible into evidence. No archive, no dice, no retcons, no whining." - last part of item 4
Is there any way to rephrase that or clean it up?GT: ConceitedJarrad XBOX360 17:16, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
- no, but i can explain it. if you wipe your page without making an exact copy in an archive linked to your talk page you have no grounds for bringing up what the page said at any previous date. this saves sysops from digging through page histories. a retcon would be making an archive after user has decided to complain. 1228hrs local 14SEP10
Roger wilco. TY GT: ConceitedJarrad XBOX360 18:44, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
If *I* wipe what *I* say on *my* talkpage, is what I said still admissible to be quoted by *others*? It makes no sense to declare entire conversations off-limits just by having them wiped. 03:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
An interesting consideration there. It makes sense that if one wipes one's own talk page that one should not be able to refer back to retconned edits, however I agree with Nagy that difficulties may arise if someone else quotes from a talk page only to find that conversation deleted by the owner. In the latter case, having an admin verify the page edit history could be the only true deciding factor, however I somehow doubt that a problem would proceed so far as to make such consideration truly necessary.03:27, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
- yes. special case considerations will be allowed. thanks both of you. try the irc! its fun. 03:38, September 20, 2010 (UTC)