Forum:Freedom Watch

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Freedom Watch
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 June 2010 by Calebchiam.

With the Wiki becoming an affiliated (silver) fansite, Jagex will probably be in contact with us more. That's a good thing! Today, I was contacted by Sannse who was just passing on a request (from Jagex I'll assume) to delete the article relating to the staff's portal for logging onto RuneScape. I should note that it was left as a judgement call on my part, and was not forced by Sannse.

If this is how Jagex plans to contact the Wiki (through central Wikia members or staff), I thought it would be a good idea to have a page dedicated to relaying those requests or conversations where appropriate, both for transparency to the community and to hold Jagex accountable to their promise of not wanting editorial control of the site.

Future incidents can be reported following my general format below.

Endasil (Talk) @  19:39, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Incident: 2010-04-20 Jagex Staff Portal

I had a conversation with sannse on our IRC channel:

<sannse> humm... anyone know when one of the beaurocrats will likely be around?
<Endasil> sannse: They're not typically in IRC.  Azaz129 is usually around the most.
<sannse> then I'll ask an admin :)
<Endasil> You can ask me if you want, I'm an admin
<sannse> yah, that's what I meant :)
<Endasil> Oh lol didn't realize how recently you had typed that
<sannse> I've had a request for to be deleted for security reasons... 
<sannse> what do you think?
<Endasil> It helps that the citation is broken anyway
<Endasil> I can't see it being a big deal
<Endasil> Were you thinking oversight?
<sannse> they had already requested the same from the facebook page
<sannse> no, I think just deletion will do fine
<Endasil> OK then if you don't mind I'll put in an edit summary saying the request came through you for that reason
<Endasil> so other admins will know not to undelete it without due process
<sannse> sure (although it's a suggestion rather than something I think /has/ to be done :) I'm not forcing the issue an all
<sannse> might as well keep Jagex happy, if it's not a problem for the wiki
<Endasil> Well they just made the Wiki an official fansite
<Endasil> so a little quid pro quo might be in order
<sannse> cool! I knew there was lots of talk about that, good to hear it happened!
<Endasil> But I don't think it's really a Runescape related thing what Jagex uses as development tools
<Endasil> so it doesn't really fit in our granularity policy anyway.  Yep I'll delete it, thanks
<sannse> cool, thanks

I deleted the article and the corresponding images based on a few factors:

  • It is good business to keep Jagex happy when the request will not negatively affect the community.
  • The citations used in that article had already been deleted (presumably at Jagex's request) so the material had become unsourced.
  • The pages did little more than acknowledge the existence of the staff portal and provide leaked images.
  • It doesn't really fit under RS:G since Jagex's development environment is not really under the mandate of the wiki.

Oversight was not used.

Endasil (Talk) @  19:39, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


Discuss here; if there is significant opposition to my actions this should be moved to an undelete discussion. Endasil (Talk) @  19:41, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We don't need to be affiliated. Why can't Jagex contact us? We should wait for them to directly contact us, and then we'll consider removing it. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:52, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think this is what Jagex thinks is "directly contacting us". They use the words "owner" a lot when talking about fansites, and, well, the closest thing we have to an owner are central Wikia. Endasil (Talk) @  23:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It doesn't serve much of an informational purpose to the runescape community. (Which, hopefully, is what the wiki is mainly about.) We aren't just supposed to provide all information on Jagex that has even been presented. I can't see how that article really helps anyone, so I think it should stay deleted. HaloTalk 21:05, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours after we get silver and they get an article deleted - Where does it end? I think it is a seriously bad move. Nothing in that article or in the pictures compromised them in any way what so ever, I scrutinized it extremely thoroughly for that exact reason. It boiled down to "...they use a slightly modified version of Mozilla/Firefox and log in only from the main office...". Seriously. I am not saying I like it as an article, but for them to cite security is ....well, it is pure B.S. Period. --Degenret01 22:00, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

