Help talk:Deletion Policy

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

I know you said "be bold" but I'd rather keep the writing style consistent, if you don't mind making a few changes?

  1. Sole contributor requests deletion. Please make it clear that this only applies to insubstantial articles, i.e. articles which were blanked shortly after creation and which do not qualify as "usable" articles. We do not delete articles simply by user request, as this could be deleterious to the people who use the site. This is one of the causes of a split that occurred among staff years ago :(
  2. Speedy Deletion. I believe that Template:needsadmin is typically used to call out a need for speedy deletion, but I guess it doesn't really matter. Just something worth considering :)
  3. Not English. I do recall that, under specific circumstances, non-English pages are allowed. I think the context was that a non-English campaign setting is allowed?

--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2018 (MDT)

You're right. It might be for the best that changes this bold weren't made without a discussion.
  1. I would like another opinion on this before adding it in and/or making this policy official. In my own time, I've seen several substantial articles deleted solely due to "Speedy deletion criteria G7" and "author request," and only one or two instances where this was denied. (Iirc at least one of those instances ended in nothing but a furious user and the retention of content that needed improvement, anyway. Doesn't seem to me like that goes well, but I could be wrong.)
  2. It is and can be, but even before I became an admin it was apparent to me that direct notification gathers a response more swiftly than that template. If you want it can be added in, but even if it follows precedent I don't really see it being as effective.
  3. To me this seems rather dubious. I would like another opinion covering this explicitly before adding it in. Do you know what campaign setting(s) to which this applied? Do you remember who else might have been involved in the instance(s) where a non-English campaign setting was allowed?
- Guy 07:05, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
"G7" should only be invoked in the case of incomplete articles, and maybe only shortly after creation (not sure about that last part). Completed articles should never be deleted under "G7." I don't think I wrote that clearly the first time, but either way GD can confirm this whenever he responds. I was referring to the needsadmin template as being used in place of the delete template, not suggesting that it's improper to ask on the Admin talk page. Sorry for the confusion, but again I don't think it really matters which template is used to summon a speedy deletion, just saying which one I've seen used for it most often. GD himself allowed the campaign setting to remain, as I recall, but I think it was subsequently deleted for normal reasons. If GD thinks it's a good idea, we could put a note saying to ask him for permission before adding non-English content. Otherwise, I'm fine with continuing our official English-only stance with no written exceptions.
I'm mostly sharing my experience with policy here, not any personal opinion of mine, though I do feel strongly about not deleting good content just because OP wants it removed. So long as GD clears up these points, I can't think of any major issues I have with your proposal. I apologize if I came off as dismissive of it just because I only shared suggested corrections!--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
  1. I agree with GA here.
  2. I agree with Guy here that it doesn't seem all that effective. If anything its a preference but not a hard rule.
  3. I was involved in that. If I recall correctly, I asked GD about it when I happened upon a largely incomplete setting in Spanish(I believe) and it was deleted. I'm unsure about the name but I believe it was on his talk page.
Other then that, this is well written and seems pretty comprehensive. I have no qualms about making this policy atm. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
I think this is pretty awesomely written, top notch. I've made three tiny additions that I'm hoping aren't controversial, but please anyone speak up or edit them constructively if so.
Non-English campaign settings / OGL content are allowed (though, we've historically had a higher required standard of quality for them); We semi-recently deleted a foreign campaign setting, but this decision was made because of the incompletion and poor quality. I do agree with GamerAim on their points, too, we should be discouraging the use of G7 best we can, within reason. --SgtLion (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
As it appears to be consensus, I've downplayed "G7." It now should read that it allows an administrator to speedily delete for this reason, but makes it apparent (hopefully) that this alone shouldn't constitute deletion of quality content.
The part about non-English content was reworked to not apply if a translation is included. In practice, any content not in English at all could effectively be immune to all the other reasons for deletion, just because it's very possible no active users of D&D Wiki may be able understand it. To me seems potentially very problematic, especially if it's in a language more esoteric than Spanish. If this still isn't lenient enough, I suppose the line can be deleted entirely.
GD's edit summary suggests he's already given this approval, though knowing he's busy it might've been a quick skim that missed finer bits like those brought up here. - Guy 10:48, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
I'm happy enough with this policy and all the latest editions, thus far. --SgtLion (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
If you remember the articles you mentioned being deleted, would you please restore them? I remembered a specific example, and as per here and here, users do not have the right to request deletion just because they don't want it uploaded here anymore. I hope this clarifies things :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
It is worth noting that in the six year period that has passed since the precedents you are citing, there are dozens (maybe hundreds?) of precedent examples of content being deleted by author request. In the absence of policy, we use precedent — although clearly precedent differs, which is part of the reason I worked on this. Are you suggesting the author request portion again be changed?
Oh. I fear I now understand why you edited that portion of this (still unofficial) policy. I assume every single time you see a page deleted by author request, you intend to "disagree" with that deletion?
... Hopefully I'm jumping to false conclusions, but, I can't help but find that possibility very disappointing. - Guy 11:45, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
As stated elsewhere, it has been solid and longstanding policy not to delete work by author request unless it's unplayable anyway, been around a very short time, or otherwise exceptional circumstances. I don't care to go hunting for ye olde talk page that is miles long with argument over this policy, but the end state is - Nobody owns the work that is posted to D&D Wiki, and we rarely grant the optional courtesy of removing that work just because the author asked for it. Unless User:Green Dragon has had a major change of heart on this matter (in which case, we should discuss further), the policy should reflect this. --SgtLion (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
And please don't passively berate people for making valid contributions to policy; GamerAim is trying to reflect and vocalise the longstanding position this wiki has very strongly held. Speculation and declaring your disappointment over imagined acts doesn't help anybody. --SgtLion (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
To be clear, I'm only enforcing long-standing policy as SgtLion said. My personal opinion on the matter is mixed and if discussion with GD decides that we should enforce user ownership on D&D Wiki, I will enforce our new policy. My only intent thus far is to educate newer and less-informed administrators (and other users) on our established procedures, not to enforce my own "interpretation" of policy based on a single edit from years before I even joined. The recent shift to improving our codification of policy is, well, recent. Older admins - even myself, a relatively newer admin - tended to have this understanding of the spirit and intent, policy and history of D&D Wiki. I'm not knocking any of the newer admins who came to D&D Wiki with beliefs that greatly differ from those D&D Wiki was founded on. I'm just saying that this is why many policies are buried away in old talk page discussions because we didn't always write down our consensus after it was reached.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
I believe I was the first admin to start citing G7 on this wiki, although I admit I do not recall the context. It may have been a case where the author realized they did not want to release the content under GFDL. It can be a useful procedure for uncontroversial dispute resolution, and also those cases where a user makes an incomplete page then blanks it.
Now, about these situations where there are old articles (perhaps very good ones) with a user request for deletion. I know historically we have not wanted to let go of these pages, and strictly these pages are not "owned" by the author. This part of G7 is about behaving with good faith, perhaps we should be respecting these users wishes. From a Wikipedia point of view, it's not a deletion process that should even go through a discussion. Having said that, G7 is very fragile - all it takes is another user to make a non-trivial edit and G7 is invalidated.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marasmusine (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.
Indeed you were, as I remember. I think all the points you present are valid. I do vaguely remember Green Dragon taking a specific strong stance on this that is in-line with what you've said. When I can find the relevant discussion page, or they get a moment to specify again, we can probably be clearer on the matter. --SgtLion (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (MDT)
I think the discussion I was thinking of was User_talk:Green_Dragon/Archive_29#Speedy_deletion_on_TierArea.27s_pages, where actually Marasmusine was more involved than I. Though this was a time when courteous spirit played a bigger part than hard policy, so it's hard to imagine the same process going so smoothly anymore. As such, and due to conflicting precedents, I don't mind us going any which way on this policy, it seems whatever works, just as long as we make it clear. --SgtLion (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2018 (MDT)
Looking at that discussion, it seems Green Dragon's concern is that we would be setting a precedent of breaking protocol to meet a user's demands; or starting a slippery slope of deleting things willy-nilly. It's because of the TierArea incident that I started using Wikipedia's speedy deletion critiera to show there is a framework for this. In the same way, we don't have to use the two-week deletion process for a page that just says "LOLOLOL" (criteria G3), unused redirects (criteria G6), material under copyright (G12), or the all too frequent "empty-but-the-template" pages (A3).
As for misusing the deletion tool, the point of being an admin is that they can be trusted to use their judgement to make exceptions when it betters the wiki. If there's a pattern of misuse, it's back to RfA with you :) Marasmusine (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (MDT)
So, can we agree to put this policy as written into effect? I think the current wording of 'user request' sufficiently balances that we are under no obligation to delete articles under sole contributor request, but can where judgment allows.
Or do we want to adjust a clause to say that G7 is not valid where is likely to be controversial, or for substantial content (such as the deletion of featured articles or entire campaign settings)?
Either way, these few sentences seem to be the only part of contention; If it is, can we just exclude that section 'til we agree on it? I'm still seeing admins implementing deletions improperly as I type, so it'd be nice to a have a super clear policy to point to so we can all be on the same page. --SgtLion (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2018 (MDT)
I think the current version could be implemented, yes. As you stated, G7 is the only point of contention, it seems like, so I'll comment that part out and then move this into the Help namespace. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:16, 8 October 2018 (MDT)
This discussion shows me how important it is to have this policy. Everyone has different perspectives about how to delete pages. If it's not written down, it leads to some very heated situations. But, in recollection, it has always been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page.
I am grateful to work with a written down policy about page deletions. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
I am also grateful; your suggestion to codify our deletion policy after years of informal changes was a good one :) So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" is a valid reason for deletion now? An article can be deleted solely for that reason? I've no issue with this, as it seems your stance has changed over the years, but I worded it that way to be doubly sure before we write this in stone! If this is indeed the case, we should also go forward with deleting the Meadowlands campaign setting (again)?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
When I used the word "always" above, simply, I meant to use that word. I have never denied a deletion by authors request except for speedy deletions and deletions of licensing problems (which is in the best interests of D&D Wiki). I don't understand why users want their content to be deleted occasionally (it seems like a waste of their work), and my stance on this has not changed either. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
It was a yes or no question. Please say "yes" or "no" to "So, "I'm the sole contributor and want my work removed from D&D Wiki" is a valid reason for deletion?"--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2018 (MDT)
Yes, currently (and always) that is a valid reason for deletion. Note: sole contributor, not main contributor. We likely need more input from more users if we are to change this policy. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2018 (MDT)
I've been operating under the mentality of Wikipedia's CSD G7, which lets pages be deleted speedily upon request of the sole significant contributor. I take this to mean that a page's creator can request deletion even if another user has made edits like fixing grammar or formatting issues, adding/changing/removing categories, or other minor edits (minor in scope, not necessarily only edits marked as "minor"). — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:14, 10 October 2018 (MDT)
Thank you! If no one else does so first, I will make sure the wording on this page reflects that articles can be proposed and deleted for that reason. I will also make it clear that they cannot be speedy deleted for that reason under Wikipedia G7. I think Geodude is also right to ask if minor edits from other users void this deletion reason. I assume so, but clarity is always appreciated.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2018 (MDT)
"Sole significant contributor" makes more sense for the policy than just "sole contributor" since that does not explicitly state the interactions about maintenance and minor edits. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2018 (MDT)
I-I think this means we've finally all agreed on and codified our deletion policy, speedy deletes and all. Do we celebrate now? This was a collaborative effort between many administrators and other users and I am pleased to have been a part of it \o/ --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2018 (MDT)

