This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

The Armed Forces Policy has not been referred to for months, and I don't actually recall a time when anyone has been warned or blocked under COD:AFP. For those who don't know, AFP was written in response to a few users who ambiguously claimed to be in the military when they were actually not, and required users to specify if they were referring to a fictional character on their userpage if he was supposedly part of the armed forces.

I posted a comment on the policy's talk page, but with little response. In my opinion, the policy has no place on the wiki. It is no business of ours to prevent users from making such claims, and certainly not within any productive guidelines that users be blocked for doing so. There is no distinction between a user claiming to be a member of an armed force and any other profession. We clearly don't care if a user pretends to be a history teacher, weapon expert or COD fanatic.

Of all the policies we have, COD:AFP is the least relevant and has absolutely nothing to do with editing. Seriously, "Armed Forces Policy" sticks out as a nonsensical policy that does not address any issue or help the wiki in any way. --Scottie theNerd 11:24, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I made it without a vote, I think I'll just remove it without a vote.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  11:25, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

We can probably reach consensus very quickly. It's best we follow the correct procedure for the removal of a policy regardless of how it was formed. --Scottie theNerd 11:27, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I deleted it. It doesn't serve any purpose here. Would you like me to undelete it so we can get it through a vote? Sorry.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  11:30, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you expect me to respond to that. Whatever suits you, I guess. --Scottie theNerd 13:19, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, delete the COD:AFP redirect page. --Scottie theNerd 13:28, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Should users be forced to show ID if other users request it? A Lonely Nomad 13:30, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, I restored it, might as well get a consensus then delete it.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  13:31, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Are you intentionally turning this into a joke? --Scottie theNerd 13:36, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

I will now give input on the topic - yes, I do think this policy should be removed. It's not used, and as stated above does not really have anything to do with editing and does not help the wiki in any way, which policies are meant to do. A whole load of policies looks bad towards newer users who will assume this wiki is overwhelmed by rules. The main reason I decided to implement this policy was because back when it was made there was a big deal about users lying they were in the armed forces, and a policy was supposed to stop them arguing about it. It'd be good if this policy was taken out of service.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  14:09, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

There are far better tools for dispute resolution than suddenly implementing a policy without anyone else's consent and then telling other users to follow it. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:20, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Technically it's not even a valid policy, as there was no input, consultation or discussion. In fact, I don't think many people even know about the existence of such a policy. One sysop -- not even a bureaucrat -- can spontaneously write up a policy and make it official without due process. While I'm interested in seeing more opinions, I believe that we can remove the policy on the grounds that it was never valid. --Scottie theNerd 14:24, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly why I deleted it without a vote in the first place.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:45, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Umm,no.Just recently a user tried to say he was in the Military.CoD:AFP was there.So,no.Rampantlion513 Wanna Talk??Edits 14:55, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

So what? I could claim that I'm the Pope. --Scottie theNerd 15:05, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

That's an invalid point. He might have been joking, or for all we know he might well be. People should be free to express what job they are in. Scottie claim's he's a teacher (and no one minds that), that's a profession, and so is being in the armed forces. There's no difference.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:45, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Despite whats been said here, it has been used. Not even a month ago CE CplDunn and I were disscussing a user claming to be in the Rangers, he was found lieing and never blocked, to my knowledge, there are other examples. Although there are easier ways to deal with it, I believe it should be removed, if it has not already been. Dolten Lets Talk 15:47, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. Shotrocket6 16:02, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

This should be removed. The violations of this policy can be dealt with on a per case basis. In the United States, its already illegal to claim to be or have been in the Armed Forces, when you really aren't/haven't. Rambo362 20:53, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

If the policy is removed, then it cannot be violated. There's no issue to deal with when users falsely claim to be in the military unless we intentionally go out of a way to find an issue. --Scottie theNerd 02:55, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I see no advantages of having the policy. People should be able to claim what they will, but at the end of the day, this Wiki is about a computer game, not real life events. Being in the military has no sway here - the only policy of this nature that should exist should be an Infinity Ward Employee Policy (IWEP), if one does not already exist. That is the only thing that has any significance. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 21:44, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with you. Wiki is about video game, which is in virtual world, and armed forces are in real world. I see no policies about scientists on Combine OverWiki. AFP should be removed as part of Real-Life Project on wiki. >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 15:27, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

