Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 6a

Wiki talk pages are not forums

Wiki talk pages, on big wikis like Wikipedia, are reserved solely for discussing changes to the article. Since Guild Wars wikis have traditionally been small, we've allowed off-topic discussion, as it was never a big problem - it never got in the way of anything. Now, however, several talk pages on this wiki have grown too big for their own good, and as such, their utility as a talk page has been compromised.
Here are a few key differences between discussion pages on a wiki and a forum...

1. Mediawiki technology simply cannot handle multiple people posting at once. This hints that talk pages weren't designed for a high rate of posting.
2. Mediawiki has terrible thread separation techniques. Outside of headers (== section title ==), which are eyesores if used heavily on a talk page, the only thing wikis have to separate threads is the colon indenting. This is a generally complicated technique that confuses even the most senior wiki editors; if a thread gets very long, figuring out who's talking to you and who you are addressing becomes impossible - especially if people go on tangents of their own that become 10+ colon indent fests.
3. Outside of technological barriers, the community of a forum and of a wiki are very different. Wikis are more trusting, and it's assumed that (almost) everyone exists for the betterment of the wiki. Guidelines and policies like AGF simply don't apply to forums, and the standard forum rules cannot be forced on every single wiki talk page. Some forum rules, and definitely some of the "understood" community actions, run directly counter to wiki goals and ideals. For one, mods are stricter; off-topic posts are usually edited/deleted, and trolling remarks/posts are similarly deleted and the poster banned. Due to the huge number of posts, forum mods don't have the time to sit down with each rule breaker and discuss it politely (as would be expected of a wiki sysop). They just ban and cite the stickied thread that says "RULES; READ BEFORE POSTING."

Now, a few talk pages have been used as forums - so much so that they can no longer function as a normal talk page. User talk:Isaiah Cartwright has become so full of spam that Izzy himself doesn't post. He's even given reasons as to why he doesn't read his wiki pages (and, believe it or not, it doesn't have to do with the terrible suggestions). He's very uncomfortable with wikis. Posting on one is pretty hard work, and there's a lot of wikicode to master before you can make a fluent post of any decent size. The high rate of posting induces edit conflicts, which, for Izzy, means he has to spend another few minutes hitting "refresh page" until he can ninja his comment through the spam. No - that shouldn't happen. He doesn't get paid to edit conflict with people all day.
Only a few more pages have this problem. User talk:Regina Buenaobra, Talk:Guild Wars 2, and Talk:Ursan Blessing. Hell, ursan blessing even has a notice telling people not to discuss skill balance on that talk page, yet nobody listens.
Anyway, I propose locking those pages down temporarily (protecting the page with edit=sysop) and educating posters that those talk pages are not forums. If any posts absolutely must go through, people can channel them through a sysop for the time being. After a few days of spam-free talk pages, the protection should drop and strict enforcement of no-forum-posting begins. Basically, talk on the article pages are restricted to improving the article, and posts on user talk pages are kept clean (i.e., if someone starts a section, treat it as a letter to the user; nobody posts to give their two cents, or the section ends up a pages-long debate about skill balance or game design that barely applies to the original topic). The end result should be an unprotected talk page that only receives comments that belong on said page.
I think it was ArenaNet's vision to use the wiki as a point of contact with the masses, as well as an encyclopedia. ANet made that decision in ignorance of what wikis can handle. Massive forum-like threads on talk pages hinder the utility of those pages, and as such, should be avoided. -Auron 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While don't necessarily agree on the supposed technical difficulties, I do agree that certain pages do need heavier moderation. I also suggest that the feedback pages be similarily protected/moderated. The disscussions there usually spiral into game balance disscussions which usually have nothing to do with the suggestion or the issue (Yes, I am guilty as well)

I'd also like to state that the presence of Anet staff has the effect of turning this wikiinto a forum/suggestion panel. There is nothing to be done about this, becuase as long as Izzy has a page here, people will complain/bitch/make smart suggestions. A lot of this traffic that, as auron stated, do not belong on a wiki, but as long as Devs are here, suggestions will also be here. If it is decided that the game balnce disscussions do not belong on a wiki, they can be moved elsewhere, like it was done with the builds section back in Gwiki.