Should we be able to speedily delete pages with no content whatsoever? I'm not talking about pages which are simply sparse; I'm talking about pages like Hacker and Aequor de Chao which contain virtually no content at all. I'm mainly comparing this to Wikipedia's CSDs A1 and A3. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 20:58, 20 October 2018 (MDT)

I consider that a reasonable proposal. If no one objects, go ahead and make the appropriate changes. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2018 (MDT)
Seems fine to me too. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2018 (MDT)
It's been a few days and no one objected so I'm going to go ahead and do the thing. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:00, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Well, here we go. Based on the discussion here and here, as well as all the reading I've done and all the back and forth across the wiki recently, I'm just going to go ahead and outline all my arguments as simply as possible in an effort to just get this whole thing over with. I'm going to be blunt, but I'd like to say up front that I have no ill intent or desire to be rude or disrespectful. As I've said in my own user page and several other places, I consider you all my seniors in these matters and in tabletop, and I'd also like to assume everyone is acting in good faith. I'll number my points and try to be as organized as possible regarding this so people can respond easily. There needs to be discussion; talking through a problem is how it gets resolved.

1) Let me start by saying, right away, that this business of speaking entirely through text has been very messy. It's incredibly difficult to tell, especially when people speak in such a high-brow manner (as I am now, because of the atmosphere and perceived standard of discourse), someone's disposition. I would like to think I've simply been misinterpreting how admins feel, but my current perception is that Green Dragon, ConcealedLight, and ConcealedWife think users like myself or Varkarrus are peons not worth talking to or listening to, and our opinions, arguments, and emotions mean nothing, logical or not. There seems to be a great deal of bias being thrown around, and after Geodude told me that this wiki does not operate strictly according to written policy, like a bureaucracy would, my fear as only deepened in this regard. I don't want to remain in an environment where I feel as though my role is to not ask questions and pump out content that will then go on to not be respected, because that's exactly what seems to be developing here.
2) Based on conversation and policy, aside from these two pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor. I can see there was some discussion about whether grammar or balance help was a significant contribution, but the fact that the term is undefined means that any admin can interpret it on a case by case basis and use the term to exercise power for power's sake. I would argue that this has happened on both these pages, where there seems to be perceived value to the wiki in holding the work hostage by using ambiguous wording in policy and baseless personal desire to override goodwill and reason. The logical solution for the latter two pages would have been to honor the deletion request and simply recreate them with a new author, balanced and done as admin and other users seem to desire. Instead, both pages have been altered against authorial intent (which goes against the spirit and letter of the editing policy), and are being argued over and defended as if a little goblin has tried to steal gold from a dragon's hoard.
3) I'm concerned that it's possible for a user, regardless of rank or status, to swoop in when an article has been requested for deletion - not abandoned or purposefully put up for adoption - and begin editing it and cutting it up in an attempt to become a significant contributor to block the deletion request. It comes off as either petty or as a coordinated behind-the-scenes effort to hold a page hostage, and it's positively abhorrent that it's allowed or possible at all. In such a case where users are invested in such content, the logical solution, again, would have been to simply delete the page and start anew with a new author and a more collaborative effort based on the work of the previous author. Inspired works like that are created all the time, after all, and the license this wiki uses gives it that kind of wiggle room. (As an added note, there is no point during account creation until preparing to hit the "save changes" button where the license is presented. Even then, it is a tiny footnote, practically an after-thought, and nowhere is a user required to agree to the license in order to sign up or edit anonymously. Based on existing court cases involving places like Wikipedia, and precedents set, that puts this wiki on very thin legal ice.)
4) Finally, I would like to ask that there be an addition of some kind of definition for "significant" contributions and the like. If a page is comprised of the edits from the author to the tune of tens of thousands of bytes, and other community members have only fixed some grammar or changed a number or two, adding up to bytes numbering in the tens to low hundreds, I hardly see how that's grounds for calling them primary contributors on par with the author. Instead, it would make perfect sense if other users had helped define the page's flavor text, such as adding history to a race when the author had none, or adding new features or traits, etc. If such things were discussed in the talk page and the additions were made by the author, but the changes were discussed by multiple users and it was just the author who happened to be the one to update the page, that, too, would make sense to call a collaborative effort. The latter two pages I've linked do not fall under those cases - or didn't until this morning, which I've previously addressed.
I'm a creator here as well, just like Varkarrus. The volume of my created pages pales in comparison, but the fact remains that these rules affect me as well. As of yet, I haven't added anything to the wiki that either isn't already copyrighted material (submitted under Fair Use, of course), or that I'm extremely attached to as an original creation. That is not the case for Varkarrus, as I understand it. This wiki ended up being a great platform for organizing, editing, and publicizing original works, as well as those inspired by Wizards of the Coast content or folklore. The fact that such works are effectively being held down for no other reason than not wanting to let them go, or not wanting to do the work to recreate them in spiritual successor pages, baffles me to no end, and stifles any desire I had to become a part of this community and work with others to create collaborative and original content on the platform.
The behavior I've seen jump out of nowhere, which I am only invested in because I was invested in the content of pages that were requested to be deleted, has spiraled into discussions that are going nowhere, and reprehensible behavior on all sides. I know a lot of people can't believe someone would put this much effort into something solely for a thankless task for the sake of someone else, so I cite that I'm a creator with self-interest in the precedents set in this matter to ease such people's suspicions. I doubt that will be enough.
I've provided as much context and as many arguments as I can think of at the moment, but the fact is that I am mentally and emotionally fried after trying to fight this. I've been constantly angry for almost 48 hours, at what I see as great injustice at the hands of people in power who don't appear to care about the effect their actions are having on others, and it's not healthy for me. Since being objective and logical clearly isn't the only welcome talk on this wiki given the actions of other users recently, I feel like that is also important context. I can only hope that my tone in this message hasn't come across as angry; I'm tired, sad, exasperated, and concerned, but this is the only thing I can think to do to try and pull the discussion to one relevant location and try to talk about it as calmly and openly as possible. As the entire thing hinges on deletion requests and policy, this seemed to be the best place for it.
Please, I hope we can have a discussion about this and be rational. I want to see goodwill shown, not contempt or frustration, on my part or anyone else's. I just want this to end so I can stop talking about it, stop watching all these pages, and finally step away. It's just not in me to let it go until it's been resolved, and I can't consider something resolved if either or both parties simply square their shoulders, plant their feet, and refuse to change their minds or accept that they might be wrong about something. If I've misunderstood policy, or misinterpreted actions of other users - if I'm demonstrably wrong, I want to know so I can move on. I'd like to think everyone else here is the same. I look forward to working with you all in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max7238 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.
In light of recent events, I agree that there should be added a better definition for "significant contribution" as it relates to this policy. I've already seen several users (including at least one admin) deliberately abuse this wording for what was obviously not the intent. I would seek to not let that happen again.