My guess is they were more concerned about the screenshots which showed, among other things, the internal host name and port of their portal, the name of the mod using it, and screenshots of an internal application/trade secret. Those things are all intrinsically related to security (and privacy). And I agree that it's unnerving, especially given the timing. That's why I'm creating this section, to make sure this doesn't become or pattern, or at least if it becomes a pattern, it is justified in every case. Endasil (Talk) @  23:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I must stress the final decision was mine, not Jagex's, and definitely not sannse's. And now I'm passing the decision (or at least the opportunity of an override) onto the community. If she took the threat that seriously she could she could have deleted the page herself. I don't have an appreciation for the tone of Jagex's request since it was relayed. Endasil (Talk) @  23:38, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - They shouldn't be able to do anything until they create an account and run an RfD, like anyone else would have to do. (davelopo) 22:03, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get the details due to it being relayed through a middle(wo)man, but when there are allegations of privacy invasion or security I take it seriously and delete the offending image first, ask questions later. Endasil (Talk) @  23:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't oppose this deletion, in fact I agree that it is in our best interest to make Jagex happy, but in the future I think that they need to contact us directly. We aren't a bunch of 5-year-olds running around needing staff to keep us in line. If they want us to take any actions, they should tell us directly. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:11, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Another Comment - Why did you delete the article in the first place without any discussion? How long was it? If it was more than one or two sentences, it shouldn't have been deleted. I say it should be undeleted (so we can see what the article was/ if it really was necessary) and then discussed about. (davelopo) 22:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was a bold gesture. When there are allegations of security/privacy problems, I tend to the side of removing the content first and discussing later. Otherwise, we're just drawing a lot of attention to the offending page/article which just worsens the damage. Endasil (Talk) @  23:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Undelete - Seriously? We got this news less than 24 hours ago.... Not to mention you did not bring it to the YG first. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:58, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I never go through an RFD when it's a matter of privacy or security. If you want an undelete, let's start an RFU. Endasil (Talk) @  23:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
If it was a matter of privacy or security they would not have made it a request. I shouldn't have to start a request for undeletion when you didn't start a request for deletion in the first place. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:09, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
That's not true. To my knowledge, the content didn't violate copyright and definitely didn't seem to qualify for the terms under which a DMCA takedown notice could be given. They had no legal authority to do anything but make a request. Endasil (Talk) @  04:45, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
That is my point. If they had no legal authority, they had no authority at all and the request should not have skipped the usual channels and not had a rfd. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 05:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
If you upload a screenshot that accidentally has your real name and address in it, would you really want it to go through days worth of RFD? You of course would have no legal grounds to have it removed. But an RFD would just draw hundreds of more eyes to that sensitive information. You shouldn't treat Jagex completely differently just because they're a company. Endasil (Talk) @  17:51, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
To be techinically precise, sysops often delete more "junk" articles than you might think. I was a heartbeat away from deleting it myself as junk but decided someone may find it interesting. Endasil was okay in deleting, I just wish the reasons were different.--Degenret01 12:20, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If anyone who is not a sysop wants to take a look at it, [1] It pretty much has nothing on it, except for the two undiscernable pictures. Oh yeah, and the cache will likely be updated soon, so please don't delete the link. ⁓ Hello71 23:41, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if it was that short and we only had that amount of info, then it really wasn't notable -of course, why would Jagex want something so trivial deleted...? (davelopo) 01:13, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Aah my fair wiki, you have been paid your thirty pieces of silver and now it is time to contemplate the price. Whether that will beget jubilance or lamentation, only time will tell. However, to speak in less colourful language, the day a decision is made to please Jagex (or that they're even part of the decision making process) is the day we've surrendered our sovereignty.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

00:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I support using this page as a place to notify the community of Jagex requests, and I support deletion of the page requested to be deleted. I looked at Hello's link; I don't think the page fits in RS:G. However, I think that it should have been brought to the attention of the community before deletion. It isn't that it's a request from Jagex, as I think they should have just as much a right to request something as anybody, including an IP; however, consensus should first be reached on things like this. Leftiness 00:43, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think most decisions like these should go through community consensus. The key point here were the suggestions that it was a security/privacy matter. For me, that it comes from Jagex is irrelevant. For instance, if somebody notifies me that a screenshot that is otherwise useful to the wiki contains the real name of one of our users that wishes to stay anonymous, I'll immediately delete it (and then, depending on the case, replace it with a sanitized version). Opening up an RFD in these cases does more damage than good: it would just direct more people to the image/article and would draw more attention to the fact that it contains that sensitive information. By the time the offending image/article were deleted, the damage would be done. I'm not trying to establish steps that we should always follow when dealing with requests from Jagex. This action was uniquely linked to the security/privacy concerns, which on looking at the image I thought were valid. Endasil (Talk) @  02:37, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