Jusy throwing out ideas. -- NUKLEAR IIV 16:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agree that main space talk pages should not be allowed to be used for anything other then discussing the article. I believe that user talk pages should be able to be limited as you suggest, but that it should be at user request and needs to be up to the user to request enforcement if that is not followed [for example, per Regina's talk page: "This is a space primarily for discussing issues surrounding Guild Wars, such as community discussions." and I believe she should be allowed to use her talk page for that if she desires] . My understanding was that the ArenaNet namespace was added for all the forum type suggestions, discussions, etc. and that namespace will just need to continue to try to overcome the wiki limitations on do that as long as it exists. Anyway, you are proposing enforcement of something that mostly does not yet seem to exist as policy. -- Inspired to ____ 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with a few points by Inspired and Nuclear. As long as we have Devs here we will not get rid of the "forum" like discussions on their talk pages no matter how hard we try. Also, if the devs were not here, this wiki would not be as popular as it is now. Most of the Anet staff has intended it to be that way, and like Inspired said, '"This is a space primarily for discussing issues surrounding Guild Wars, such as community discussions." and I believe she should be allowed to use her talk page for that if she desires'. If the anet staff chooses to use there talk pages in such a way, we don't really have a right to stop that. I don't think that Regina would be very happy if her talk page was protected for a week (sure, she might be relieved about not seeing that yellow box) but, that being said, the main function of her talk page is to have contact with the players. I think that the mainspace talk should be restricted to just talk on how to improve the article (or possibly questions about the article); and skill pages should be able to talk about balance imo. --Shadowphoenix 16:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Inspired and SP, I believe Auron means that only the heavy-traffic, forum-type talk pages like the ones he linked above should be restricted to absolutely relevant 'letters' or ideas to improve the respective article. We don't have such a problem on other talk pages so there's not much of a point to extend that restriction to those -- only the extreme, 'forum' talk pages need it.

And yeah, the idea could very well work. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and "Anyway, you are proposing enforcement of something that mostly does not yet seem to exist as policy"? Yes, that's why it's a proposal. And something doesn't need to be policy to be enforced, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we DO have the same problems in almost every talk page (just check your talk-page historial for wub's, Brains), but in the end it is just reduced to a matter of numbers. Since at this point stablishing a "talk pages are for discussions related to documenting only" stance would be hard to implement (even if i would love to see it), i think Auron's proposal would be a good way to deal with the issue for a while, specially now that we are getting close to a big patch that may be the source for a lot of Ursan-like discussions in the wiki.--Fighterdoken 22:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar things happen on other talk pages, yes, but it's not on such a scale that it hinders improvement capabilities (e.g. article suggestions lost in skill balance essays), or hinders users from talking on their own talk page (e.g. Izzy). As I said before, this, at the moment, isn't a case of restricting every talk page, just the select few -- the talk pages of Ursan Blessing, Izzy, and Regina being the forerunners. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed mostly, except there's something strange about suggesting that there is problem when there clearly isn't even agreement over that and suggesting that we immediately begin enforcement to prevent this suggested problem from continuing. And of course the fact that this is coming from a bcrat doesn't help make it any less strange.

As far as it only affecting some pages. So? As I said before, Regina appears to be requesting random GW discussion on her talk page. Not sure about Izzy's page, but haven't seen any comments from him regarding the uses made of talk page (which I understand would be understandable), and have seen way too much that was close to or crossing NPA. Ursan and a couple other skill discussion pages clearly shouldn't be used as they are, especially easy to agree to when one realizes that there are suggestion pages specifically designed to handle most of the comments that are made on them. I would support and love to see any proposal that would allow such comments to be deleted or even moved to the appropriate place (if now allowed, let me know). -- Inspired to ____ 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Auron and Brains can do whatever the fuck they want on this wiki without regard to policy, etc. So what was the point of even posting any of this. From now on just please do wtf you were going to do anyway right off the bat. Thank You. -- Inspired to ____ 04:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... what? I just posted this to get feedback. Hell, I haven't even had the time to respond to any of the comments. What on earth are you going on about ignoring policy "etc?" -Auron 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for including you then. Brains protected the Ursan Blessing discussion page, Izzy's discussion page and I don't know what else if anything. Anyway, as I said above, it was a little weird the way this was stated coming from a bcrat and all, and if I wanted to give Brains the benefit of the doubt (which I'm not really inclined to) I could say that he probably took it as a bcrat call for sysop action. -- Inspired to ____ 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to continue doing this, I think it should be covered by the draft talk page guideline. -- Gordon Ecker 05:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys this is what happen in all wikis pages, Ive been in some pages as soon as I saw this post here, theres a game called Yu-gi-oh! and saw what they are doing to restrict pages from editing. All pages that that are related to something important like skills and functions are locked away from the public so no one can edit, even if they have errors, that page cannot be fixed or touched except the administrator who can lift the ban, of course this would be a good idea for you guys, might upset the old community but it will mitigate with time, but expect a lot of mail suggesting changes if by now Brains hasn't already started to ban people. Of course except the skill feedback page try to not ban the page since, as all humans are, we make errors and you must let at least this page for players to express any incorrect functions, bugs, plagiarism skills, exploit, etc. to be express, that way it will help the team identify problems with any kind of updates like the skill Consume Soul which two players have already reported bugged. In my part Im going to edit(in some form) almost all of my contributions(talk pages, ideas,etc.) that seems like a forum just to play it safe.--ShadowFog 06:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Brains should not have sysop-only protected a user talk page. Registered users can be dealt with in much less "brute force" ways, and rampaging around like a bull in a china shop is not the way to handle the situation. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this move. IMO decisions are always taken slowly here, so a sysop using what is basically his discretion (there's nothing on the bureaucrat description saying they have some kind of extra power regarding this stuff, so I don't see why someone said Brains acted like a bureaucrat) to enforce what IMO is a very good idea...That's perfectly fine to me. Erasculio 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Inspired: For something to be enforced, it does not need to be written and hard-coded in policy. By carrying out the protection (with what seems to be the mild agreement by those who responded), I did not violate policy. As Erasculio says, I used my discretion in a case of administrative action by carrying out a proposal that was, as I said, mildly agreed upon by those who responded. We are not restricted to policy, we are restricted somewhat by policy -- there is a difference, so please understand that.

