Help talk:Behavioral Policy

Administrator Violation

User:Kydo is in repeated and frequent violation of this policy, having used curse words, and euphemisms thereof, throughout the wiki, in edit comments, the sandbox, in discussions, and on talk pages. Most of these are fairly old, from before he was aware of this policy or even became admin. However, his foul language continued up to as recently as yesterday as of this writing. Considering he is me, I am considering temporarily banning myself for being a disrespectful jerk. --Kydo (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2016 (MDT)

Hello there. I noticed in reading a section that the word 'us' is used, where I believe the intended word may be 'is'. Context, and spacing of those keys on typical keyboards, are the clues I am using as the basis for this assumption. Last sentence, second paragraph, Adult Section. Also, thanks for the introduction post to my page. --_FoxtrotterNov. 21, 2016 3:20pm (GMT -8:00)

Profanity Policy

I find the policy regarding profanity too extreme. I understand avoiding it on articles and not using profanity against others offensively, but why is it flat-out banned under all circumstances, including on a user's user page? The page states that it's because a user might become offended, and that's fair. I don't want to offend anyone. But here we take it to an extreme not seen elsewhere. Someone might be offended by the use of "idiot" on our own help portal. We can remove it from there, of course. But what about content that concerns drugs? It might offend people and make them leave and never come back. So could God. Or, really, any other religious reference including demons or non-Christian faiths. This race might offend a lot of people, too. Maybe they're vegetarians or hate McDonald's business practices or see the anime-style picture and it reminds them of the sexualization of young girls in some anime? Perhaps our flat ban of profanity offends people who then choose to never come here because they disagree with our principles?

Again, I agree that it shouldn't be allowed on most articles or in most talk page discussions. But flat-out banning it, even from an admin's own user page is ridiculous to me. If this is really what we as a community think is morally right in spite of everything else that we arbitrarily do, I'll continue to prosecute any profanity-users. But I'd prefer to change the policy so it's more lenient :) --GamerAim (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2018 (MDT)

My interpretation of the rules as written is that User pages are in fact already exempt from the profanity policy (and most other policies). As stated: "Each user may customize his or her page however they like; following a few noted regulations" (emphasis mine). It goes on to note said regulations as the five listed bullet points, where profane language is not at all referred to. This is effectively stating that these are the only policies to apply to User pages, and half the reason why the edits to my userpage were both unwarranted and pretty rude.

As for the rest, well, I do agree with all the points you present. We did supposedly agree that controversial content (such as profanity) should be accepted wherever appropriate to the content; But as we still entirely ignore that and seem set to delete things that could offend anyone, however extremely nichely, I'm sure the eventual decision on this policy shall be arbitrary as ever. --SgtLion (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

My interpretation of this policy is similar to that of SgtLion. I would assume one's own user page is immune to this policy if the user is the one using profanity. I also believe this is the correct direction for the policy to take.

That said, I could see one arguing that profanity falls under "civility and etiquette guidelines." I would personally disagree with this, but it's a reasonable opinion to have. Either way I think there should be some clarification on this matter more explicitly in the policy itself.

As for the use of profanity under other circumstances... I think profanity generally doesn't belong on content pages (as opposed to user pages and talk pages) devoid of an {{April Fools}}, but otherwise I am impartial. - Guy 15:15, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

profanity generally doesn't belong on content pages (as opposed to user pages and talk pages) devoid of an {{April Fools}}

Would this mean we can move College of Trash Posting (5e Subclass) back to its proper name? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:45, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

I feel as though my message may have been miscommunicated or misinterpreted. To be exceptionally clear, I think profanity doesn't belong on content pages as noted, regardless of current policy. If profanity appears anywhere else, I'm impartial, and would probably only care if it breaks current policy (which at present it does). - Guy 16:06, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

It pretty clearly breaks the rules now, yes. I'm talking about if we decide to relax the profanity rules as GA proposed above. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 16:46, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

If I'm right about what you want to rename it, I'd be in support of that. It has a clear meaning within its culture (those who understand the page are probably familiar with that culture and the meaning of the term), so it's not like the name change has given it more meaning than it had before. In fact, I'd say the name is less meaningful now...--GamerAim (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

This policy is very archaic in places. I agree that we should rewrite it. I would base it off Wikipedia's Offensive material policy. This policy opens the door to concensus within this policy, is much clearer than this page with its misclarity of userpages. This task also involves knitting the useful ends from the Wikipedia policy together with our other various policies. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2018 (MDT)

Continuing from Updating the Foul Language policy and the header above

Green Dragon made the suggestion in Updating the Foul Language policy that the policy is updated as per Wikipedia's w:Wikipedia:Offensive material. I believe this would be beneficial to the wiki and as Geodude671 mentioned, would allow for pages like the College of Trash Posting (5e Subclass) to be more accurately represented. However, I believe purposely loosening the policy so users can casually swear in conversation is not at all beneficial and ultimately doesn't contribute to a more constructive editing environment. —ConcealedLight (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2018 (MST)

Agreed. --Kydo (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2018 (MST)

Yeet Yeet. I am happy with how things are. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2018 (MST)

Agree. This policy needs to just be updated to reflect our consensus. --Green Dragon (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2018 (MST)

I've made an edit that I think does the job, feel free to add to it to make it more accurate and or eloquent. —ConcealedLight (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2018 (MST)

The only thing I kiss about being an admin was being able to validate edits made by others. It was like having a Facebook "like" button for edits. I'd give your edits the ♡ react if I could. --Kydo (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2018 (MST)

I took sometimes feel the need to edit a page just to say GJ. —ConcealedLight (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2018 (MST)