FANDOM


Initial DiscussionEdit

Awesome policy. Sockpuppets FTL. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 20:30, 4 August 2007 (CEST)

First, I don't think this is ready to be made official today given that it was posted today, so I'm moving it down on the list on PvXwiki:Policy. Second, as far as I am aware, both the user and the sockpuppet get infinite bans. At least, that's how I believe we've been doing it until now. Certainly, a second time offender warrants an infinite ban in my opinion. A sock puppet undermines the entire PvX system. Someone who feels the need to continue doing so after a warning... well... I don't think they have any place on this wiki. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:56, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
Aside from that though, I don't know that we need this policy. Real Vetting already says that Sockpuppet votes are to be stricken, and it's not like a policy is going to change a) The number of people who do it, or, b) How we deal with these offenders. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:03, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
'Tis harsher now. I believe there should be at least one warning however. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 01:03, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
Well, we at least need the policy in words. The puppet masters have no official policy governing their punishment and everything is under admin discretion. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 01:04, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
Well... to be honest, there aren't any set standards of which I am aware for any kind of violation that merits a ban. So, there are two possible purposes that this policy would serve. Either, you're looking for some kind of "uniformity" in punishments, to which I would respond that it really isn't possible to have a single standard since there are different variations on a single "crime," or, you're trying to limit an Admin's theoretical ability to abuse their power, in which case I would say that this simply isn't necessary since banning sock puppets isn't really an abuse of power in my opinion. Perhaps I misinterpreted your last message... but otherwise, I stand by my original comment that I don't see the necessity. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:12, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
The main goal here is to give people a second chance. Everyone should have one. Also, its to clearly say "This is the policy in writing right [[PvX:SOCK|here]]. Here are your choices. You can make another puppet and get permanbanned or you can positively contribute here." That way, the user clearly knows what is and isn't acceptable. Idiot-proofing if you will. Considering the hatred for sock puppets on this wiki (which is warranted might I add), something in words and not a "Yeah but everyone knows it. Like an unspoken rule" type of thing would be great. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 01:18, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
Fair enough. In that case, it might be nice to simply put together a list of other "unspoken" rules, vandalism, sockpuppetry, and whatever else you can think of, and expand the policy. To be honest, it might be nice to have a policy that essentially takes all of the rules hidden in the various policies, as well as the "unspoken" rules, and distills it down into a simply list of "Things not to do," along with (maybe) suggested punishments for policies that warrant banning. That way, we can simply have one place where all the "simple" rules can be found. Essentially, one place where users can look to see the big "no-nos." Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:24, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
Well, if nothing else, the name is amusing :). Might want to think of another before we actually considered making it official, but still, amusing. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:28, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

I can't think of any other big no-no's. :/ —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 01:31, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

How about: PvXwiki:Unwritten Rules and Regulations or something. We could then use an acronym like PvX:RULES. Although that might be confusing given how awesome PvXwiki is :)... Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:32, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
Well then they wouldn't be unwritten... Still, with this policy you can make PvX:NO which is rather amusing. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 01:36, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
(edit conflict) Hmm, by definition, a policy called 'unwritten rules' can't have any rules written in it, right? :-) Will think about it tomorrow, too tired now. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 01:41, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
How about immaturity (outside of joking)? Wyvern 01:55, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
No, for a billion reasons. -Auron 02:09, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
If I want to act like a six year old brat, that's well within my rights. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 03:58, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
I dunno, PvX:NONO sounds pretty golden. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 22:34, 5 August 2007 (CEST)
I got a good laugh at that, no offense. "Please stop vandalizing. You are violating Big No-No's." -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 04:04, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
Speaking of that, PvX:REG works just as well. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 14:19, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
PvX:NONO is just wonderful, though. Very lulzful. It seems like there's being more discussion about the name than the actual policy.. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 14:22, 8 August 2007 (CEST)
The policy is pretty sound. It's just what we have now unofficially made official. Nothing new really. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 17:29, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

I'd like to add a note to the Vandals section. Some people just pop on to the wiki and vandalize numerous articles before anyone gets a chance to warn them (for fun, for stress therapy, idk...). In a situation where they are making repeated, deliberate vandalous edits like that, I'd like to just ban them right then and there. Not permanently, but for a day, maybe a few days, possibly a week. I'm not much of a punisher, I mostly block people for convenience. Note would read something like "In cases of deliberate, repeated vandalous edits made in short spans of time, the offender may be subject to an immediate block without warning." Discuss? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:07, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