Aiiane, had it not been specifically Izzy's talk page, I probably wouldn't have protected the talk page. He said himself that he doesn't find it easy to respond to comments on the wiki, especially if a section is covered in debates and walls of text and/or spam. Had I asked him on his talk page first, one can guarantee that that section, as all other sections on his talk page, would have been covered with walls of text and/or spam. He probably wouldn't be able to respond. Taking that into account, I carried out Auron's proposal; rather than spring a new plan of action which had not had feedback, I started the process that would be expected and was discussed without opposition at the very least.

The time that I chose to protect the two pages is also important -- what with yesterday's update, one can expect the two pages to quickly escalate in terms of forum-style debates, flaming, QQs and the usual stuff. This process may not have been put into policy yet, but I figured I'd use a little discretion and be bold. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this is my response to your being bold, namely, please don't do that again for user talk pages. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What you call bold...I would call pre-emptive enforcement at the least. You can talk about enforcement all you want but you are protecting pages because of what you decided some users were going to do. What next?...banning users because of what you decide they are going to do. How is anyone to argue with that, Brain's did it because in his infinite wisdom it was going to happen. If in fact there is justification and agreement for the type of discussion not being allowed as was proposed (and as I happen to agree with) that is far from making it acceptable for you to go around preventing abuse by protecting the page in advance, etc. Expecting something to happen no matter how probable and thus acting in advance to prevent it, rather then waiting for it to happen and then acting are two significantly different things. Before yesterday I thought there was agreement on which side of that line this wiki operated. Apparently, I was wrong. -- Inspired to ____ 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Chances of izzy's talk page getting spammed? Slim to none, obviously. Brains couldn't have had empirical evidence or anything, he must have just assumed it all. -Auron 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A large part of being a sysop is prevention. You see, it stops bad things from happening when you know it will happen, because it has been happening for donkeys' years. That's probably the agreement you mentioned. Also, I don't claim to have infinite wisdom, but I appreciate you telling me so. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Auron - I don't understand Inspired's point, as this wasn't really a guess that Isaiah's page was going to be spammed and so it would be better to act before such thing happened. Rather, Isaiah's page has been spammed since it was created, and corrective action was taken to solve that. If someone had done the same to Regina's page or Linsey's page, I would have been against it - both users have shown themselves capable and willing to manage their own userpages, so at most I think they should be asked about this. But Isaiah has already mentioned how he cannot use his talkpage for communication - and IMO, an user talkpage that does not allow said user to talk to others is a problem that must be corrected. Erasculio 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bans and page protections are almost always decided based on what we believe users are going to do, extrapolated from what they have done up to that point. We don't ban gibberbots as "punishment" for cluttering up pages, we do it so they can't do that anymore. When someone violates our rules and warnings don't work, we ban them to deter them from breaking rules anymore. Pages are protected when we expect it is far more likely that they will be hit by bad edits than good ones, usually because there have just been a number of attacks with no sign of stopping, and are unprotected when we believe the threat abated. Otherwise all we would do is hit undo and let them carry on their merry way. - Tanetris 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have seen the Ursan Blessing page for at least a few days after the update. The posting may have subsided. I realise that this would not be congruent with the ironfisted antiforum stance taken up by the sysops within 3 days of this section being posted but the reason for this stance is the fact that so many people discuss on those pages. Now that it isn't an issue for most who post, the article's talk page may have become inactive enough that you wouldn't think of it as an issue anymore.