That said, I fear consensus on what constitutes a significant contribution would be difficult to reach. Even if consensus was reached, chances to me seem high that would be ignored by two or more admins. Even so, at the very least, I would have assumed most of us would agree that "significant contributions" do not include (1) any number of edits deliberately marked as a minor edit or (2) any amount of formatting/spellchecking that doesn't actually change the game effects or story elements of the content. - Guy 15:52, 31 May 2019 (MDT)
I really wish I had more time but before it’s too late I wanted to say thanks for posting somewhere that brings it all together. I also cannot disagree with Guy. For the most part Max either but not here to argue Max. I also want to point out the shame of Vark’s work being unrecognized except for half a dozen pieces until Vark decided enough was enough and wanted to pull their Vark. Now it’s like a mad dash to edit each page. Where the gosh darn bleeping bleeping bleep was everyone the entire time she’s been a user in this wiki and only got feedback if it I was a race (because CL touches them all) or a FAN? I am flabbergasted by the behavior. It really makes it hard to believe the wiki deletion is being used in good faith by the wiki itself. Any how, only a couple hours a day of free WiFi to even log on for this. Cheers! ~ BigShotFancyMan 20:42, 1 June 2019 (MDT)
I have two points to make. Firstly, we are also forgetting that this is supposed to be a speedy deletion. If we make it a 2 week thing, it leaves it open for someone to come in and make a big edit, nullifying the deletion rationale. If the page qualifies, it needs to be deleted straight away.
Secondly, the G7 proposal has to be made in good faith. Here are examples of G7 rationales (from [1]):
  • "You're creating an article, and then you figure out that another page exists with similar, better content"
  • "you're making a page on an obscure historical figure, and decide that there's not enough material to create an article with."
  • "you just screwed up and created a page with a title like User:User:Example"
To this I also add:
  • You're making a page and learn that the site's license isn't appropriate for you (e.g. you wish to retain copyright).
Asking for your page to be deleted out of spite because you've had some falling out with another user is not in good faith and is not a G7 rationale.
Finally, I will add that it's Green Dragon's site and he's the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't deleted, regardless of guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
It's "supposed to be a speedy deletion"? According to our policy as currently written, "request of sole significant contributor" is the 2-week thing, or as GamerAim put it, "the CfD process."
Marasmusine, you are referencing Wikipedia's criteria again. This policy page itself was written so we don't rely on Wikipedia's criteria. Wikipedia's policy is designed for an encyclopedia of undisputed facts, not for original creative writing. We don't have G7. We have our own deletion policy, which was written and readjusted (and re-re-adjusted) over the course of months by several prominent users. It would be nice if the page wasn't locked so I could correct some of the minor problems introduced through all these readjustments but that's beside the point. If sole-significant should in fact be speedy deletion instead of the 2-week thing, then this policy should be edited to portray that instead of contradicting it.
If "good faith" is a requirement for "request of sole significant contributor," then that should be added to our policy as well. I am not sure if I agree with that personally. 'Good faith' seems extremely ambiguous when it comes to original creations, and too much ambiguity seems like it's part of the problem right now. - Guy 07:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
First and foremost, if Green Dragon is the "ultimate arbiter" of what is done, regardless of any policy whatsoever, then why is there policy written at all? If it's a space for anyone to just do whatever they want, I'm pretty sure that should just be explicitly stated, and done so upon account creation or trying to edit the wiki at all. I'm also positive that I'll never create another page on this wiki, and that I'm about done editing anything but talk pages.
Second, can someone please direct the rest of admin to this page, so we can hear from them? ConcealedWife is having a field day with one of the pages, now, too. I could understand a user, or an IP, doing something like this, but if I'm expected to believe that what amounts to the staff of the wiki are allowed to conduct themselves in this way and not have it raise every red flag in the book, it would go a long way in convincing me that policy is indeed moot, and that this is simply Green Dragon's domain to do with as he sees fit... Including appoint friends to do as they see fit, so long as the only toes they step on don't belong to him.
Third, I was told to sit by and wait, and only respond if everyone else did first, but this is all just too much to watch. BigShot made an excellent point; you can just look at the history of some of these pages and plainly see that until Varkarrus wanted them gone, almost no one cared. Now there's uproar among a very small crowd to "save the pages?" Or do what, exactly? Why else would people, especially administration, suddenly pop out of the woodwork to start mass edits of a page that one of the users they're supposed to help protect requested to be deleted? After the behavior in the Discord, which I was told repeatedly is unofficial, despite being created and run by the same people, under the same name as this website, where I saw incredible amounts of contempt and disrespect being thrown around, seeing this illustrates perfectly that this wiki is not the environment to remain in if one is a creator in any capacity. Unfortunately, I can't request that my own pages be deleted, because then I'd receive the same treatment!
Finally, it's too late to rewrite policy for this. I'm sure it will only change after the fact, if it does at all. As written, right now, it can easily be interpreted to not only allow this behavior, but encourage it. And, based on the behavior I'm seeing, that makes a select group of people very happy to swing it like a cudgel at anyone in the way of them doing as they please. It's impossible to have a discussion about any of this, any of what's going on, and not sound disrespectful or "uncivil," but I can promise you I'm doing my best while being more angry and frustrated than I've been in months - or years. As policy stands, and as long as the aforementioned actions continue, I can think nothing else of this entire site but "get out as soon as possible."
When this is all over, regardless of the conclusion, you'll never see me active on this wiki again. I'm sure that will also make some people very happy - others maybe not - but I'm not even going to go as far as requesting my works be deleted for any reason. My pages here are either already copyrighted material, submitted under fair use, or cool ideas I had that I wanted to show to friends and thought the public might like. I'm nobody on this wiki, so I guess being blown off shouldn't surprise me. --Max7238 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
Then this shows why "user requests deletion" should be a speedy criteria per how Wikipedia handles it. It either meets the uncontroversial criteria for deletion, or it doesn't meet the criteria and shouldn't be deleted (as the author has published it under the free document license). Marasmusine (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
I've moved our replies to #Speedy deletion for author requests, so as not to detract from the other points brought up by Max7238. - Guy 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
We have a policy, that puts our work behind our actions. Saying that an admin really cares about a page so much as to circumvent policy is not what is happening. As admins we should not blindly trust users, so going through a list of pages to see if they match our deletion policy is not only impartial, it's also necessary. It's apparent that you have very little experience in situations like this, and your wish to never submit anything to D&D Wiki only makes me question your expertise more, and if you are really the right person to get ideas from. It's beneficial for us to work with users who have hurdled over even the toughest of situations, and not users without experience but some ideas. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2019 (MDT)
Let me start by saying that I answered in the section below first. With that out of the way, I next need to say that I call em as I see em, and actions speak a lot louder than words. I would like for you to go back and look at what pages were requested for deletion - I'll save you the trouble, it was all of Varkarrus' created pages - and which ones are labeled as "not yet marked for deletion." Again, I'll save you the trouble: the only pages anyone seemed to care about at all were the ones with the best quality. That quality did not always come from collaborative work. I already cited the relevant pages where, obviously, it became a collaboration and those pages should remain. Now, all of a sudden, a bunch of her created pages are, or were, being edited like mad in what seemed to be clear cases of bad faith. One user had simply not seen the discussion and started edits, and I've already cleared that up in your absence. Another user completely threw out authorial intent, and went so far as to state in edit messages that they would pretty much completely rewrite a page, which had little purpose other than ousting the original author as the SSC.