They are trying to control us - This is getting out of hand. Jagex is trying to control any and all of the fan sites that are affiliated with them. And what do we get in return? "We'll give you a helping hand with occasional annoucements." That's what we get for being a silver fan site. As Degen said, it's been less than a day and they're already getting us to delete things. Where will this end? ʞooɔ 01:06, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Meh. On the one hand, arbitrarily article deletion in a consensus-driven community is never something to be taken lightly. On the other hand, the article was only a handful of text and a couple images. It didn't really serve any useful purpose, at least not one that justified its existence assuming that there actually is a security/privacy threat and that Jagex made the request honestly (I'm looking at the guy above me for a moment... seriously, I call overreaction.) On the other hand, guy-above-me is sort of right, and they probably ought to have at least waited a bit before requesting deletion, and/or spoken to the community (or representatives of the community) beforehand, instead of just relaying something to sannse. So all in all, I say "meh" for now. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 06:04, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support Jagex request area - I think immediate deletion was appropriate, but if Jagex had not requested for the article to be deleted, and it was Rfd'd for not being covered by RS:G, I would've said keep. I read that article before its deletion and found it quite interesting on how Jagex have other tools at their immediate disposal. I too considered it might have been a security problem though, as many of the Mod's details could be seen, as well as her bookmarks, other tabs, etc. Anyway, I support this idea of a Jagex-Wiki requests area, where they can make a request and we can discuss it. If not that, let them know how they can make a request (RfD, YG, AR, individual admin request, etc.) Chicken7 >talk 06:35, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support Jagex request area - Though I think that we should ask beforehand what kind of information they would consider requesting for us to delete. If it is things that they feel compromise their own security like this then hopefully there shouldn't be any problem. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Why are we here? Each of us came to this wiki individually, we were not sought out and asked to join. We willing joined because it represents the best opportunity to offer what information we know and learn for all those who do not know this information. The primary concern of each wikian needs to be "What is in the players best interest?". If your reasons for being here are because you want to be recognized by Jagex, then you are wrong. If that is the reason you are here. I do not have a problem with Jagex making requests, I have a serious problem with people who will consider that request with the goal of pleasing Jagex, NOT considering what is best for the players we support.--Degenret01 12:15, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm here to make this wiki a fantastic resource and popular among players. Becoming recognised by Jagex will make us a lot more popular. And don't tell me "We're already popular; why bother?" We should always strive to be better, and not just settle for what we already have. What if the founding users thought "Well, we've got a mention of everything; that'll do." I'm only supporting the Jagex request area so we can hear their request, and discuss it, rather than simply obeying everything they say. Chicken7 >talk 12:26, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:14, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
Of course we strive to always improve, I don't know why you would think I meant otherwise. I still edit don't I? And I am not against being allowed to say our name in game (although I always did anyway, recommending us to people all the time that never heard of us). Your reading too narrowly into my post I think. I do not have a problem entertaining Jagex requests, but our decisions regarding that request must always be in the best interest of the players.--Degenret01 13:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
Did you think mine wasn't? I've already said I thought it provided no value to our readers, and you've already said you think deleting it was a good move, and you've also said you don't have a problem entertaining Jagex requests. So do we not then agree on the premise that "making Jagex happy is good business when it doesn't negatively affect the community?" Endasil (Talk) @  17:51, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
I think considering Jagex wants that fast after we were silvered was a mistake. Dude, we were bought.--Degenret01 18:49, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Knock me over with a feather -- This is just the beginning. Qeltar 14:51, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the timing - Just wanted to note regarding the timing of this all: I went back and looked at the article history and it was only 2 days old when I deleted it. So there's very little chance that Jagex saw it, then waited for us to become official before asking it to be removed. More than likely they requested it as soon as they saw it, seeing as the article is very very young. So I think in this particular case that the timing might very well have been a coincidence. Endasil (Talk) @  17:55, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a relevant point. But this situation is, overall, a good illustration of the ethical precept of the "appearance of impropriety". Even if this move was entirely reasonable and would have or should have been done regardless of Jagex's list, the fact that the Wiki is on that list now casts a shadow over this and all such future requests. It's not that what you did is necessarily improper, but it could look like it was -- that's why people try to avoid *appearing* influenced, even if they aren't. Now that Jagex has a lever on the Wiki, they *will* use it. (They already have in asking for ads to be removed.) And every time a decision has to be made in the future about whether or not to grant one of their "requests", this same lingering issue will arise once more. Qeltar 18:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely, but think we need more than a sample of one before saying that this is an established pattern. Hence this page: this page will serve to see whether this kind of thing actually becomes a pattern or an isolated incident. Endasil (Talk) @  20:55, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment After months of not being listed, and nothing changing regarding our ads (log out and look), I am certain that getting Silvered was because they wanted that article gone. They saw it, silvered us, and requested deletion. And think we're too stupid to notice.--Degenret01 18:52, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. If we suddenly fall off the silver list, perhaps, and if that happens the article needs to be restored immediately. But until then, correlation != causation. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