Where's the warning and broad community concensus at such a critical time? I didn't know this section existed before the seemingly immediate action. I had never visited this page nor known what it was used for. Is my opinion worthless? According to Brains12 decisions for improvement are made through discussion. I could go on and on here, I'll try to be concise There's hardly any discussion on the skill feedback page at all. It is one person listing an opinion without acknowledging those of others'. One person can post one point over and over and a reader (ie Izzy, Lindsey or Regina) would be ignorant of the arguments against those points. Not many people posted on the discussion page and, if they did, they felt restricted to discussing the content of the feedback article (much as they were when discussing the skill on the skill's talkpage.) On the Ursan Blessing talk page, discussion was abundant to the point of redundancy. This is a good thing as it stimulates urgeancy and improves the game. It was even abundant on unrelated pages, which was a problem, but I'm sure it contributed to ArenaNet making a change. If this update is going to cause all the pro ursans to start doing what the rest did on those pages for a year, ALL of it is going to be on unrelated pages and that's 4 archives. Now every other page that could be a target for further discussion will have to be closely monitored. If you don't want the discussion of the Ursan Blessing subject on the discussion page for the skill, you could create an area for this sort of thing. You could reformat the feedback page. You could just have left the talk page as the place for all these sorts of discussions (which was not what was intended but what it was used for regardless) and emptied out the archive every once in a while. No one would have cared but policy.

To be honest, I'm not fussed about the lock down. I wasn't going to post there again; all I know is that making a decision without discussing it thoroughly is wrong. I hate to use another's words against him but Brains12 agrees according to him. Bad luck. My opinion may not hold much sway here but I want the discussions on Guild Wars Wiki to have some sort of effect on the game and not just the wiki itself. It may be different on the staff talkpages but restricting the outlet of opinions elsewhere doesn't help them do their jobs. Spawnlegacy 17:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"The posting may have subsided." -- all the evidence says otherwise; see Auron's post above about empirical evidence. Especially after the nerfing update, the QQing (for lack of a better word) would carry on. "ironfisted antiforum stance taken up by the sysops within 3 days" -- this has been a problem for a long time; it's only now that a solution has been proposed, and now (i.e. after this update) that it would be a good idea to prevent this problem from increasing. "you could create an area for this sort of thing" -- and so we have done: a whole namespace specifically for feedback. If discussion is going on in the wrong place, and it's harming that talk page, "it happens, so let it" isn't a very good thought process. Also, you claim that not many people use the feedback page -- if people were forced to move out of their Talk:Ursan Blessing QQ-comfort zone, they'd go to the next place that makes sense (and, funnily enough, was created for such a thing) -- the feedback pages. "emptied out the archive every once in a while" -- I don't see why the archives are a problem, and how emptying them out is going to help. "all I know is that making a decision without discussing it thoroughly is wrong" -- I've already given my reasoning for the be-boldness up above. "My opinion may not hold much sway here", "Is my opinion worthless?" -- self-degradation in an argument is never good, especially considering the opinions put forth aren't worthless; I've also explained this on my talk page: you're as much part of the community as I am, or anybody else is. "I want the discussions on Guild Wars Wiki to have some sort of effect on the game and not just the wiki itself" -- if anything, it's the ArenaNet namespace that will be more closely monitored by ArenaNet than an article's talk page. The namespace was created to hold and organise this kind of thing so ArenaNet teams can easily get the information and feedback they want without having to look on other pages. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Auron has a point, about izzy's page. whatever would make him a bit more active is awesome. however, quoting Auron for great justice; "You can't just let stupid people continue being stupid". now u want izzy's page to work the opposite. someone write something stupid and u aren't allowed to tell him it's stupid or to remove it before izzy see's it. here u can at least tell the guy it's retarded. --Cancer Angel 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"From now on, if you want to talk about this skill, please go to the talk page for Ursan Blessing.--Regina Buenaobra 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which can be found here.Stan Thompson talk 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)"

Seems like some people are under the impression that's where the discussion takes place. Why don't you inform Regina otherwise.

sysop discretion log Don't argue that this is a democracy and shut down my points in the same post. My self degradation was emphasising your lack of empathy for the casual wiki-user and your response did the same. From my perspective you are becoming increasingly incapable in your position. Screw the arguments Brains, run your wiki any damn way you want to. Spawnlegacy 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Seems like some people are under the impression that's where the discussion takes place." True. It does take place there; whether it belongs there is entirely a different matter, and is what this is supposed to fix. As Auron said, ArenaNet's decision to use the wiki as a forum was made in ignorance.