I don't want to submit here anymore. Not after I'm much more familiar with all your policies, and with the attitude you're showing toward the creations of someone else's mind. Experience? Toughest hurdles? I went to college for law. I eat maybe twice a day because I'm buried under the debt. I wrote a book of 225k words in three months, and had to self-publish, alone. I've got more creative potential and experience in my little finger than most have in their entire body. I've got experience in these matters. Do you have any idea what it's like for people to steal your work? Have you ever been the artist who found some bootleg website selling your paintings as prints on a shirt, while you ate soup to stave off your hunger? Bringing my experience into this, making this personal, is only going to hurt you if you want to try and disregard me.
You are continuing to do exactly as I said you were: treat me like a peon not worthy of being listened to. I'm a user of the wiki. I've been lurking for the better part of two years. I've got a degree in law, I specifically went out of my way to study digital law, cyber security, social inequality, and sociology (down to specifics like globalization) for my electives. I'm not here for some faceless entity over the internet to question who and what I am, because the fact is that it doesn't change the argument. It doesn't change that policy as written is flawed and rife with opportunity for abuse - abuse that has been occurring these past few days. If that policy does not change, then no, I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun. There's no point in getting invested in anything I post on this wiki that isn't being submitted under Fair Use, because the instant it's here, based on your actions and the actions of other admin, it's yours now. Even following the spirit of policy rather than the letter, only the Maralith and Lich pages should remain. That we're having this discussion at all should be plenty of evidence that there's a problem. It wouldn't go on this long if there wasn't!
It's beneficial for you to work with people who give a care. It's beneficial for a public resource like this to harness the potential of those who pass through it. It's beneficial for this wiki to welcome creativity and respect it. That's not being done right now. I care too much about everything, and I know that. I have a great deal of potential to help you (and you all, because written English is weird), and I want to. And creativity is not being welcomed or respected as long as it's within the realm of possibility for this discussion to occur. You can take that as "add a clause that states that Green Dragon can do what he wants, it's his wiki and what he says goes," or you can take that as "edit policy to, yes, make sure that staff do the necessary work to act in good faith and from a knowledgeable position to respect creativity and the original works that are born on this website." As it stands, it's now plain to see that that license is being abused to allow the hoarding of information under a single banner without regard for the creator's wishes. It's just there so you avoid being sued in as many situations as possible, and to be cited when you don't want to let a page go - that's what the actions are stating, loud and clear.
Please stay on topic, as personal attacks are a fallacy and have no place in intellectual debate. --Max7238 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2019 (MDT)
I have already gone through all these deletion requests. Please give some examples of what you want, because this work has already been done by me.
I have quoted our editing policy verbatim, bit I guess you didn't read it? Are works submitted to D&D Wiki to be edited mercilessly and copied at will?
This is the first time I have had any contact with your user. Your contributions speak for your experience. It's not an insult, it's just as simple as looking through your user contributions.
If you just want to submit your crap here then, frankly, I don't want anything to do with any policy that you would crap out.
Please supply references to your claims, and if you are doing research please don't take quotes from Marasmusine out of context. I already stated which users I prefer to work with. I don't think it's too hard for you to lay out some of this sweat so that we can get to the core of what everyone wants.
And anyone who could get sued is the user who re-licenses an already oublished work. Please read and quote the GNU FDL (and start go deeper into all the discussions that have already answered this question). --Green Dragon (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2019 (MDT)
*"Based on conversation and policy, aside from these two pages, until the crack of dawn May 31, 2019, any other pages I investigated, those that Varkarrus expressed interest in and that they were invested in followed the guidelines for deletion by request from the author. Varkarrus was the original author and sole significant contributor."
There's also the matter of the Light Beam page being reverted, despite the author being the SSC.
*"This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this."
I wasn't aware that what pretty much amounts to an informal blurb there was part of policy. Even if it is, it does not say you agree to using the license, nor does it say you lose the copyright to the work. It says "your writing" which could be anything from your flavor to whatever else, is vague and reminiscent of government policy passed with the express purpose of giving a government too much power over something.
*"...assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about."
Having just received a warning, from you, no less, only to return to this page and see that you are also engaging in such behavior: taunting or baiting me, which is a matter of interpretation (I interpreted your statement about experience to be such, but I can't warn you for it), and quoting users out of context, such as using my colloquial usage of "crap" to insult my propositions and position on this debate.
If I was quoting Mara, especially out of context, I apologize. It wasn't my intention, and if I did, I didn't realize. Your preference is all well and good, but again, it has no bearing on the debate at hand. I've already provided sources in the original post for this particular section of the debate (sorry I neglected to create a new section, but I was also so flustered that I didn't even sign the original post). If you're looking for specific demands, it would be, to restate for the umpteenth time on this page alone, to have a clearer definition of terms used in order to close loopholes that may be abused by users acting to keep a creator from exercising their rights; and, to reinstate the deletion requests, and honor said requests, of Varkarrus where they were valid to begin with, such as, again, both these pages and the aforementioned Light Beam page. --Max7238 (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (MDT)
I have already responded on these talk pages. Your reasons are wrong, but you are still trying to make them your argument here?
Again, read the GNU FDL, look at previous discussions, and you must also understand that IP addresses use the same terminology as if you had created an account.
You have less than 500 edits, and you are trying to implement a far reaching policy based on how you perceive the situation? Again, I would expect to be working with a more experienced user here, probably no less than 3000 edits.
You said "... I don't want to submit work here anymore unless it's throwaway crap I came up with for fun." so how is your work on this policy not 'throwaway crap'? It's not a misquote, it's your logic, actions, and words exactly.
Maybe it's because you have less than 500 edits, but it's not a debate to win and lose. Have you even read w:Wikipedia:Consensus? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (MDT)
Can you explain why they're wrong, since you want to state that so plainly? I think this is simply a matter of us having different definitions of what a "major contribution" is... Which is sort of the point of this entire discussion, isn't it?
I have, I have, I do.
Irrelevant, again. Someone with no edits could just as easily come in and read all this and have the conversation as someone with a million. The difference is whether they have the foresight to understand what the changes will do, and if I haven't demonstrated that yet, I'd be glad to.
Yes, that is what I said. It's good thing I'm not the one able to edit deletion policy, then, isn't it? Sarcasm aside, you know full well it isn't, you're just continuing to mischaracterize my statement and use it to try and bait me, which, again, no one can warn you for, so you're free to violate your own behavioral policy as you wish. If you find the time, please, look at the pages I've created. Maybe they aren't balanced correctly, which I readily admit, but that's why I was posting them and requesting review - but they aren't just the kind of thing someone could come up with off the top of their heads, throw on the wiki, and walk away thinking they were the greatest creator ever. None of my pages are nominated for FA or QA, and I wouldn't nominate myself unless I felt I deserved it, and I don't. I have a long way to go to be as good as the rest of those articles.
I hadn't no, but now I have, thank you. As it happens, there's more in there to support me, so I appreciate it. Based on everything I'm seeing right now, actually, you seem to be the only one who doesn't agree at this point. I'd like to continue going about convincing you, but you don't seem very receptive to conversation for some reason. --Max7238 (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2019 (MDT)