More in response to "It is good business to keep Jagex happy when the request will not negatively affect the community." I disagree, I say only if it improves something. Not being a negative is not strong enough. If it doesn't improve us in some definable way, it should NOT be done.--Degenret01 18:55, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Some things are not as quantifiable, and that's a reality. Having a healthy working relationship with Jagex is beneficial to the Wiki in the long run. Endasil (Talk) @  20:55, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed I'm really happy that we've been recognised but at what cost? We've had to delete an article but was this necessary? Yes, becoming a fansite would bring so many users to us, but we're getting a great amount at the moment with out it, we're basically kissing JaGex's ass'. Look through the thread, look at the number of people saying that they wanted us up on their most of them even said at platinum. That was enough for me.   Swizz Talk   Events!   19:33, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In my opinion, this article was purely trivial and nothing any RuneScape player needs to know. Whoop-dee-doo, a Mozilla Firefox-lookin' browser that Jagex uses to sign onto RuneScape and edit the forums. It didn't hurt us in any way in deleting it as none of our viewers can use it. As it is Jagex's interface, I think it's only out of respect that we delete it if they'd like us to, but still, if this continues any further I'll not be happy. If Jagex asks us to delete Jagex cache or something similar, that's when I'd be angry and want us to be de-recognized. As long as Jagex doesn't ask for anything more, we're still independent. The Jagex Staff Portal article was useless.

I'd like to again bring up a quote from Degenret (I know that Azaz has said something extremely similar above, but I'll quote this one anyway) concerning the situation:

"The day we modify our ways to please Jagex is the day we cease to be an independent wiki."

Forgive me if I butchered that quote in some way (I'm sure I did, forgive my bad memory, I'm in a rush). I remember seeing about 5 people reply to Degen supporting him, saying they would "follow him to hell and back again". Now that Jagex has finally recognized us, I ask the community:

Will you still be as supportive of such a saying, or will you fall under Jagex's control? The latter, I surely hope not. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 20:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I still remember Degenret saying that, it was a pretty damn good quote. I think it was somewhat altered though, not sure.Fruit.Smoothie 23:22, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
User:Degenret01/My quote lul --Iiii I I I 23:44, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Initially, I was under the impression that being a recognized fansite would simply add us to a list of other great fansites as a reference for RuneScape players. Just that would be sufficient, would it not? What exactly constitutes recognition: being on a list in the official forums for everyone to see, or actually working with Jagex and complying with their demands?  Tien  01:43, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm just going to post this same post I did on the RSOF (originally posted on by Hohbein


While I guess none of the conspiracy theorists will believe me when I say this - no, there's no big conspiracy going on and Jagex aren't out to gain control of our fansites. 

In fact, we've always been very clear that we aren't interested in any form of editorial control. What's posted on a fansite is completely up to the fansite owners, admins, and community members. We actually like reading the sometimes brutally honest feedback that fansites can generate - this stuff really is incredibly helpful to us as a company. The absolute last thing we want is for fansites to lose their sense of identity and become blind followers of Jagex and everything we do. 

Obviously we have a set of criteria that a fansite needs to meet before we'll be able to offer a great deal of support, but that's where it ends - once we start supporting a site we won't be contacting them and asking for edits to be made to the website. If a fansite starts doing something that goes against the criteria of being supported then the worst that'll happen is we'll move them to another tier of support and they'll lose out on some of the support they were previously receiving. 

Ryan PM 01:49, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds to me like they broke their promise. ʞooɔ 02:14, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree.--Degenret01 02:16, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
As do I, though I agree that they had very legitimate reasons for wanting this page deleted. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:58, April 22, 2010 (UTC) 

Question - Is there actually any evidence that links the affiliation with Jagex requesting to have a page removed?? It seems more like bad timing to me. Even the timing is dodgy as Jagex asked for the page to be removed 2 days after it was created, meaning that they can't have waited for us to be affiliated to ask for it to be removed as the page didn't exist then. We have never had any information on the wiki before which Jagex would want to keep hidden, (things like mod centre have never been able to reach consensus) so we don't know whether Jagex would have contacted us, even if we were not associated with them. Jagex also chose a strange means to contact us. They went for the official means by talking to Wikia directly, rather then asking their new chummy-bud-editors at the wiki to remove it, which seems like the logical choice if their intent was to influence us.