Again, I have to stress this very important point-- someone disagreeing with your argument does not mean they oppose you as a person. As Aiiane's userpage quotes, "Let me never fall into the trap of thinking that I am persecuted simply because I am disagreed with." -- Brains12 \ talk 13:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And what difference is disagreence and persecution on a Wiki? A place where the general user has no rights, while the sysops spin pointless discussion after pointless discussion with no results? --Readem 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, spare me the fallacies. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well I've already written 15 paragraphs on this, but ok. This is my letter to you guys, it contains some stuff that probably shouldn't be said publically and I really don't want to, but if it's the only way to get the point across, then fine.

I am going to preface this with the following statement: I do not write this with the intent of attacking anyone, nor getting anyone (especially Izzy) in trouble. There is stuff here that could get Izzy in trouble, but unfortunately I was not given a way to privately discuss it by Brains, and it is pretty much key to why I have argued this. If this information should be found to be deterimental to the people involved, I do ask that someone removes it, because I do not want to get Izzy or anyone related to this in trouble.

To continue my preface, I will say that I ask you to read this not as "deeply engraved" Wiki-folk. Sure, read it like that too, but I ask you read this as a person who loves this game, and as a fan too. I don't know where to really begin so...I guess I'll go with the start.

At the start, Stephen Isaiah Cartwright's talk page was used to discuss Skill Balancing, mechanics, and himself. Originally, the page was used greatly. In fact, Izzy supported discussion there, and originally liked it being used in that way. Top names such as Ensign, Farin, and Black all posted there, other top players used it, and yes, even the middle tier and low tier players used it. This was not a problem. He had no problems editing it at all. He did not ignore the talk page because of editing problems, he ignored the talk page because months later people realized they could personally attack, flame, troll, and disrupt the discussion and not be punished. There is easily well over 150+ cases of personal attacks, flames & trolls (directed towards other players and Izzy) and discussion disruption on all of his archives. Nothing was ever done about it. Yes, you can argue that no one reported it, but surely some Sysop or (again, I don't know the chain of command on this wiki, so anyone above/below with power) must of realized this page would be a hot issue? I never reported anything because, well, to be frank I am a newb at Wiki too. I don't see a report button anywhere, cause I'm used to forums, so I just go huh. I just figured out how the equal sign headers work today. I'm so happy! But I digress, since it was full of flames/spams/trolls/attacks, then it became hard for him to edit. So he made the skill feedback pages and abandoned his talk page.

The skill feedback pages lasted for a whole 2 weeks. He did a whole 2 suggestions based on the people there (Strip Enchantment is notable as being a skill changed from a skill feedback page suggestion), and then abandoned it because the people who trolled and flamed him moved there and ruined it. On top of this, it is split into 13 sections, each with 20+ issues, for well over 100+ issues that he has to keep track of. This means tabs, clicking, tons of editing on a ton of pages, no way of finding out if new changes are there without watching a shit load of pages. It is insane. He can't do it by himself, especially when you factor in he gave up a shit ton of his real life time just to do the last skill balance. And someone out there expects him to keep track of all of that? He doesn't have the time even if the skill feedback section wasn't completely terrible.

So, he abandoned that too. The thing is, you guys are moving people's stuff to two sections he doesn't read. He reads bits and peices of the skill feedback section every now and then, but he doesn't have the time to go through and comment or see everything and keep up to date on it. He hates it too, also partly because of what the users did to it. Long story short: it's too unwieldy, and that's what made the talk page good originally.

So, he abandoned the skill feedback. What did he do? He took a secret forum he made in late 2006, and invited a ton of the current players there so that he could finally have his discussion without idiots. The problem? You just eradicated the low and mid tier players from the discussion, and have a selective top tier group. This is where the questionable information comes in...

You guys keep saying "Wiki isn't a forum." No, it isn't. But, his talk page originally (when cleaned) wasn't treated as one. It was literally a place where he could talk to people about important stuff. That is great. Brains said to me on his talk page that they shouldn't treat it as a forum. Regina doesn't. Gaile didn't. Andrew Patrick didn't. Now do you notice a pattern there? It's the CR's who don't. In fact, Izzy is basically the only one who treats it as a forum (outside of Linsey Murdock and I guess Emily maybe, but even those two don't because they are fast on the issues (especially Linsey)).