Rather unrelated to the discussion above, based on Talk:Main Page#Redacted revisions, I've added a small section to this page and a small snippet to Help:Policies clarifying that we do use Wikipedia's policy on hiding of individual edits. I neglected to discuss beforehand and just edited in because I felt that doing so would be fairly uncontroversial. That is all. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:11, 1 July 2019 (MDT)

Speedy deletion for author requests[edit]

In regards to speedy deletion, I'm not sure I follow.
Several times now user-requested-deletion has been very controversial. Once when I was an admin, I deleted a page that had three reasons for deletion—including the user requesting deletion in good faith—but not only was that deletion overturned by another admin, it seemingly caused extreme ire towards me from that admin. Especially with the current vagueness of "significant contribution," the 14 day period allows there to be discussion if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, then I don't really see the problem with keeping it for 14 days, especially if it can prevent unintended controversy and ire.
Having the 14 day grace period serves another purpose: it lets anyone who wants to save the content do so. I know Quincy has done so with several deleted pages, and I don't see a strong enough reason not to let that happen, either.
If my own perspective and judgement here fails to convince, Green Dragon commented on this very page back in October, as follows. "It has always been allowed for users to request pages where they are the sole contributor to be deleted. They may not be speedily deleted. Among other reasons this is because it may be more involved then just using the history tab to know the origins of a page." - Guy 11:05, 2 June 2019 (MDT)

"Saving" content by making edits is a problem. When I made edits at Dullahan, Variant (5e Race) this was seen as a bad-faith attempt to negate the author's request. It is also a problem if an author wishes to withdraw their work because they misunderstood the license and wish to retain their copyright. Marasmusine (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
I should have been more clear. When I wrote "saving" content, I meant either (1) copying it into a text file for personal use, or (2) creating a copy in one's userspace with the author's permission. I agree that editing a page to negate deletion request is likely to be problematic. That is best discouraged, but in light of my preceding comments, I don't believe speedy deletion is the best way to discourage that. - Guy 11:29, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
I agree that there simply shouldn't be speedy deletion unless the page was unfinished and only had one contributor: the author. Other people may be invested in a page even if the author was unaware (someone could have it in their watch-list, using it for a character already, and you get no notification of the "follow"). I would argue that pages should be soft-locked to some extent while the discussion proceeds. It allows everyone, not just administration and/or the author to voice their take on things, consolidate context, save the contents of the page as a back-up or for Fair Use recreation, etc, etc. Between that and actually defining "primary contributor" or "major contribution" I think this page would improve vastly. If you lock the page, allow the discussion to proceed, investigate the history and talk page, and it can be determined using those new definitions that the author was, in fact, the primary contributor or the only contributor, it doesn't make sense for there to be extensive discussion. As I said, and as others have said long before me, in those cases, the page can just be created anew following the license terms and copyright law. If reaction videos on YouTube can be protected, and AMVs can be protected, there's no reason that a re-imagined page on a wiki couldn't be too. --Max7238 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
There is precedent for contributors requesting a page they created to be locked, of course. That seems like it could be a good option to employ.
I'm unsure about the correlation between YouTube videos and D&D Wiki content. Despite that, I believe it would be fair to assume that an author's deletion request can also be assumed to be a request for page protection. If we keep the 14 day grace period, then I would advocate for including into our policy. Maybe something like this could replace what is currently under request of sole significant contributor?
The sole significant contributor ("SSC") of a page can request its deletion using the deletion proposal process. For the purpose of this criteria, the SSC retains this privilege until another user makes a significant contribution to the page. As a general guideline, to be a "significant contribution," an edit must include changing game effects or story elements in a permanent way. Any edit(s) deliberately marked as a minor edit is never considered a significant contribution.

If the SSC informally requests deletion, another user can propose deletion on their behalf.

If when the SSC requests deletion the page meets other criteria for Speedy Deletion, an admin may speedily delete it, but otherwise the 14-day period normally afforded for Proposed Deletion should be retained.

During the 14-day period, an admin may exercise the option to protect or "lock" the page from further edits, so as to not stir up controversy regarding content that may soon be deleted. Regardless of protection, the corresponding talk page should be used for any warranted discussion or dissent instead of the content page itself, as with all deletion proposals.

As content contributed to D&D Wiki is released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, there is no inherent or special protection afforded to a page's content even if the SSC requests deletion. Nonetheless, it is courteous to avoid verbatim and near-verbatim recreations of this deleted content regardless of why the SSC requested deletion.