Now I realise that I am probably biased as I don't hate jagex like most people on the wiki seem to do, (I am really annoyed about what they did to the forums however...) though I think that it is reasonable to say that it is highly likely that the affiliation had nothing to do with them contacting us about the portal thing. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 06:46, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that the timing of us being added to the list wasn't the effect, rather than the cause, of them requesting a page be deleted? What I'm saying is, perhaps they added us to the list to try to exercise more power over us, and thus get the page deleted. To me, Jagex could almost be sending a message with this: Bow down to us, and you'll stay on the list. Fail to delete pages we say to delete, and you're off the list. My reply would be this: We will keep/restore any pages that have a legitimate reason for being on this wiki1, and you can list us wherever you damn well please. To me, Jagex listing us as a silver fansite is a step forward, towards a future where we can work together. However, I assure you, I will not sit by if they try to control us beyond making logical, explained requests. The wiki is not a puppet; it must not be allowed to be used as one, and if that keeps us from being a recognized fansite, then so be it. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 07:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC) 
1The article in question in this particular forum does not belong on the wiki, as it does pose a legitimate security risk to Jagex.
Once again, only time will tell. A sample of 1 isn't good enough to know, so it's probably not too useful to over speculate. This forum is intended to widen that sample so we can see if it's a pattern or an isolated incident. Endasil (Talk) @  08:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
The page on the portal was created about 4 days ago, yet a week ago Wikia told us that they were in discussions with Jagex and we might be recognised in the next week (to month). That means that Jagex can't have only considered affiliating us to remove the page as the page only existed after the ball started rolling. It is possible that Jagex told their polish correspondent to post uncropped photos on the polish facebook of the Jagex staff portal when they started talking to wikia, then since nobody had made a page on the portal within a few days they created an account to create the page, and then waited for us to be affiliated, though I think that that is highly unlikely. That is the only way that I can think of that it wouldn't be a coincidence. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 12:50, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Again regarding the timing, I think I need to add that I'm of the opinion that if Jagex asked for this article to be removed last week, we wouldn't be making such a big deal about it and would have been happy to remove it (or at least sanitize it). Obviously that couldn't happen since that article was pretty much brand new. We're making more of a deal than we would if the affiliation had never happened. And I reject the notion that they somehow affiliated with us to make that article disappear. First, for the same reason: because they could have made the same request before and we would have responded positively. And second, do you really think that they allow themselves to be blackmailed into affiliation? (Affiliate with us our we'll put up compromising screenshots of your development environment!) Endasil (Talk) @  08:03, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Did we suddenly join the army? - I think it's fine for a fansite to say "We don't like having this on our site because it violates someone's privacy and so we're going to remove it". But when they instead say "We're removing this because we were asked to and we don't think anyone needs to know it", that's where the alarm bells begin to toll.

There's a subtle but important difference here. In the first case you are acting based on principle, and saying you don't want something there for a reason. In the second case you are censoring based on an arbitrary decision about what others need to know.

Does anyone really "need to know" *anything*? Fansites are full of information that is there because people find it interesting, not because it's vital to national security or whatever. ;)

The exact same "nobody 'needs' to know it" arguments could apply to removing the Jagex cache page. Or anything else that is discovered in the future that Jagex wishes hadn't been.

That idiotic comment from Hohbein notwithstanding, there is no "conspiracy theory" and never was. A conspiracy means two or more parties working together, usually covertly. There's only one party here, and it is employing very simple "carrot and stick" stuff, which is used all the time in industry, politics and even social groups. Jagex says "do what we want and we give you these perqs; don't do what we want and we take away the perqs and star out your name in RS".

And the bottom line is that no matter what happens from now on, there will always be the shadow of Jagex's carrot and stick hanging overhead, making people question the real reasons for any decisions that are related to Jagex or its requests. That's why the "courting" of Jagex to get on their list was and is a mistake. As tLUL said, the appropriate position is "We will keep/restore any pages that have a legitimate reason for being on this wiki, and you can list us wherever you damn well please." Qeltar 12:07, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree (to an extent). I personally found that deleted article interesting. I always thought that Jagex opened the game like us and had some fancy button because they were using Mod accounts. I can understand the article may've been compromising privacy, but saying that it was worth deleting because "RuneScape players do not want to know this stuff" or "RS:G does not cover this" is an extremely poor argument in my honest opinion. Chicken7 >talk 12:22, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think that Endasil, while acting in good faith and trying to do the correct thing here, performed an act that was unfortunately contrary to policy and something I hope does not become precedent in the future. There is certainly an appropriate place for a formal DMCA take-down request, which apparently this was something along those lines even if it wasn't stated. There is also a formal challenge that can be made by content users (such as us ordinary folks who edit on this wiki) to insist that the content remain as well. Once such a challenge has been made, the law simply moves to a court room instead.... if that is where the parties involved want to take everything.

For myself, I fail to see how privacy was compromised as no passwords, personally identifying information, or much of anything was actually revealed. I guess the URL was a bit of a concern.... but if Jagex has such a lousy network security team that typing in a URL into a web browser is going to compromise their systems, they need to hire some better security people and fire a couple developers. There is this amazing invention called a "fire wall". Perhaps somebody should be trained on how to use one?