The Real-Life Project deals with content in articles, not policies. By your logic, we should get rid of community and user policies such as COD:UTP because they deal with real-life issues rather than in-game content. --Scottie theNerd 15:38, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Contents 1 Vote to abolish Armed Forces Policy 1.1 Support 1.2 Neutral 1.3 Oppose 1.4 ALL Comments 2 Conclusion

Vote to abolish Armed Forces PolicyEdit

SupportEdit

1. Support — Per above reasons. TheManOfIron 23:55, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
2. Support — Per my argument above. Dolten Let's Talk 00:02, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
3. Support — It's not in the wiki's interests to pursue claims over one's own profession or other real life information. It doesn't make the wiki better and is a distraction. Lying about being in the military would affect us if we were a military community, but we're not. Unless we're going to make a policy about lying, there is no basis for this policy. --Scottie theNerd 02:51, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
4. Support — Per Scottie. Shotrocket6 02:58, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
5. Support — This rule was originally made to counter idiots like Master290, who (poorly) attempted to be a member of the military. Since we no longer have people like him, I'd say its fine to get rid of it. Darkman 4 03:06, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
6. Support — Per Scottie. azuris_ 14:37, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
7. Support — Lying about armed forces membership is generic lying. I think, there should be truth policy but not only AFP. >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 15:20, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
8. Support — It seems like it is a policy that had more of an effct when real-life information was still acceptable on the wiki. Now, a user who is in the armed forces can't really use their experience in the forces to contribute to the wiki. It doesn't really make much sense to me now. LITE992 18:54, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
9. Support — Per Scottie 02:21, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
10. Support — Per all  Hax 217    talk-page  13:35, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
11. Support — Indeed we are a wiki and shouldn't care that people claim that they were in the service or not. The policy was retarded to begin with. The wiki is not in the business of investigating peoples claim that they served in the military, and is a violation of a person's privacy. Talk 22:16, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
12. Support — If we have problems with people attempting to use the military to get sympathy or respect, then they're either just annoying and are asked to stop, or are then harassing other users and must stop, otherwise claims, while wrong and annoying if unfounded, should be legal. Darthkenobi0(talk) 01:50, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
13. Support — This was a policy made as a soloution to a problem that no longer exists, it is just a sign of decadence in the wiki.AdvancedRookie 11:30, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
14. Support — The Armed Forces Policy needs to be removed. Why does that need to even be a policy anyway. It's part of stupid users pretending to be veterans of war or going to war. Didn't PGB fake it? But anyway, per all above.DevilWarrior112^{Talk Edits}13:25, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
15. Support — I feel that this policy serves no real purpose, for two reasons. A) To prove it, a person must relinquish their anonymity that is the purpose of Wikia accounts and usernames, and B) there is pretty much no difference whether someone is in the armed services or not, its not like we promote them to admin instantly. The only policy of this sort that should exist is an Infinity Ward/Treyarch policy. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 12:11, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
16. Support — Per everyone else. - Braden 0.0 ^Talk 15:04, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
17. Support — Per everyone's "What's the big deal?" philosophy. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  05:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

1. Neutral — While I feel lying about being in the army is a serious issue, a ban just leads to users becoming angry, starting off a chain reaction (Like PeterGriffonBoy).—Unsigned comment was added by A Lonely Nomad
2. Neutral — I don't care either way. Rambo362 19:48, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral — I don't think it will affect us much if we keep it, nor do I think it will affect us much if we don't. ^{Talk? Edits}00:36, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral — I cant take part... 02:51, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral — While we haven't had any posers in a while, you never know when one might spring up. Maj.Gage ^Talk. 02:55, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

1. Oppose — For one it's a slap in the face to real military members. It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed. We should re-write the whole "show proof" part, and make it "If it ever surfaces that you falsely stated military service, you will be banned". Real military members make a sacrifice that civilians don't and pretending you are a part of that is wrong. Regardless of whether this is a wiki or not. Brothertim 15:51, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose — I agree with Brothertim. While it may not be directly related to us, we have had problems with people claiming to be in the Armed Forces before, which is wrong and undeniably disrespectful. There's nothing saying that each and every one of our policies needs to relate to Call of Duty and only Call of Duty - also, (directed at Dolten) if you would be in favour of banning somebody for falsely claiming Armed Forces status, then why would you remove the policy that supports the block? Military personnel sacrifice so much for us - if people are falsely claiming membership of Armed Forces, it's extremely disrespectful and people find it offensive. I say that if somebody falsely claims they're in the military (as members of our wiki have done before), they should be banned for a short time, because it is offensive towards the Armed Forces and towards our users. Juan José Rodriguez reportin' for duty. 16:59, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose — Per JJR and BT. It is extremely disrespectful to real armed forces members, the ones who do so much to protect us. Bumblebeeprime09's Quarters|Radio|Records 02:49, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose — I find nothing wrong with the policy. It is not right for people to lie about armed service. Poketape ^Talk 00:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