It's more complex than would be ideal, but this is the most succinct way I've found to address all points that have been brought up regarding this criteria. - Guy 12:11, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
I have never understood why “author’s request” deletions are forced to go through the fortnight grace period and previous attempts to get Green Dragon to explain have been futile. I’m completely fine with having “author request” be a valid criterion for speedy deletion. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:14, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
Actually, it seems like exactly what the scenario calls for. Complex or not, it needs to be written clearly and cover as many cases as possible, which I believe your draft here does. If this had existed prior to the current controversy, it would have been avoided entirely, I think. The 14 days was addressed earlier, and I see no reason for that part to change; it gives everyone, even the SSC, time to back-up the page, and time for others to discuss its removal. --Max7238 (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
Geodude, I feel you are implying there is no reason why. Let me be more straightforward with the reasons I provided.
  • 14 days enables anyone actively using the content to download it without screwing over their character/campaign. Let's not forget that's the primary purpose of content: to actually be used. It's entirely possible someone has a tarrasqin character they are using in a monthly or biweekly campaign; deleting their race without warning not only screws them, but discourages people from actually using our site for its intended purpose.
  • 14 days affords discussion of any matter an admin may not have considered with speedy deletion. E.g., the content is integral to a campaign setting or a ruleset, or there are dissenting but valid opinions on how "significant" seemingly insignificant contributions are, among other possibilities.
Do you believe these reasons are not significant enough? - Guy 12:27, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
You are correct, Guy; I was under the impression that the only reason was because the owner said so. Now that you’ve demonstrated that there are valid reasons, I’ve retracted my previous comment, and support your proposed changes. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:37, 2 June 2019 (MDT)
I disagree with allowing another user other than the SSC to PfD a page. This is too vague, and it puts the ultimate responsibility in a place where I don't want it to be.
I disagree with allowing these pages to be speedily deleted. I don't like the idea of making admins go through the added stress and workload of checking histories, user contributions, reasons, etc etc in such a short time. As Marasmusine so well pointed out, these PfDs are not in good faith, so why pile all these tasks onto the people doing the work?
Why should the pages be locked? Our contributions specifically state "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." So this seems to just be the wish of some user (without the experience) getting implemented. I don't see this as at all necessary, we have histories and a user base who have their own interests and that is not to make the SSC feel alienated.
I would expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2019 (MDT)
I can't say I agree with that either. Another user could simply come along during a time when the SSC was, say, moving and had no internet, and the page would be gone when they got back.
I also can't say I agree with that being the case for speedy deletion, but checking histories and everything else mentioned should be the kind of work that goes into this. It's also unfair to say that the requests for deletion that sparked this conversation aren't in "good faith," when not only is that statement undefined, but administration has also been acting in bad faith until yesterday. Proving intent is a sticky situation to get into, and short of pulling up private Discord conversations to prove the contrary, there's nothing anyone can do to argue it. Furthermore, because the SSC to the pages in question wouldn't keep her mouth shut like I asked, she's been blocked for a week. That means she can't renew her requests, only admin like yourself can reinstate the previous request if it is found to be valid retroactively.
I will agree, and fight for the notion, that pages should be locked when requested for deletion by a user who, until that very moment, was the sole significant contributor. Regardless of interest or intent, alienation is exactly what is happening right now. This isn't the first of these debates on deletion policy, and I don't just know that because I was told - I've been reading more of this wiki than my own writing since this started, scouring it for the ammunition I need to have conversations like this. The licensing blurb should be fleshed out, yes. There should be a portion of user sign-up that presents the license and requires agreement, yes. The fact is that editing a page that was requested for deletion in an effort to block the request is pretty much the definition of "in bad faith."
Finally, before I go ahead and answer your other statement above, I'll state here as well that assumptions of who has what experience have no place in the conversation, and won't serve you well in this context. I don't know who I'm dealing with; you don't know who you're dealing with. It shouldn't matter, either. If points are made, and logic wins, that's what the participants of this conversation should care about. --Max7238 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2019 (MDT)

The now crossed out portion is already performed when appropriate, so I suppose there isn't any benefit to point out it's a possibility.

I rewrote the paragraph regarding locks to be extra clear that it's just an option an admin can choose to employ if it seems beneficial. I can't edit the policy itself anyway, so I expect if an admin copies my entry that bit can be removed anyway

One would "expect the licensing blurb to be expanded upon and fleshed out"? To be frank, I'm not a fan of how that was phrased... I'm a volunteer here, not an intern or an employee. But anyway, if it is to be expanded somehow, what should be included? The wikilink there is meant to cover anything relevant to legal issues. - Guy 10:48, 3 June 2019 (MDT)

"Good Faith"[edit]

I've seen, I think, some controversy around deleting articles for the unspecified personal reasons of the authors based on "good faith." I'd just like to say that I think there's so much controversy because the policy in itself is not good faith. I think that, when a user tried to have their content removed, other users - myself included - take it as an attack on D&D Wiki. After all, it's akin - in my own words - to donating something to Goodwill and then stealing it back, usually - in my experience - because the checkout girl smart-mouthed you.

This is to say that I don't really fault anyone for invoking this clause, because it's in the rules, but that the clause will always incite conflict. A user who invokes it will be seen as throwing toys out the pram, whereas users who try to see the article are - in my experience - seen as acting in bad faith to undermine the deletion request. And that, I feel is the problem: improving articles is being viewed in bad faith by default. A user editing an article, especially to improve it, should always be assumed to be in good faith. But that doesn't seem to be the case, here, nor do I think it has ever been the case even before this clause was codified.

Further complicating - or, perhaps, clarifying - matters is that some users (I've seen Quincy name checked a few times) are preserving this content themselves on user pages. I heard an unverified rumor that Varkarrus offered to backup "her" articles as a .pdf for other users to save after deletion. What this all means - to me - is that users still want this content around. They still view it as worthwhile and valuable. Even the authors did, or else why did they initially post it here? If the authors agreed to host it here, and users still want it, keeping it around should be good faith, not deleting it.

In conclusion, my analysis of the situation and the clause is that the clause is not in good faith, nor is any invocation of it in good faith. It is - in my analysis - a bad faith move, and the clause should be revoked. At the very least, there were fewer arguments about "good faith" deletions before this clause...--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

To clarify, the back-up of pages created primarily by Varkarrus in the form of a .pdf upon request is substantiated by Varkarrus herself via multiple deletion requests that include such an offer.
I agree with you here, but I'm curious what your alternative will be. Defining the term? Removing the clause entirely, to be replaced with what, if anything? You're absolutely right in your analysis, and I appreciate your use of analogy, personally. --Max7238 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2019 (MDT)
Aye, sorry if it sounded like I was doubting you. Not the case at all! My alternative is, as I say, that "the clause should be revoked."--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

Vark's Good Faith[edit]

Whether or not I agree with the "good faith deletion" clause, I don't think that Vark's case is good faith and I'd prefer if we could settle this in one place.

I took a break and came back right as this was happening, so maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems Vark broke some rules in Discord, got warned, had an argument with CW (making a compelling point, from what I saw) and decided to leave D&D Wiki over it, taking lots of well-made articles along with her? From where I stand, it doesn't look like good faith; it looks like Vark effectively vandalizing D&D Wiki. As I elaborated above, part of the issue is that the clause seems to be interpreted as assuming good faith. If Vark had wrote "CW is a doo-doo-head" on a dozen articles, that would probably be interpreted as bad faith vandalism, so why shouldn't this be, considering it coincides with a heated argument? In fact, CW editing "Vark's" articles was itself considered bad faith on the grounds of their disagreement.