I'd support that idea. While I like what this policy is trying to do, one of the things that makes it hard to write such a policy is that invariably, each case is slightly different and extenuating circumstances often play a role. However, since I do think it's a good idea to have a list of these "unwritten" (until now that is I guess) rules, perhaps the section of each kind of offense related to punishment should be adapted into something more along the lines of a "discussion" of various factors that play a role and more generalized solutions as far as punishment goes. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:14, 16 August 2007 (CEST)
Hey, no one is complaining about those immediate infinite blocks :p -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 01:52, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
Don't bother with infinite blocks, IP could be used by a bunch of people in an office, at a school, by a library, etc. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 01:59, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

Pedant's point Edit

...the point being the apostrophe in No-No's. There shouldn't be one :) --Snograt 22:29, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

I think that may be the irony. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:01, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals but this really isn't necessary though this will undergo a name change soon to miscellaneous regulations or something like that soon because no noes will NOT become a policy being named like that. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 02:55, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

Heh, I'm making the PvX:NONO redirect myself. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 03:00, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
If that will be the policy tag then this policy will ultimately fail. People violating this will lolol and probably will not consider PvX as a serious build site. We don't want that do we? -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:05, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
A lot of people, particularly PvPers, don't think of PvX as a serious builds site anyway, tbh. If you go to #gwp or QQ forums and mention pvxwiki in a non-negative way, you'll get flamed all the way back to here. --Edru viransu//QQ about me 03:34, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
Well yeah high ranking PvPers but that tbh makes up a small percent of the population? From what I've seen, anyone below r6 (above that is where people get leet) in PvP and does not seriously GvG and almost every PvE'er uses PvX. You hear "just look on wiki" or "i think it's on wiki" a lot. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:42, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
What I mean is not a serious, "really leet" sort of kind of way. I mean "we're not a gimmick and we actually try". -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:43, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

NONO Edit

Okay everyone I would like your opinions. If you were a little vandal, sockpuppet, and/or spam disturbing text on talk pages and a user on PvX wiki posted a warning about violating PvX:NONO How would you react? Just leave a comment below... -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:05, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

I would really like them to be impressed by something other than our policy redirects. Make another redirect like PvX:REGs or PvX:RULES (though that one may be too vague) if you really want. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 03:10, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
PvX:INTHEWORDSOFSKAKID-YOUGIANTDOUCHEVANDAL. Game over. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ/ 03:13, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
<3 grinch — Skakid9090 06:16, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

We've got the story, but we need a good cover so people will buy the book, if you know what I mean. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 03:29, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

請講英語。—ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ/ 03:46, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
I'm Chinese but shamefully I can't read that. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 22:08, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
트추탐 배지당 電炸唉ˊ阿. East Asian IME pwns you. MisfateDaipenmon 23:02, 21 August 2007 (CEST)
I would laugh, and tell that user that whoever wrote this policy page was fucking retarded.

vandalsEdit

can i ask that unregisterd users (those that use an IP instead) if they're being complete twats such as this clever f****r http://pvx.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:208.108.223.182 can we permanently ban their IP, a one mounts ban seems pointless to me, they will only come back in a mount and do the same....if they are already-sorry but it's not clear (fuming from the vandal scum)PheNaxKian (T/c) 22:42, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

This is something dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Rest assured that the admins do what they think is correct for the situation. If he comes back and continues to vandalize, we see when we go to ban him again that he's already been banned for a month, and take that into consideration. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 23:23, 1 September 2007 (CEST)
Didn't I permaban him? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 23:40, 1 September 2007 (CEST)
Soz-i typed that just after they thought they'd be a clever arse.....he tried to wipe Grinch's' talk page about 3 times i noticed =) trying to avoid being detected or something who knows, i was somewhat ticked off (put VERY politely) i understand not all are going to be such clever arses-but i think it should be made slightly clearer about the ban period for future refrence =)PheNaxKian (T/c) 00:00, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

wtf?Edit

Where to begin?

Expecting a new user to abide by "unwritten" rules (the first time, without warning) is unreasonable. This isn't the church picnic, it's a website and a wiki for a computer game. (Why is "unwritten" in quotes?)

