As many of you are aware, recently leetlol and I were banned for vandalizing the Forumwarz wikipedia page (“Treason” it was called in the ban reason). Now, believe it or not, I’m not here to argue against this rule. It is painfully obvious that CZ and most mods see nothing wrong with this rule, and trying to get it repealed or changed would be a monumental waste of time, even for me.

Don’t get me wrong, it is the single dumbest rule I’ve ever seen on a website. But it’s so far out there and unnecessary that it would actually take quite a bit of effort to break, and there are much more effective ways of causing **** here. I digress…

The purpose of this thread is to get some kind of idea of what CZ considers “vandalism”. Changing names, dates, and the like are obvious examples, but what if someone were to create a “Forumwarz Community” heading in the article? How candid could we be in filling out that section? Could we express our true feelings about a dying community and a development team that has lost sight of what used to make this place great? Or is that trolling? Could we make a “Drama” heading and fill it with Fwz dirty laundry, or would that be “detrimental to the interests of CZ”?

I get it, we can’t change JB’s name anymore. We should still be able to contribute to that article, and even add things that CZ might not like, if they are in fact true. WIkipedia isn’t another place for you to advertise, to put your best foot forward. Anyone who reads the forumwarz wiki article should get the most all-emcompasing impression of our fine website, not some heavily protected and polished shinejob.

Sergeant Cid Posted:

However, I’d like you to explain to me how the title of this thread is relevant to the topic at hand.

Well, it got us to look, didn’t it? Good title, would click again.

“Feelings” have NO PLACE in an encyclopedia.

nTerra Posted:

Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. Notes about the community, baggage, features and problems of FWZ would be a good addition to the article. I wouldn’t expect something as petty as “watch out for MC Banhammer, that guy’s a dildo” (statement chosen because it’s obviously not true) would stay put very long or is likely to be added in the first place since it’s not very funny and wouldn’t amount to anything.

this.

PhineasPoe Posted:

Not to mention that nobody of any importance views wikipedia as gospel. Even if the police or potential employers see the vandalism during the two hours it’s up, they won’t believe it. Also, I think leetlol’s edit was changing JB’s name to ‘Paula Abdul.’ I don’t think that would hurt JB, Forumwarz, or Paula Abdul.

The other really, really stupid thing about this rule is that banning them here is supposed to stop vandalism…over there…I don’t get how that works.

If anything one would think it would cause them to vandalize more in a drunken fit of rage over such a ban. I think that the fwz wikipedia is very lucky that leetlol is such a kind and caring person.

nTerra Posted:

”watch out for MC Banhammer, that guy’s a dildo” (statement chosen because it’s obviously not true)

Well I do like to function similarly to what a dildo’s usually used for. So it’s not totally untrue.

Oh, and my ex-mod mind is also wondering about this thread title and wants to change it.

All forumwarz bull**** aside, I don’t think that community and/or “drama” fall under wikipedia content standards. Internal wiki, sure. But Wikipedia.com? No way. As a good rule of thumb take a look at other websites wikipedia entries. YTMND.com for example, has a section on conflicts, but thats not internal userbase conflicts, that’s real companies threatening lawsuits and such.

A more apt comparison would be Kingdom of Loathings wiki article. There is a community section, but really it just gives a general overview of the userbase. I think it’s a very special section and I might put it up for review if I gave a ****. Even still, no opinionated stances, no drama logs, etc.

BLAH BLAH BLAH TLLog in to see images!

PhineasPoe Posted:

The other really, really stupid thing about this rule is that banning them here is supposed to stop vandalism…over there…I don’t get how that works.

I don’t know guys. I remember how depressed Bootyhole was after he read the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Forumwarz. Maybe there is more reasons for this that you guys are considering?

handofg0d Posted:

All forumwarz bull**** aside, I don’t think that community and/or “drama” fall under wikipedia content standards. Internal wiki, sure. But Wikipedia.com? No way. As a good rule of thumb take a look at other websites wikipedia entries. YTMND.com for example, has a section on conflicts, but thats not internal userbase conflicts, that’s real companies threatening lawsuits and such.

A more apt comparison would be Kingdom of Loathings wiki article. There is a community section, but really it just gives a general overview of the userbase. I think it’s a very special section and I might put it up for review if I gave a ****. Even still, no opinionated stances, no drama logs, etc.

BLAH BLAH BLAH TLLog in to see images!

Basically.

Wikipedia isn’t your personal blog – and if that’s what you want to do it’s between you and wikipedia – I’m only saying it because you’re going to look like a doofus posting a bunch of unrelated crap nobody cares about. I honestly doubt even ED would care if you posted it there, so by what stretch of imagination would Wikipedia?

Of course if FWZ wants to ban you for it I suppose they can. I don’t understand this sense of entitlement you all think you have for belonging to this site. Apparently you feel there is some forumwarz constitution granting you some inalienable birth right not to be banned unless there’s a legitimate and logically sound reason. You seem blind to the common sense notion “generally being an bumhole” to whoever is in charge can get you removed from and not allowed to come back from, oh say, everywhere online and IRL ever.

Celerysteve edited this message on 10/26/2009 12:43AM