ALL CommentsEdit

Comment — @SiPlus: What's the big deal about lying? Is it that much of a problem on the wiki that we should make a policy to ban it? --Scottie theNerd 15:39, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — What about making yet another rule to state that "stating military service is not allowed". This wiki is about a game, not if you were in the service. I don't care if anybody ever knows or not if I was in the service. Banning someone for lying on their user page? Get real. You don't like what that user has to say on it, don't go there. Simple! Talk 18:55, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — BotherTim: They will still be banned, but in a simpler fashion. Dolten Let's Talk 21:13, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Brothertim, lying about armed forces membership is generic form of lying. It will be slap to medic if someone called him medic wrongly, same applies to fireman, taxidriver, homeless... >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 13:50, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — To the oppose votes, I reiterate my earlier point. I know for a fact that military communities take false claims of military service very, very seriously. However, CODWiki is not a military community. We are a gaming community. While we can respect those in the armed forces, it is not our duty to enforce laws or expectations about military service, nor do we have any reason to single out service in the military as a protected profession. If anything, users who falsely claim that they are good gamersor members of a development team is more of an insult to our communmity. Practically every profession holds an integral part in society and falsely claiming to be someone or something else, anywhere, can be interpreted as an insult. Why should we make it a core policy to disallow claims of military service compared to other services in public, private, government, corporate, medical, social or whatever sector you work in? We cannot prove or disprove whether or not a user holds a particular job in real life. Unless being in the armed services is a requirement to join the wiki, we have no business in making enquiries about someone's real life. We're not the Army. We're not a Veterans society. We're not the Government. We're a wiki, and a wiki is free and open for users to edit. If a user wants to pretend to be a soldier, that's their business and we shouldn't care about it. If we really want to nail pretenders, how about we go through and block everyone who falsely uses a military rank in their username? Oh, and I'm fairly sure Cpl. Dunn isn't the real character from Modern Warfare 2. Should we call in the Banhammer for pretending to be a game character? --Scottie theNerd 06:36, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — @BBP09's oppose - We're not here to teach people about morality, if a user is offended by someone lying they are in the military, then it's their problem, not ours.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  22:35, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

And there's the burning question that hasn't been addressed. How does it help the wiki if we block these false claimants? If we're banning users for reasons that do not help the wiki, why should we have that policy in place? --Scottie theNerd 03:44, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — @Poketape: It's also not "right" for people to pirate music and games, purchase blood diamonds, eat battery chickens, commit adultery or wear animal skins for fashion. It's not right to murder hundreds of civilians; but we don't have policies on those issues. The policy is severely flawed. We don't have the mechanisms to prove or disprove claims of military service, so the policy is broken anyway. And if we keep the policy, we need to develop a method of processing users to prove their identities. And if we can do that, why are we investing all that into a frivulous policy instead of enhancing the wiki? If it doesn't help us edit or maintain the wiki, why are following it? --Scottie theNerd 02:38, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, if the policy does not help out whatsoever, why should we keep it? Surely, it's just pointless? It's always good to keep policies down to a minimum, as it gives a good impression to new users. Having policies on such trivial things like this one leaves a bad impression.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  02:44, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

We may not have the power to prove whether or not people are part of the armed forces, but at least the policy discourages lying by threatening a ban. And new users should understand the policy as the series' main characters are in the armed forces and we want to stop people from lying to sound cool. Poketape ^Talk 23:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

It's an empty threat because we can't prove who isn't in the armed forces, and I have not seen a solid rebuttal on my point about why we should be making an issue of users lying, let alone lying about military service. Why do we want to stop people "lying to look cool"? Does it stop people from editing effectively? Does it hinder the wiki in any way? --Scottie theNerd 00:55, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — I agree with everything Scottie has said. However, what the hell is wrong with wearing animal furs? /offtopic -- CoD addict · (talk) 02:56, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ask PETA. --Scottie theNerd 04:55, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

ConclusionEdit

Voting is here by closed and motion to Ablolish COD:AFP is carried, with the voting as follows: 16 Support votes, 5 neutral votes, 4 oppose votes. Voting has been open for 17 days and was closed on 17Aug2010 Talk 05:54, August 27, 2010 (UTC)