Wikipedia talk:Discord

Ban appeal

After a few ban appeals on this talk page, I'm ready to finally get my nearly 2-year-old ban case done with in private. I have a lot to talk about now, and it's been bugging me for the past couple of months. My username is luxtay. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 15:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting awareness of appeal. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

Please add a {{shortcut}} on top for WP:DISCORD. 221.168.37.223 (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done as the shortcut has been around for a while. ― novov (t c) 07:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Unban request

We're not going to argue with you. Try in six months with a record of community involvement or move on. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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) Declined. We have no space for people who make nazi jokes. -- ferret (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC) i really didn't mean it like that, i have been reading about biological warfare and kurt blome was on my mind. i apologize, and was only joking Rovi9805 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Will this be permanent or is it timed? I only want to read and contriubte in the biology projects in discord Rovi9805 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Bans are permanent. You can try to appeal again in six months with a solid track record of editing. There is little reason for us to unban someone who makes nazi jokes who isn't even editing. -- ferret (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Why do you keep saying "nazi jokes"? You're trying to make it sound worse than it is Rovi9805 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) You make a joking reference to Kurt Blome. Per our article, "Kurt Blome (31 January 1894 – 10 October 1969) was a high-ranking Nazi scientist" who "participated in chemical and biological warfare experiments on concentration camp inmates". It's not ferret making you look bad here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Specifically saying "jokes" making it sound like there were multiple instances. The funny thing is that I read about him as a MKUltra (USA) scientist and didn't intend any Nazi association, but here I am permanently banned for "we have no space for people who make nazi jokes" Rovi9805 (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC) The fact that you keep trying to argue that this wasn't that bad is not helping you any, especially given that you're not even really an active editor (5 of your 12 edits are to this page). If I were you, I would take ferret's incredibly lenient suggestion above that you can re-appeal in six months with an actual track record of edits. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Why should I have to be an avid editor to connect with other people who share my passion of biology Wikipedia? Rovi9805 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) If you cannot accept our conditions, please don't bother replying or appealing further. The server exists to further collaboration between editors, not to use the offtopic channel to ask about Turing awards and make a nazi joke. -- ferret (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Are the conditions "You can try to appeal again in six months with a solid track record of editing" offered to all banned Discord members, or is it an offer exclusive for "Rovi9805"? -- Sleyece (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) The condition for you is that you commit to not behaving in the manner that got you banned in the first place: arguing, wikilawyering, declaring you know better than the mods who wrote the server policies, and generally exhausting the patience of everyone in the server. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Yes, of course I commit to it. I did not fully understand the WP:LAWYER policy prior to April 7, and ferret has personally aided in my better understanding of it in the ensuing days. I've stricken much of my last statement from April 7 on this page for context. -- Sleyece (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC) just a question, is a perma IP ban with 6 month appeal for MKultra joke/asking about the turing award documented anywhere or did you guys just make that up special for me? Rovi9805 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good Faith

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)

shortcut?

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)

@Joe Roe I could see a few rare cases where a developer or personality might use their own 'official' Discord server for communication, but I would think in most of those cases we could find a better social media if the news/info is actually DUE as well. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)