I could, as an admin, make that determination myself, but, even ignoring the issues of neutrality and lack of information, I suspect it would create more drama since the admin "team" feels more like a collection of city-states that one nation right now. So if we could just consense...--GamerAim (2:0) Chatmod.png (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2019 (MDT)

Addendum: ConcealedWife has informed me over Discord that my timeline may be wrong and that Vark did not leave over their argument. If anyone could please fill in the gaps in the interest of determining if Vark's deletions were bad faith, I'd appreciate it :) --GamerAim (2:0) Chatmod.png (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2019 (MDT)

As I understand it, based on my conversations with Varkarrus over the past, jeez, two weeks or so?, it had nothing to do with any one user in particular. You can also look at her talk page for some context, but this is the bottom line...
She's grown tired of the environment here where, I will repeat, there seems to be a lot of bias for and against certain users. As an example, there is this featured race, which is exceedingly strong, and yet it is FA nonetheless. The balance appears to be assumed taken care of by RP drawbacks. But Varkarrus' own Tarrasqin page was hotly debated, then basically rejected as Large size, reduced to Medium, and is still hotly opposed for breaking convention.
Further, on a personal level, Varkarrus holds strong beliefs and worldviews that, I won't contest, had no place being aired or debated on the Discord or here - based on the rules of D&DW. Even though they shouldn't be talked about, they were, and it created a realization that some worldviews just weren't going to mix because either or both parties wouldn't change their minds. Rather than remain in an environment hazardous to her mental health, Varkarrus decided to leave. As someone with my own issues, I can empathize, as some days even the slightest argument can ruin any motivation I might have to be creative or, at worst, trap me in bed and make me miss a day of work.
As it happens, at the time of the requests for deletion, good or bad faith isn't a factor for consideration. You can argue both ways. Either you can think that Varkarrus is angry and wants to tear the wallpaper off the office before she resigns... Or you can think she wants to take back the expensive A/C unit she got for the office and maintained by herself, with others only making slight temperature adjustments now and again. In the cases of pages Varkarrus created but did not maintain alone, once again, such as Marilith and Lich, it's completely understandable that they remain. In the case of pages such as her Twinmind class, Dullahan Variant, and Tarrasqin, however, there's no reason to hang on to them besides a personal bitterness toward letting them go. There are dozens of examples for both sides.
Ultimately, in my opinion, Varkarrus is neither acting in good or bad faith. The situation is emotionally charged from many sources, not just Varkarrus, and regretable words and decisions have arisen from the situation from said sources, myself included. If you have an understanding heart, you (general you, not you you) should be able to recognize this and see past it to the real issue at hand: under current policy, most of Varkarrus' requests should be honored, and policy needs to be rewritten for better definition and less room for abuse (by admin or users). --Max7238 (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2019 (MDT)
I won't deny that the environment here is toxic. I won't deny that there is favoritism, nepotism or too much cliqueyness. I've argued before that Vark's content is fine. I even think that Vark is right to share some of her political views if other people have started a conversation involving politics. Her politics are generally fine by me.
But, and I know people are gonna hate that I bring this up, when I left in part due to the hostility (and it did feel hostile to me) that Vark helped cultivate, I didn't delete all my contributions. When SgtLion was chased away by the toxic environment here, he didn't have his bot undo every contribution it ever made. Vark - who once tried to get my adminship privileges revoked because I gave her a minor warning on Discord - tried to "tear the wallpaper off the office." I only mention this to provide context for Vark's history of seeking retribution for perceived sleights against her, and to contrast it against how people who claim to have been negatively affected by her left D&D Wiki.
Vark has expressed a mentality, quite publicly, that would support acting in bad faith. This is not about her character, but about her actions and how she has demonstrably conducted herself. She was, within the past month, warned and even banned on D&D Wiki. Vark offered to share her creations elsewhere, which means it's just D&D Wiki she suddenly has a problem with. I, personally, do not consider it "good faith" to want your content removed from D&D Wiki just because you disagree with the politics of some users, after editing here for years and contributing to the community that you, Max, have admitted you feel is flawed.
I think I've said everything I have to say about Vark's motives being bad faith. My position stands, but I respect your own interpretation and appreciate the effort you've made to engage in this discussion <3 --GamerAim (2:0) Chatmod.png (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2019 (MDT)
SgtLion was not chased off. Max, please accept these accounts as one perspective. GA, please stick more to the topic. The is deletion policy, not about a user. “Context” I get it, but there are better ways to provide context I.e. Max’s talk page with links provided to examples, so they can see what you’re saying vs trusting what is said to be true. ~ BigShotFancyMan 11:44, 9 June 2019 (MDT)
Our current deletion policy does not require that the request be made in good faith, though perhaps it should. Administration will delete all articles proposed for deletion which fulfill the criteria in the current version of this policy.
I'll reiterate what Bigshot said above; please stay on topic. Any further comments off of topic will be reverted and warning or blocking will be considered. Some of the comments above also tread dangerously close to breaking our Help:Behavioral Policy. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:55, 9 June 2019 (MDT)
See, I don't know about the entire history of the matter, because it very clearly has been years in the making. There's a good reason I said this is emotionally charged. I don't believe good or bad faith should have anything to do with deletion requests, because those terms are too open to interpretation and discretion. I would also like to point out that Varkarrus' warnings and eventual temporary ban were a result of, in no particular order, trying to reinstate her own deletion requests, including political messages as asides in said deletion requests, and some admittedly uncivil commentary on a page that was being edited as discussed above: seemingly in an effort to invalidate the deletion request by someone who has shown obvious contempt for Varkarrus. If those three strikes are so terrible, I'd hate to see what would be said of someone truly unhinged.
I happen to criticize most harshly that which I love. This wiki is an excellent resource, and the help articles and policy are written to promote a wonderful community surrounding user-created content to expand on the grid of tabletop systems. It's for that very reason, among other principles, that I find myself in the middle of this discussion, to try and change for the better something that I value greatly. I will, again, say that the situation surrounding Varkarrus' deletion requests is irrelevant to whether or not they should be honored based on policy, and that policy should be changed so that nothing like this ever happens again - not a user's exodus, but an emotionally charged argument about what can and cannot be done for said creator in the event they want to leave the playground and take their toys with them. --Max7238 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2019 (MDT)
I find that GamerAim has made some very valid points. It seems irrefutable that requests like these are not made in good faith. Since leaving and "tearing down the wallpaper" afterwards just makes us have to redo the wallpaper, I would like to see the requirement for good faith be added to deletion proposals like these. And it's true that many many users have left in good faith, so why do we need a clause in our policy to allow users to leave in bad faith? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2019 (MDT)
Your language alone is frightening, by the way. "Allow" people to leave with their creations... No sarcasm, positively horrifying to read. --Max7238 (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2019 (MDT)
Perhaps there is a bit of a disconnect here. Although some users may colloquially refer to certain pages as "theirs," we consider every page to be collectively owned by the community, per Help:Attribution, Help:Legal, and Wikipedia's ownership policy (which we inherit). I hope this clarifies our stance on ownership :) — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:56, 10 June 2019 (MDT)
To be fair, Help:Legal specifies, "work you create is still yours under IP law." As I understand the license used by D&D Wiki, each of us technically retains some copyright priveledges over all edits we all make, but we still gave our edits—donated them—to this wiki.
If some guy prints out three copies of his doodle and gives one copy to another group, the group can and (probably will) scribble all over it or even throw it in the trash. Some guy still retains copyright over his doodle. Even if perfectly legal, changing the doodle might've been rude, even if intentions were good. Even if perfectly legal, trying to take back the (vandalized) copy of the doodle might be rude too, even if intentions were justified. I don't believe either side is going to be 100% morally correct. Seemingly because of that inherent ambiguity we try to use the dubious phrase, "good faith."