We've beat this issue into the dirt before on what to do with "confidential" information. This was something posted to the public on facebook, and was already "in the wild", so it is an attempt by Jagex to stuff everything back into Pandora's box now that it has been opened. I've said my piece on that other thread and I stand by what I said earlier on the subject.

At the very least, I guess some folks at Jagex are paying attention to what we are doing here. That may be useful for a number of things, and says more about our community than anything else. --Robert Horning 12:37, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

I premised my decision to delete based on allegations of security or privacy concerns. I recognize now that RS:SD does not expressly permit this, but I think I have raised a legitimate argument as to why an RfD can do more harm than good when the reason for the request is a concern over privacy. So really I think our speedy deletion criteria should include that provision. That said, the SOP for this kind of thing would have been to simply remove the content that was specifically concerning, not the whole page. In hindsight, I think that would have been a better move. I didn't do that for two reasons. First, it was unclear what exactly the offending content was. That of course brings us back to "why aren't they contacting us directly?" The lesson learned here I think is that if the request is even possibly controversial, we should demand that Jagex contact (at least one of) us directly and in detail. If they don't, then it's not like we haven't given them the opportunity to make their case. Second, removing just the images would have left a very pathetic page, arguably outside of the Wiki's mandate, with unsourced material (since the Facebook references had already been taken down). But in hindsight that's probably still what I should have done.
Regarding it's similarity to a DMCA takedown, I don't get the feeling it was like that. I have a feeling sannse/the wikia team would have a very different procedure for dealing with that than trying to find a 'crat/sysop in IRC and then leaving it in our hands whether we do it or not. A DMCA takedown notice has much more serious legal implications and they wouldn't have left the decision up to me. Endasil (Talk) @  15:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
On the surface it does look like a security violation, but I do fail to see what sort of security is being violated in this instance. For the heck of it, I took at glace at the page and images with the admin tools, and there is nothing to see there which is of concern to me. The fact that Facebook removed the images seems to imply a DMCA take-down notice, even though it was done informally in this case with the wiki.... so I do think that legal concept does apply here. Jagex showed concern over the image and doesn't like having moderator tools to be displayed elsewhere. This is consistent on the part of Jagex, but not so much with this wiki and does get into the "confidential" information argument mentioned in the thread I noted above.
The Wikimedia Foundation has a formal ticket procedure for DMCA requests that keep track of not only who requested the take-down, but who removed the content, when it was removed, and does a sort of "permanent" deletion that can't be viewed with admin tools. It also allows for a formal protest to be made by the user community and to "reverse" the take-down if necessary. This is all done for a number of reasons, including to prevent "spoofing" (somebody claiming to "own" the image but not really having legal claim to it) and to protect both the community and the project in general. I have no idea what sort of ticketing system is in place for Wikia projects at all, or even if there is one.
I don't mind informal request either, but we should have some sort of procedure for doing this if that happens, and to let Jagex know that such decisions can be reversed particularly with informal actions. Generally for myself, I err on the side of caution and avoid deleting content unless it is painfully obvious (copyright violations, vandalism, etc.). Again, I think you acted on good faith and I certainly do understand at least why you thought this needed to be done, Endasil. --Robert Horning 17:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Lessons Learned

  • If a request comes from Jagex through a middleman (Wikia staff/helpers) and fulfilling that request even carries the possibility of being controversial or violating existing policy, we should wait for Jagex to come directly to us (or at least one of us) with the full details. proposed by Endasil (Talk) @  15:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 18:30, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 20:20, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
How about we cut out the "confidential controversial" part and say that any editorial request made by Jagex requires consensus by the RS Wiki community?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cook Me Plox (talk).
Do you mean "controversial"? I still hold that some edits are best done summarily and then brought to the community (in the case of severe privacy implications) but what this would change is that if Jagex isn't specific about what part of the content they object to, we just wouldn't take action until they were. Also, all editors are equal, and a request by Jagex that fits within the existing policies (such as, "can you fix this link to part of our site?") should not need consensus any more than any other reader's editorial request. That said, I'd love to see a few Jagex staff get some inconspicuous accounts and edit themselves so that they could join the community, not just communicate with it. But that would probably have the appearance of bias towards our community. Endasil (Talk) @  20:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Don't Jagex staff have a few accounts on some other, gold/platinum fansites? I think we've reached a catch 22 here; Jagex doesn't want to recognize us until we can work with them, and the best way to work with us is for them to create accounts, but they don't want to create accounts on an unrecognised site. I might be wrong, though. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 07:00, April 23, 2010 (UTC) 
Eek. Yeah. Controversial.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cook Me Plox (talk).