Disruptive text - this seems like a minor and rare problem, but okay.

Vandalism - all vandalism is done in bad faith. Good faith means that the users edits are intended to be for the good of the wiki. These edits might be disruptive or damaging, but if they are done by someone in good faith, they cannot possibly be vandalism. Here, as in real life, not every act which damages the wiki is vandalism. Vandalism is something specific. Note - learn what vandalism is.

Sock puppet - "an additional username used by a registered user". This definition is the same as the one used on wikipedia, but the policy is completely different.

If I make 3 edits that an admin doesn't like, regardless of my intent, I will be indefinitely banned for vandalism. If I then make a new account, I will be indefinitely banned for sockpuppetry. This is your prerogative, of course, although it seems harsh. But since I can't make any more accounts, why not just block my IP address whenever I make an edit you don't like?

Most wikis have a policy such as "Don't Be A Retarded Asshole" which is clearly written and covers everything here. Perhaps instead of enforcing 3 specific, draconian rules, with 1 warning each, you could enforce a more general rule with 4 warnings. Then you could tell a user when he is doing something wrong. And people won't get indefinitely banned for trivial reasons.

This page fails. You can always copy the pages on wikipedia.

We don't expect a new user to abide by unwritten rules... that's why we have this policy... Concerning vandalism, you don't seem to actually be saying anything meaningful concerning the wiki. Concerning your point about sockpuppetry, just no, to everything that you said. Edits that the sysops don't like aren't vandalous and if any of the sysops do punish someone for vandalism when they weren't being vandalism, the bcrats would not likely react pleasantly. Also, forbidding sockpuppetry is essential on a wiki like ours where the majority of our content is subject to voting. Concerning your last point, these aren't specific draconian rules. These are written codifications of previously unwritten rules against sockpuppetry, vandalism, and disruptive text(which we have had issues with(such as users putting all of their text on talk pages in bright colorful fonts)) that suggest possible punishments for those offenses. Also, if someone's going to vandalize once after being warned not to, they're going to do so again, so 1 warning just saves time. By the way, this is our equivalent of this "Don't Be A Retarded Asshole" policy you speak of. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 04:26, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
All additional accounts are sockpuppets and all sockpuppets are banned. If the rules mean something different than what they say, then fix them. If you write something down it has to be accurate or it's useless.
These rules are mind-numbingly straightforward. It clearly states- no sockpuppets. 1st puppet is a warning, 2nd is permaban. All sockpuppets are banned and their votes removed. Simple. Done. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲShield of Deflection 19:55, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

About your licensing issue, you need to re-read the license. You have released your contributions to the wiki. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:02, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

wtf +1 Edit

Stupid policy, and how old are we meant to be? "big nonos", seriously. I don't expect a reasonable or mature answer, just voicing my disapproval. — Skuld 20:21, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Aside from the name, what do you disapprove of? Most wikis have corresponding policies to this one, if they are more elaborate. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:30, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
Well considering the average level of maturity on this wiki (3, 4 years of age maybe?), "Big No-No's" seems appropriate. Mature people wouldn't make sockpuppets and vandalize pages. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲShield of Deflection 20:43, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
Considering our guild chat, I can confirm Grinch falls nicely into the average level of maturity group of this wiki. Ibreaktoilets SignatureIbreaktoilets 20:45, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
The difference is that I act mature on the wiki which is all that matters. Sockpuppets and that assorted cheese is most uncool. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲShield of Deflection 21:04, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
Penis. Ibreaktoilets SignatureIbreaktoilets 21:05, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
-.- Anyways, what functional part of this policy did you take offense to Skuld? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:07, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
Probably emotional duress, reading through out somewhat disorganized policy. Also, the name is too immature/dumb for skud, but tbh who cares? It says what we want it to right? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 21:12, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
Depends by what you mean by 'we.' He's a user here too, and if someone disagrees with site policy, we owe it to them to at least hear them out. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:16, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
Fool! You are humanizing Skud! Hang your head in shame! Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 02:09, 4 September 2007 (CEST)
Fixed. — Skakid9090 03:44, 8 October 2007 (CEST)

Amendment Edit

After today's events, I propose that we add the following to the 'Disruptive Text' section:

Other notesEdit

  • Any extremely large edits to pages will be treated as vandalism. In more severe cases, you may not receive a warning before being temporarily banned. These edits make viewing and editing the affected page difficult or even impossible. They also place a strain on the server.

