Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4530750-20160228040801/@comment-2041574-20160303052043

Hiya, folks. Wiki founder here. I've been following this discussion for the past couple of days now, and while I've been silent thus far, I feel the need to step in.

So far, this debate was more or less handled with reasonable maturity on both sides, and offending comments, regardless of who made them, were systematically deleted. There were certain points where I felt this thread should be padlocked as it devolved into flame wars, though I opted to allow more constructive discussion to be given a chance to flow. I'm somewhat skeptical on whether that will be re-attained at this point, but as 'voting' is nearly over, there's not much point on locking it up.

I am aware that wiki admins have no part in this vote, but nevertheless, I would like to offer up my thoughts on the matter.

I am acutely aware of the fact that TSG, or That Saradomin Group, are mired in a sea of controversy. Believe me, I've been at the center of it before. I don't doubt the accounts of any of the ex-TSG members that have posted here, or have had their stories presented on this thread.

However, there is a time and place for these sorts of issues - and this fulfills neither condition.

The RSRP wiki has, up until this point, maintained a relatively quiet period of tranquility. Offensive actions were dealt with accordingly. Users who broke wiki policy were issued bans, as per the rules.

Wiki pages do not receive this same treatment. If the page does not violate the rules within the Wikia community, and is on-topic to the wiki's function, it is permitted to stay. It is not judged based on who the creator is; it is judged based on what the creation is.

The page for That Saradomin Group does not violate wiki policy. The page is on-topic, and is not written with the intent of offense. It is written as the history for a group that, despite its shady dealings, has a valid article.

In regards to the punishment of users in question, Wikia has a policy similar to that of Jagex. Quite simply, if it isn't on the wiki, it cannot be punished. It is against the rules for administrators to issue out non-wiki related punishments. Similarly, Jagex moderators cannot mute or ban players based on screenshots or videos of conversations, be they on Skype or the official game. It has to be done through their system - and the same applies here.

Furthermore, deleting an article based on the person or organization it is based on is absurd. Wikipedia, as a wiki of practically everything, naturally has articles on people or entities ranging from lowly thug to genocidal maniac. Are these pages deleted? No, because they are written for informative and historical purposes.

Finally, what happens then, if the vote passes? This grants the administrator team the implied power of deleting articles, based on whether the editors are decent people. Controversial decisions, such as these, would likely have to go through a popular vote, but I could theoretically nominate anything for deletion, based on that criteria alone. Rough number off the top of my head: at least fifty percent of the wiki's content could be subject to deletion, solely based on the fact that their creators have acted with improper conduct at one point or another.

Believe me, I'm disgusted that these sorts of practices are still continued - but this wiki is not the place for it. If a user acts with improper conduct, they're banned. The pages should not even come into the equation. I am extremely disappointed that my wiki, a place of neutrality and general serenity these past few months, has been utilized for this purpose.

It is my hope that this is resolved smoothly. Ultimately, though, the decision lies with the community. I have offered my thoughts on the issue, we'll see what happens then.

- Siberys