Agree and comment I really doubt there will be future instances, but I think it is a smart idea for us to have a procedure in place to handle it. Do we know if Jagex contacts anyone directly at Wikia or do they send a message to a certain department? Could we preemptively let that dept. know that we would like to receive these requests directly ourselves?--Degenret01 01:20, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Send it right back up the chain. Relay the message to sannse. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:42, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, degen you should leave sannse a message expressing our interest in direct contact with jagex. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:44, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:53, April 23, 2010 (UTC) 
Agreed, Slayer Timwac talk Fire cape.png 09:54, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed   Swizz Talk   Events!   10:01, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I was in the IRC chat last night talking to a couple of people and we thought that we should Jagex to create and account like "Jagex" or "Oficial Jagex" and then they can talk to us throught that if needed instead of going through wikia helpers. So if we can get sannse to send a message back to Jagex to do this it would make communication and that sort of thing a lot easier and would let wikia staff to help other sites that need help. Just a though. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:09, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

This would probably lead to their user pages being vandalized and their talk page being spemmed with "AMG I HATE U" and "THAHT UPDAET SUKS I QWIT", basically, a good idea but it probably wont work   Swizz Talk   Events!   18:17, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
The simple solution would be to protect the page from everyone bar sysops. I think that if we ever do need to contact them it will be after a YG descision. If for some reason someone needs to contact Jagex and it is not with community consensus, then they could always post the message on an admins talk page and the Admin could relay the message to the Jagex talkpage. I haven't really thought about this idea, so I am not opposing or supporting anything. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 01:23, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
I was speaking to Tedjuh. He said Jagex have used a variety of methods to contact Wikia, the main one being email. He agrees Jagex creating an official account, and then having a page they can make requests on would be the best way to go. He also says it will not be a problem contacting Jagex, and all that is required is community consensus from us for them to create an account. Jagex would most likely accept this, but of course, there are know promises. So, yeah. I'd support a Jagex account. Shall we break this off into a new section? Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 15:47, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Unrelated, but, why is the title "Freedom Watch"? O_O Fruit.Smoothie 02:50, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

lololololol. I think it's something about keeping the wiki "free from Jagex's control" O_o Chicken7 >talk 03:14, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'd say JaGEx recongnised us only because of public opinion, a lot of people has heard of us and it'd be bad for public relations if JaGEx won't recongnise a popular comprehensive fansite like this one, it's also probrably the reason why we arn't gold or platinum. Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 15:32, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That's not true. Jagex can't just add a fansite to the list and make it a gold/platinum one right away, that would be unfair (as far as I know, this is NOT confirmed). Also, Jagex does not dislike the wiki. It's just due to the UnRuneScape wiki there were some misunderstandings, but those are all solved. The ads are being worked on as I previously said, so please don't put any blame on Wikia/Jagex, it just requires some patience. Mark (talk) 15:51, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing was involving UnRunescape Wiki? Far, far more offensive stuff was on [[uncyclopedia:Main Page|Uncyclopedia]] than anything found on that website. I do understand how some of it may have been offensive to Andrew Gower and some of the senior management at Jagex, as it was quite provocative and certainly pushed the limit of good taste, but it also was a very different community as well that edited there. It is shut down as well, so hopefully that is water under the bridge at this point. --Robert Horning 22:11, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
[[w:c:prunescape|Someone who apparently doesn't get the point made it again some months ago.]] (davelopo) 22:23, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
The UnRunescape Wiki was officially listed as a "sister" website, which this other one seems very unlikely to become one. Certainly we should as a community try to avoid any sort of association with that new parody website... at least for now. --Robert Horning 00:22, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Official Jagex Wikia account

Since this has been talked about above but nobody has actually proposed it, I thought that I might take the liberty to do so.