--Wizardboy777 SigWizardboy777(T/C/Sysop) 04:02, 15 November 2007 (CET)

That can be read to mean changing a page drastically is vandalism, and we'd get all kinds of QQing from the po' build OPs. Maybe "Any edits resulting in an extremely large page..." --71.229.204.25 04:12, 15 November 2007 (CET)
"extremely large" = five digits of adding, or thereabouts. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 04:48, 15 November 2007 (CET)
Let's call it anything above 200kb. Physical size is easier to regulate than the number of characters. --71.229.204.25 04:50, 15 November 2007 (CET)
No, it's not, because recent changes shows how many characters an edit added or subtracted. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 04:59, 15 November 2007 (CET)
True, but I see five-digit adds every time Skakid archives the Admin Noticeboard, and a few other legitimate times besides. --71.229.204.25 05:04, 15 November 2007 (CET)
Yeah, true, which is why admins tend to be promoted with a large heaping of discretion. :P This isn't GWW, not everything needs to be spelled out exactly in policies for idiots to get banned. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 05:20, 15 November 2007 (CET)
Yeah, I know, I just like being able to tell people exactly what policy they're about to get banned under. I'm an ankle-biting authoritarian cock-smoker like that. :P --71.229.204.25 05:24, 15 November 2007 (CET)
It's called discretion. It's why we work and why Guild Wiki works but Guild Wars Wiki doesn't. The administrators/b-crats here have the final say in everything and are allowed to use logic and simple reasoning to best determine how to fix problems. See PvX:ADMIN for further information. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 12:52, 15 November 2007 (CET)

Can we add...Edit

Builds that are posted but aren't "meant for PvX". I'm talking about here I know that's the only one he's done, but what's the point of posting a build on PvX (where at the bottom of each page as you edit it says your contributions are released into public domain or some such thing), if it's not meant for PvX. I know it doesn't get in the way as such but still, we don't want people coming and posting builds not meant for PvX...... PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix 19:08, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

That kind of build goes in the userspace. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

SpamEdit

Increasingly spam is becoming an issue. I generally see 2 kinds of spam:

  1. "spam that serves no purpose what sop ever other than spam". Yeh i know sounds stupid. Basicaly this is somehthing that contributes nothing whatso ever to anything...at all...(wiki or otherwise). look at (off the top of my head) Godliest's 1st, 2nd (and it's especially evidant in) 26th arvhive.
  2. "conversational spam". This is just conversations. It's literaly about anything, but it's actually serving some sort of purpose besides jsut spamming RC. (something like Guild Of Deals American presidential debate topics or something like that might be a good example).

I'm suggesting that the first type of spam, under this policy, be a bannable offense, without warning.

I suggest the second type of spam be left alone, as long as it doesn't escilate into a mass of NPA's 1RVs etc. In the case it starts heading that way, a warning should be issued to all of the involved parties. In the event someone continues dispite the warning, then a ban can be issued.

Thoughts? (if anything's unclear just ask and i'll try to do a better job of explaining). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 17:38, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Do it. I get yellow message box like every 15 seconds im on pvx. Rawrawr Dinosaur 17:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
Admin discretion. Use it. Cute McMonkeyTab 17:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Without warning seems a little harsh. It's not like every user who first gets her spends his day reading policies... ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 17:41, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

(EC)Admin dicreations fine and dandy, but having it in a policy should hopefully deter at least some people. as for new users, you'd PvX:AGF ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 17:42, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
Still, banning somebody without warning is stupid. Just link them to the policy, tell them to stop or otherwise be banned and ban accordingly. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 17:44, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
To which I'd reply, "You're fucking retarded." The first type of spam, which, while clogging this completely inactive wiki's RC (see, that's not even an issue because like, 5 people, contribute to the builds namespace), does serve a purpose which you're far too dense to see. Stuff like "^" and "/wave" and "ups" strengthens the community and makes bonds stronger between people, especially the people that do it on a regular basis. In conclusion, your plan is stupid and your lack of foresight and general thought were just two of the reasons that you should never have been a person with any degree of power. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 18:06, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
Interesting. Misf8 /wave 11:57, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.