D&D Wiki talk:Policies

Acceptable Content Policy

Due to the various opinions on D&D Wiki's Acceptable Content Policy, we will be voting for what policy the community is to ratify. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2018 (MST)

The vote will be opened by Green Dragon.

Phase 1 is closed.

Phase 1: Please concisely fill out all the things that we should be voting on.

1. What is the acceptable content policy?
2. Which user-groups interact with the policy?
3. How is the policy upheld?

Questions

Are the two currently listed policies (censorship & free reign) suppose to work hand in hand or are they listed as opposing ideas where one is picked over the other? Also, is there a discussion from the past I can look at to see how this process typical goes? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2018 (MST)

No, I want other users to continue filling out the table: if we are to vote. Those examples were just my first ideas. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2018 (MST)

I'm confused on what this question actually covers? Wikipedia policies are fairly comprehensive as to what is acceptable content (ex:Wikipedia:Offensive material) and the few sections that would prevent this Wiki from functioning are noted as not being policies here. --Meep (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2018 (MST)

I think that is totally correct, Meep. Beyond what Wikipedia states, is not somewhere that we need to explore right now. This policy seems comprehensive. I'll end the phase 1. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2018 (MST)

Hello, I don't know if here is the right place to ask but I have a question. Would it be okay if I made a page that is a translation to brazilian portuguese of the Shinobi World (5e Campaign Setting) page and its branches? I would put the links to the originals of course.

I talked to Ref3rence, one of the major contributors of the page, and he said he doesn't mind but he did point out that it could go against some policies, so that's why I'm here. AlienNinja (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2024 (MDT)

Off-Site Behavior Policy

So, this has come up and proven to be a problem. Lets make this policy official.

Proposition: "An admin will be held accountable for off-site behavior if they are acting in the name of D&D Wiki."

Sound good? Varkarrus (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2018 (MDT)

Sure but let's apply it to all users :) --GamerAim (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2018 (MDT)

Sure but admins must be held to higher standards. A user acting inappropriately in the name of D&D Wiki is not as big a deal as an admin doing so. :) :) :) :) :) Varkarrus (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2018 (MDT)

I can't see many circumstances in which this policy would provide a meaningful benefit to the site, and I don't think we've ever had a meaningful problem in this regard. Sounds like a way to invite 100-fold more utterly useless drama than we already have.

However, this kind of rule would stop me from seeking feedback and help from external parties as I've done multiple times. Largely because I can, as per current events, see lots of ways in which an admin's public record would be repeatedly taken out of context to help users lead an otherwise unjustified crusade against an admin they dislike and consequently chase them off. --SgtLion (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2018 (MDT)

And please don't let this devolve into toxic conversation. --SgtLion (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2018 (MDT)

I've shared my opinion in other discussions; I don't support the cross-medium application of behavioral issues and each medium should police themselves. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2018 (MDT)

I agree with BSFM here, but I am also fine with implementing the policy. But users and admins should not be differentiated. We're all users. Unless you can provide some precedent for being harsher on admins who break the rules? Because actually I've seen the opposite lately...--GamerAim (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2018 (MDT)

Also, this would apply to all other websites? Twitter, Facebook, DeviantArt, Reddit, etc.? If you own a game on Steam that breaks site policy, should that apply too?--GamerAim (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

Thus the "acting in the name of D&D Wiki" clause. Hypothetical scenario, but if you repeatedly go on another site, in particular if that site is having a discussion related to D&D Wiki, and are like "hey I'm a D&D wiki admin" and then proceed to harass that person, that reflects REALLY badly on the site and its administration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Varkarrus (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I agree that this proposal, if implemented, should only be applied to matters related to the wiki. I don't really care if a D&D Wiki user on reddit gets into a slapfight with somebody else in r/politics or wherever, because it doesn't have anything to do with us. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:51, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

"matters related to the wiki." How so? How are D&D Wiki administrators to decide when and where behavior should violate this proposed policy? Again, the issue is that third-party websites are not D&D Wiki. What's appropriate in other communities is not necessarily what's appropriate here. Does it apply only if an administrator says, "in my authority as a D&D Wiki administrator, I call you a doo-doo head" on, say, Facebook?

Look, I'd love if I could police other communities and hold peoples' behavior elsewhere accountable on D&D Wiki. But we can't police peoples' actions on other websites unless it can go both ways. There isn't a good way to go about this, IMO. Maybe if it becomes an issue in the future, we can look at that and try to develop a strategy to deal with it, but until we have some real-world application for this policy, I think we should put it on hold. Again, I'm not against it entirely, but I don't see a way it could work without introducing drama from other communities or creating more work for administrators to have to deal with administrating other websites. So, as-is, I think all BSFM, SgtLion and I can see is negatives :( --GamerAim (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

Tavern Chat

I cannot find anything solid or concrete for spamming in the Tavern chat. Can we establish something or can someone point me to it? I don't like to hinder users abilities to communicate but when you go through chat logs of nonsensical commentary, repeatedly, it is a nuisance. I am seeking to officially warn users for spamming messages, and possibly block them if they continue to repeat the behavior. An example as of today, from a user previously asked to not spam the chat:

   Negra  .      56 minutes ago 
          .      44 minutes ago 
          .      25 minutes ago 
          ..     12 minutes ago 
          ..     6 minutes ago

Thanks. ~ BigShotFancyMan 13:13, 10 May 2019 (MDT)

I see no issue with implementing this as a rule. TBH I thought it was already a rule. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 18:47, 10 May 2019 (MDT)

w:Wikipedia:Etiquette, "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." --Green Dragon (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2019 (MDT)

Sums it up. Thank you. ~ BigShotFancyMan 09:52, 14 May 2019 (MDT)