Brains also said to me that they should just use a forum or make their own. That's great, they do use forums...the CR do. They could make their own, but...Izzy isn't allowed to use forums. This is the key reason why he used his talk page the way he did and liked it. NCSoft has corporate communication policies that forbid the developers from doing things like that for a multitude of reasons (according to him on vent chats and why the secret forum was made etc), and I am sure detracting from time on developing the projects is one of them. You might notice that no developer has ever posted on a fansite forum ever. It isn't because they don't want to, it's because they aren't allowed to. Technically, Izzy isn't even supposed to be using a secret forum to be talking to players. At all. He could (probably) get in very serious trouble for it I am sure if NCSoft found out and didn't approve. These corporate communication policies exist in Korea and they can't just be changed. They complicate beta testing and such policies, and if you ask me it is probably one of the key reasons why ArenaNet changed their beta policy for GW2 and made it closer to release. You can say I'm lying all I want, but Black (the guy who setup the secret forum in the first place) basically told everyone this and they mentioned it in a vent chat. There is reasons why Izzy doesn't just register for Guru and talk to people, or GWO, or any other forum, or make their own forum - and no it isn't because those forums suck, plus such policies aren't anything NEW or crazy. In fact, considering that NCSoft owns ArenaNet, this is a common policy amongst most similar business'.

The original talk page was a source of great communication, that let the low tier and mid tier players discuss with the top tier players, and Izzy actually used it for a reason: because it is a neccessary bridge of communication he needs with the fans. If Izzy didn't need some bridge of communication, he wouldn't have had the secret forum used to invite players. The CR can do a good job on the forums, but they sometimes fail in various ways and can't pass along the key competitive reason why something is the way it is. I am sure a Capcom CR could tell the Capcom devs that the players think Ryu/Ken's SRK is overpowered in SF4 (just a random example), but the CR's aren't going to be able to adequately explain things like iFrames and such as well as a player can. Some CR's sometimes fail to mention the full brunt of the competitive side completely. Some sides don't even have dedicated CR's right now.

All I am proposing, is you remove the silly protection, and help bring his talk page back into a state of usefulness. This is a lot of work. I keep saying it is. I am very willing to help out and monitor his page if you guys are willing to help give this a shot. What we need to do imo, is bring his talk page back to the way it was when it was first started. However, Izzy (like me lol) sucks at Wiki editing, so he needs a bit of help compared to say Emily Diehl or Regina.

Before I go into how I think this should be done, I am going to say that I am essentially begging you as a fan of the game and as a player to not remove this very neccessary form of communication to a great guy who needs it. The Skill Feedback page and the portal are places he does not check because he doesn't like them or the way they are done or managed. As a fan I can only beg you to let this talk page become useful again. There will always be that secret forum where about 200 top tier players get to talk to Izzy alone, and actually discuss stuff with him, but right now you have created a talk page where absolutely zero people of all skill levels can talk to Izzy on important matters. He doesn't care about skill feedback or the portal, so please don't use that as a reason here. As a player, I want to have a way to talk to him about stuff. As a player, if you're PvP or PvE, you should probably want that open too. As it stands, you have an update that just completely changed how GvG is played and you've blocked the only current way outside of completely annoying him in-game to literally talk to him and have him see it about what you think about it. Those 200 people can sure do a good job of it, but I don't completely believe those 200 people should be the sole people who get to talk to Izzy. Low tier and mid tier people can provide great things of discussion and give new viewpoints that the top tier at times may...well...be too blind to see or think about it.

What I think should be done with the page, is simple. Remove all flaming (to other users and to Izzy), all trolling, remove anything that goes away from the current thread of discussion. Give a warning to the user if it is a minor offense. Give a major warn to the user if it is a pretty big offense. If after a couple minor warns or doing it again after a major warn, block (or whatever the word for a temp ban on Wiki is) for some time. If there is a way to block them for a certain page that would be cool, but otherwise temp ban for like a week or something. Seriously. If you guys stay that strict and keep to it, no one will bother to ruin it. And that is good. Additionally, someone should make sure archives are kept going so it never gets that long ever again, archive answered issues, etc. Possibly make a section for "less important issues" and keep the front page to current issues.

Again, I beg you will see this as what it is, and don't just give me the run around. I don't think Wiki should be used as a forum either, and I hate how Izzy's talk page became just like you guys, but at its height Izzy's talk page wasn't a forum. It was a place where the fans and Izzy could have their neccessary form of communication. It was less of a forum and more of a place for open discussion about the game and issues pertaining to it. The reason the talk page worked so well before it got spammed/trolled/flamed, is because it is less work to follow. It is VERY easy to follow a clean talk page, because you only need 1 tab, 1 watch this, 1 click to edit it. Skill feedback is too unwieldy for one guy, and the portal is too cluttered with non-Izzy stuff for him to give a damn, and if anything is infinitely more cluttered (or will be if you added all the real issues to it) for Izzy than his archived bad talk pages were.