An account for Jagex could be made and called something like "Jagex official" or "Mod Hohbein" (both of which are currently free Lol) so it is easily recognised. The account is used by Jagex to make Yew Grove threads about any wiki-related-things that they do that could even remotely be considered controversial. The talk page and user page of the account are protected from everyone as there is no real need for anyone to edit those pages. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 11:01, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm fairly neutral on this idea. I just want to comment that we have a twitter profile that Jagex requested. So that may be the way they try to contact us and receive updates, although I'm not sure. Chicken7 >talk 11:43, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It would be nice, but I'm not sure they would sign on for that. I would just like to talk to one of those j mods for about 5 minutes and straighten him out. HaloTalk 11:50, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If Jagex wants to go though the effort of creating an official account, that it their prerogative. Whatever we have to say about this is a moot point and something that is IMHO irrelevant in a discussion of this nature. Perhaps if somebody cares to make the point, they can suggest the idea on the official forums (I think it may be a good idea), but otherwise there is nothing for us to decide. I have complained in the past when accounts with the name "Mod" have been automatically blocked merely for having that in the account name. Regardless, any such account if it were created would have no standing on this wiki other than as an ordinary user. Perhaps if they could document in some manner that they are who they say that they are could be of some significance in discussions, but beyond that it is irrelevant. Everybody is free to edit this wiki and participate in discussion, and that includes Jagex employees if they care to take the effort. --Robert Horning 17:08, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think I agree with Robert in that it seems like creating an account "for" Jagex is a shift in culture that we should avoid. They have always been able to create an account and have chosen not to as yet. The only question is, if they did create such an account and began bringing requests or other news to the Wiki, what assurance would we have that it was being legitimately run by Jagex staff? We could cross that bridge if we ever came to it, but I would assume the procedure would be basically requiring them to message a few of us on our RuneScape accounts with the correlation between Jagex/real name and Wikia username. Anyway as I said, the barrier here is Jagex participating, not having the ability to participate. Create an account and it won't be used; otherwise they'd have an account already. Endasil (Talk) @  22:52, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I really wrote that badly the other day, let me clarify what I meant so it makes more sense. There seems to be consensus here saying that Jagex should always contact the whole community when requesting changes, though the current method that they use to contact us is via Sanse. The whole process would be more fluid if Jagex created a RuneScape Wiki account to contact us though. It is not for any other purpose apart from removing Sanse from the equation so messages don't have to be relayed. Since consensus has virtually been achieved above, I thought that it would be simpler to create a new section for this addition to that proposal so the entire thing wouldn't have to re-achieve consensus. I realise that I probably should have clarified that earlier. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:36, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support with concerns - They need to contact us directly, and this will greatly help them do that. They are affiliated with us, the RuneScape Wiki; not Wikia or Sannse. They're supporting us because of us, and so, we're the ones they should be communicating with if they like or dislike something we've done. However, I'm slightly worried as to what Jagex will be doing on this account... will they be able to edit on the side? Will they edit on the side? IMO I think it would be weird as hell to have the creators of this wiki's subject help us improve the wiki, content wise O_o. I'd hope for them to stick to the community namespaces -- it's our site, they're only supporting it. I don't want Jagex to significantly change what we use on the wiki. "Freedom Watch." Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 08:04, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously Jagex will not be making an account to edit with. Why the hell would they? The one time they wanted something they contacted wiki, and they got results. I seriously doubt we have crossed their mind since that day. Aside from that, their account would be span hammered into oblivion and beyond. You think we get vandals now? If people thought they could leave Jagex a message here it would become the most insane nightmare you can not imagine. Just think about it. Honestly. It would be great if any time in the future they had some request they could send it through the "contact us" page. Who knows if the even saw it? How would they know to look for it? And lets continue being real. What if our entire community unanimously said "Jagex you should make an account". They wouldn't. What we propose and are talking about will have zero impact on what they decide to do. I don't want to be a dream crusher here, but some imaginations have taken hold of some peoples reality. Back down to planet Earth folks. I think the most we could do is ask Wikia to tell Jagex, if they are ever contacted again regarding subject matter here, is to contact us directly so we can get a full explanation of why they are asking for what ever it is they are. And for the record, we are not "affiliated" with Jagex, nor endorsed by them. The only difference in being recognized is we can say our sites name in game. Which most of us did anyhow.--Degenret01 09:55, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Idea Instead of Jagex making a Wikia account, maybe a select group of admins and bureaucrats could communicate with Jagex instead. This solves the problem of spamming and vandalising their user/talk page and the Wiki in general. I'm not sure how many admins/bureaucrats should be in this group. Just an idea. 222 talk 09:24, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Communicate with them using what methods? Chicken7 >talk 13:11, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
I dunno... Like I sed just an idea. Maybe in game chat with the J Mods. 222 talk 23:42, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Or, we could make a special clan chat so a group can talk together. 222 talk 23:44, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Jagex wouldn't really go for that. They would much prefer a twitter account. HaloTalk 23:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - If a request comes from Jagex through a middleman (Wikia staff/helpers) and fulfilling that request even carries the possibility of being controversial or violating existing policy, we should wait for Jagex to come directly to us (or at least one of us) with the full details. Regarding the proposal about an account for Jagex, no further action will be taken. C.ChiamTalk 13:59, June 15, 2010 (UTC)