I still really dislike the use "good faith" in official policy, because employing it seems to require a lot of assumptions about why people do things. A lot of negative assumptions, specifically.
(I would like to continue discussion about how to specifically change the policy for the long-term, though lately discussion on this page seems to be centered around only recent events. User:Guy/Delete contains my best effort to make that long-term change happen.) - Guy 09:08, 11 June 2019 (MDT)
I support the proposed changes. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and implement them. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:32, 11 June 2019 (MDT)
Got ninja'd.
The legal page doesn't change what all the policies and behaviors I've seen on this wiki ultimately amount to. What I now see here amounts to a D&D table with A Good DM sitting at it (I picture Keanu Reeves for some reason, sue me)... At the bottom of an ant-lion pit. New users see it, come to sit down, and, "Oh, wow. Sir, this is a great setup you've got - and what a view! I, uhh... I have some ideas that, well, I think are cool, but-" "Hey, that's great. I happen to have The Official Table Notebook right here! Why don'cha write 'em down and we'll flesh 'em out a bit together!" "R-Really? That's awesome! Thanks!" And then the user tries to get up and leave and the jaws close around them and the lure. Maybe I'll come back in a year or so and find that the climate has changed, but any site with the lurking possibility of stripping the rights of its creators and hoarding them for itself, despite drawing life from those same talented and bright-eyed people, is no place for me.
I've left a comment on your page, Guy, but to keep this one consistent, I'll repeat here that I think your proposal is worlds better than the current text, and that you've done a good job with it. --Max7238 (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2019 (MDT)
I think it's pretty obvious that GamerAim and I disagree with this text, so no Geodude671 we have not yet reached consensus. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2019 (MDT)
Because it doesn't include "good faith"? Or is it something else?
Or is it just that this deletion criteria is no longer supported at all, and that one poorly-worded deletion criteria is finally just going to be deleted?
I tried to incorporate your previous criticism even though I didn't fully understand the problems you were pointing out. So please, spell it out for me—or edit the quote itself, if that helps. - Guy 05:11, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
Regarding User:Guy/Delete, I disagree with. "As a general guideline, to be a "significant contribution," an edit must include changing game effects or story elements in a permanent way."
If I spend an hour (as sometimes happens) fixing grammar, correcting terminology and rewording things so they make sense - but ultimately the game effects and story elements are the same, I'm still going to consider myself a co-author of the page. Marasmusine (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
A thought experiment: I've made a lot of pages for which I'm the sole contributor. What would happen if I made deletion requests for all of them? Let's say we honour this. I subsequently the bundle my articles together into a book and sell it on DMsGuild. Would this be seen as acceptable? Marasmusine (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
Regarding both of these points, I thought I made it very clear in the text I proposed that an admin is not required to fulfill this request. Both of these instances to me sound like an admin would reasonably not fulfill the request.
Even so, if that definition of a significant contribution is not good enough, what definition would you propose? - Guy 05:11, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
Just sticking with the second point for now: Why wouldn't we fulfil the request? (i.e. why would it be "controversial"). Marasmusine (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
To be clear, are you asking for this criteria to specify under what circumstances an admin should remove a {{delete}} from the page entirely? - Guy 06:42, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
If we can delete pages on request as a courtesy, I think we should explore how far that courtesy extends by looking at different scenarios. I'm not asking a hard cut-off for what is acceptable, but there should be some kind of guide for what requestees and admins can expect.
For example, I think it is acceptable to delete a newish page if the author says: "I misunderstood your license, I want to retain full copyright" (nor would we undelete that page and say "ha, sorry, GFDL" if the user publishes elsewhere.).
I do not think it would be acceptable for me to extend the same courtesy to my pages which have been here for years. So should we explain ahead of time why the same procedure is OK in one case and not the other. Marasmusine (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
There won't be consensus on which interpretations are correct, and using "good faith" still allows too much discretion. Let's just tell it like it is: this site's policies, as they stand, are built from the ground up to engineer the theft of intellectual property in perpetuity, like a publishing contest that requires submissions to be freely, exclusively, perpetually licensed. I've seen a few where, even if you were to lose, they could still edit and publish your work without paying you or even telling you as long as they came up with their own title and changed a few character names. I get that the site is supposed to be a collaborative work, and I understand the concept of people donating their time and people co-authoring pages and all of that. Not once have I tried to say that the author will always get the final say on anything they started. What I have tried to say, from the beginning, is that if someone makes a page and creates 10k-20k bytes (as an example), and someone else shows up and says "Oh, these effects could just be worded to sound exactly like WotC books, and this value should be lower because of established guidelines," that doesn't mean they get to block the deletion if the original author requests it. It can't just be "if anyone at all doesn't want the page gone, or an admin just doesn't feel like it, the page will stay." As long as a creator has no power over their work on this site, and yes that includes as long as the current license is used, all I see is a haven of art theft veiled by bright-eyed and bombastic volumes of creation. There will remain an underbelly of people cherry-picking the very best creations submitted and sweeping them into a collection of talent and skill from hundreds of sources when those creations might one day have made money or been officially published if they had used any other avenue. --Max7238 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
Absolutely wrong. We don't steal anything. Even using this word makes me cring at such a wall of text. Our license,
"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others."
Maybe you don't understand the legality of D&D Wiki's publishing, it's maybe because it's complex and not understood by just writing down your opinion, but that does not mean that we should change our policies to match this misunderstanding.
Marasmusine can republish his work anywhere he wants to, so long as it is still licensed under the GNU FDL (at the least everything that was published on D&D Wiki, with referring to the work's authors/history). This is how the license works, on a MMC website.
D&D Wiki is a publisher. We don't make users give up rights, but we publish pages under a license. The users agree to this license when they click "save changes". There is no cherry picking, since anyone can already republish anything they want to using the critera layed out in the GNU FDL and make money off it. I cannot understand how this misinformation, your fake persuasive comments, should in any way at all be a considering factor for our policies. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2019 (MDT)
If it is truly a misunderstanding, it is a misunderstanding perpetuated by the behavior I'm seeing surrounding recent events. I can, and have, read the policy and license multiple times since the start of this overblown event. It's the behavior I see that is creating my stance, arguments, and perception. If behavior changes, the situation changes and so do my arguments. I stand by what I've said based on recent events. --Max7238 (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2019 (MDT)
If this site is designed to steal intellectual property, you'd better go tell Wikipedia because they've been doing it this way for 18 years. Marasmusine (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2019 (MDT)
Your totally disregarding the freedom for the publisher, freedom in administrative policy, freedom for users expecting the license to function just like it's written, and your exaggerating the freedom for some quirky users. However if your not going to change your mind, then can you please explain how you intend to reach consensus? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2019 (MDT)
Our policies are modeled after Wikipedia's. If you choose to interpret those policies as intended to steal intellectual property, that's on you. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:07, 13 June 2019 (MDT)
Allow me to reword it this way, then, since there still seems to be misunderstanding on my stance here... "The way the rules are written and intended to be used is not how they are being used in practice." --Max7238 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2019 (MDT)
That's a very different problem than changing a policy, and RfA deals with this.
Without a rewrite that we can discuss, no changes will be made, unless we agree on the current version of the rewrite. Although, it appears to not be popular. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2019 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!