I will conclude by saying that I hope you sysops and such will realize that just because there were bad people who ruined it, doesn't mean it has to be that way. Just because there was bad people before, doesn't mean they have to plague the page again. You guys have the power to make sure that doesn't happen, and instead of ruining what was at the least a good way to talk to him (and about the only good way, again talking to him when he is in-game is basically interrupting his observing/playing PvP for testing), you and the rest of us who want to see the talk page be good can make it good like it used to be again.

So, I beg of you to think on it, and see it from this perspective, --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:DarkNecrid (talk). 15:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, only some comments - not on all sections though as I hate text walls...

1. See my last comment on User talk:Brains12#Sysops. You are allowed to answer here, I won't post there on that topic again
2. The reason why we do this is to restore the usability of Izzy's talk page. But that isn't possible with just allowing everyone to post there about skill discussions. Skill discussions involve a lot comments, and that lot increases with the number of users involved.
3. Keeping track of all comments/discussions on one talk page is impossible when you don't look at that page every minute 24/7. You would need to view diffs made within hours just to see what has updated since your last visit. Also there is a reason why forums are split up into multiple threads. In the same way we split up the discussions into multiple pages to make it possible to actually keep track of it.
4. I don't believe you that Izzy isn't allowed to comment in forums. Other way having a private forum and treating the wiki as a forum would just be stupid. Also if it would be like that, writing in public about that secret forum is even more stupid then...

poke | talk 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems a few people disagree with the action. Consider personally asking the devs what they think about the locks and which pages they use, how often and why. I'm sure, as sysops, you can coordinate a personal discussion with them (especially with the new rules it would seem.) You have to understand, unlike sysops, Devs may not be aware of all the wiki's pages, the rules or how to manipulate code. The feedback pages are simply confusing, even for them, I'm sure. They need to be simple and accessible enough for the first time poster. The skills' talk pages are fine, they just need to be cleaned up and maintained. I agree with Dark Necrid. You're just reducing the amount of work you'll have to do by settling for a subquality solution. Leave a note on top of the page saying, 'Keep your posts clean and concise; off topic responses, disruption and attacks will result in a ban.' but don't tell people what they can and can't write. It's like burning books, I'm sure Poke would understand. If its any consolation, I'll do my best to enforce it, if you'd only match my efforts.

That was about the Ursan Lock btw. I agree with most of the user's talk page restrictions if only you would make a less complex skill feedback area and maintain it. Spawnlegacy 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WHY MUST THIS SECTION BE SO FORUM-LIKE?! Seriously, reading this is hell. -- Armond Warblade 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"You're just reducing the amount of work you'll have to do by settling for a subquality solution." Actually, no. If anything, we're increasing the amount by having to watch and enforce those pages, whereas before those two pages in particular were quite unmanageable and so it wasn't watched as often. It's not a subquality solution, either -- it's simply putting things where they belong and cleaning the appropriate pages. You still have a place to discuss the skill, but now the Ursan Blessing's talk page will become useful for article discussion -- it's improving the state of things. The skill feedback section is hardly complicated either -- each skill has their own page, much like as before, but with clarified points and discussion going on the discussion pages. As with all wiki pages when one starts out using them, it might take a few postings to get used to.

DarkNecrid, you claim that the pages before were not moderated as well as they could be -- I agree. It was quite impossible to read everything on those two pages, and so there was less action than was needed. This is a solution to fix those past mistakes and to make those pages easily manageable, and by doing so ensure the pages can be used properly. You complain that nothing was done in the past; now that something is being done, surely that's a welcome improvement for you? -- Brains12 \ talk 20:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten this comment about ten times, and each time I've gone from having a incredibily low opinion of Sysops to pretty much not caring.

You guys don't want them to go forum like, then do it for all talk pages. Izzy allowed his page to grow so large, if you want to do something productive remove the flaming and insults on his page not kill it entirely.

[hugs] I think Brains explaination on Izzy page as to what it to happen on Izzy's talk page is, for want of a better term, 'weak', "One person starts a subject that belongs on this page. That's a subject as in a subject, a topic, a matter -- not necessarily just a new header. No-one else responds to that topic, except of course Izzy (or an admin, if necessary)." So, by that reasoning spewed out by Brains, only one person can say something to Izzy; so if one person thinks the update or skill change was great only one person can congraduate him at his job, for his effort etc [One person starts a subject ...No-one else responds to that topic] So we only have one "Great work" related topic, or multiple one paragraph "Great Work" since we can't merge them all into one.. [One person starts a subject ...No-one else responds to that topic] . Sysops, brilliant move, instead of trying to correct the issue of flaming and insult you just kill the page. [claps] My opinion. 000.00.00.00 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) First off, don't generalise every sysop in this. Just as all users are separate, all sysops are separate.

