Wikipedia talk:Discord
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discord page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a {{shortcut}} on top for WP:DISCORD. 221.168.37.223 (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Unban request[edit]
My dc username is young_robert. I made a joke which was not taken well, i didn't mean any harm and was just trying to be funny. i'm sorry and please unban me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovi9805 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Good Faith[edit]
I was posting on Discord in good faith. I requested ferret use discretion and understanding. I request a server unban. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Declined. Good faith is not a get out of jail free card to be disruptive and refuse to listen to moderators. We gave good faith. You exhausted it with a battleground mentality. -- ferret (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I respect your decision, and I request that you change your mind when the election is over considering the contextual conditions of the issue. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- There are no contextual conditions to the decision, it does not relate to the U4C election. You have repeatedly declared you know policies better than moderators and admins and make them 'eat their words' and 'prove them wrong', even when presented with evidence to the contrary. We are not interested in this. You'll have to find other avenues of communication. -- ferret (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am making the request because the election is very stressful, and I'm trying my best in it. I had no issues on Discord prior to becoming a candidate, and I told ELECTCOM they can remove my candidacy at any time.
They are currently meeting on my request. I sincerely apologize if I hurt your feelings or offended you in any way. My intention was only to post within the guidelines of the Server. I requested that you explain why my mentality is poor in comparison to the Civility Policy I was using. That is the context. You were very comfortable and friendly with me yesterday. I don't know what changed, but all I requested was an explanation. You said that there was a "battleground mentality", but you were patient with me and friendly until like 2-3 minutes before your decision, and it was directly related to the election. Also, candidates are supposed to be allowed to campaign.-- Sleyece (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am making the request because the election is very stressful, and I'm trying my best in it. I had no issues on Discord prior to becoming a candidate, and I told ELECTCOM they can remove my candidacy at any time.
- There are no contextual conditions to the decision, it does not relate to the U4C election. You have repeatedly declared you know policies better than moderators and admins and make them 'eat their words' and 'prove them wrong', even when presented with evidence to the contrary. We are not interested in this. You'll have to find other avenues of communication. -- ferret (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I respect your decision, and I request that you change your mind when the election is over considering the contextual conditions of the issue. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
shortcut?[edit]
I expected WP:DISCORD to link to a policy/guideline page or consensus-discussion about the reliability of, the linking to, or the citing of, Discord. Can anybody point me to that which I'm actually looking for? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Fourthords Discord is a purely WP:USERG platform so by definition anything on it is unreliable. That said, and someone else will have to find it for me, there is an RfC on the VP that resulted in the linking of Discord messages being viewed as an OUTING issue and should not be done. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs, I think, for the outing RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:USERG is complicated by WP:ABOUTSELF, though, which says they "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field". That section specifically calls out Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit, Tumblr, and Twitter as acceptable. Discord, though, is a sort of private chat room, and lacks the access and transparency (and more) of those other services, and we thereby cannot know that any given self-publisher is actually who's being identified. Is there any consensus (codified or not) that contends with these issues? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- As you said, Discord lacks a real system of user verification, so I would think it would be extremely difficult to properly use it as a primary source. I am thinking you'll want to move this to WP:RSN or some similar area for more opinions. -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely where I'm going next; I just came here thinking surely it'd been addressed before. Cheers, all. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit, Tumblr, and Twitter don't have a real system of user verification either, and even if they did, why would we trust it? The principle we apply to those other platforms is that if @JohnSmith is widely believed to be John Smith, we can take that as a given.
- My immediate reaction is that citing Discord would be absurd, but thinking about it, I can't see any meaningful difference between it and other social media platforms that we allow under WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Discord chat rooms are, unless configured otherwise, public (which is why the outing RfC was always completely absurd, but I digress) and such constitute (self-) published information. You have to set up an account and accept their Terms of Service to see the information, but that is also true of Facebook, JSTOR, your local university library, and many other perfectly acceptable sources. Difficulty of access is not something that disqualifies something as a source either; again see Facebook, JSTOR, your local university library... Discord can't possibly be a good source—if you can only source something to there, is it really WP:DUE?—but technically it is permissable under the existing guidelines at WP:SOCIALMEDIA. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- As you said, Discord lacks a real system of user verification, so I would think it would be extremely difficult to properly use it as a primary source. I am thinking you'll want to move this to WP:RSN or some similar area for more opinions. -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Appeal[edit]
My username on Discord is the same as my Wikipedia handle, and wish for someone to reach out so as to come to an understanding for what happened leading up to my ban. Akaibu (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)