"You guys don't want them to go forum like, then do it for all talk pages." We don't experience the same problem on various other talk pages; they are still manageable, it's easy to commment and respond, and it can still house discussion about its respective article. Talk:Ursan Blessing and User talk:Isaiah Cartwright are out of hand, and I have explained before, are (or were) unmanageable. It's not a case of "if you do something, you have to do it for everything." I would argue that Izzy did not allow his talk page to grow so big. There is a difference between not stopping something, and explicitly allowing something. I think he also said that he finds it hard to respond to large, wiki 'threads'. When one generally finds something hard, one usually doesn't explicitly allow it, but instead may choose not to act for whatever reason (perhaps lack of knowledge or skills about wikis, which I think Izzy had also told us).

The no-response thing was intended to stop each section building up to a multitude of debates. It's a slippery slope, but one that's appeared and proved itself on that talk page for quite some time. The comment about needing multiple headers just because one can't respond to something is not what this proposal intended -- it's a misunderstanding of the situation.

Again, don't generalise every sysop. And no, this isn't about killing the page, it's about reviving the page. Reviving the page by putting it back to what it was intended for, rather than a free-for-all of comments and debates that, as I have said many times, made the page unmanageable. It's not the case that there's nowhere else to comment, because there happens to be such a place designed specifically for feedback. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, Brains, don't tell me what to do. Secondly, I will treat all Sysops the same, just as I will treat the adminstration of anything; wiki, forum, business. You either stand as one on all issues or not at all. A move was made, since no one has told you to hold back until consensus is reached with all administrators/Sysops or discussions such as this have reached a viable level, then I will generalise as much as I wish just as you seem to think you can tell me what to do in regards to generalisations of Sysops, such is my opinion. 000.00.00.00 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Secondly, I will treat all Sysops the same, just as I will treat the adminstration of anything; wiki, forum, business. You either stand as one on all issues or not at all." -- You don't understand the nature of a wiki then. This is not a bureaucracy, and there is not some chain of command that enforces a stance that all of the administration stands behind. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I get you now, I never really got how you reverted his change, then reverted it back, things become clearier. 000.00.00.00 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Solutions are better than mudslinging

Reading through the discussion above, I see a lot of people saying "this shouldn't have been done" or "that's bad", but at the same time I also see most of the people posting such comments also acknowledging that the current state of things like Izzy's talk page isn't good, either. So my question is, what workable solution do you think exists? Let's keep in mind the issues here:

• Comment Volume per Page

  A single page receiving heavy comment traffic in a single day is both hard to keep track of, and hard to edit (both due to increased loading/submission times, as well as a greatly increased chance of edit conflicts).

• "Trolling"

  I put this in quotes because individual opinion on what consists of trolling or flaming varies widely - some people consider any offhand negative comment to be trolling, others don't; some consider sarcasm to be trolling, others just consider it making a point. Having been modding GWO's CDF for quite some time now, I can say that it will always be tricky (nigh impossible) to have objective guidelines for what is or isn't trolling.

• Organizational

  As Auron mentioned in his original statement, the talk page format is very poor for maintaining an easily-followable path of conversation. Unlike forum software, it has no built-in tracking for what was responding to what, nor does it enforce chronological ordering or threading. This is bad enough with experienced wiki users, and only gets worse for those users who are new to the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So, having review those, I ask of you: what solution do you propose? I don't want to see comments here regarding the current action taken by sysops. Do that above. I don't want to see comments here regarding opinions of users or individuals or groups of users. I don't want to see comments of "I'm not sure, I'll think about it later." What I do want to see are thought-out proposals of a way to solve this issue that isn't objectionable, and that is feasible for implementation and enforcement by sysops. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the current solution is almost perfect. I think it's important to remember how Isaiah claimed that he doesn't post often on the wiki because he could not deal with what Aiiane classified above as the organizational stuff - in other words, if we follow what Isaiah said, the main problem isn't the "trolling", but rather how massively long discussions between contributors filled with confusing indentation in the wiki software are confusing to follow.

The solution, then, would be IMO to remove the discussion between contributors. Like I mentioned elsewhere, if an user says "Good job!" and another replies with "Cool update!"...I think that's ok, as the second user is not really discussing with (or talking to or replying to) the first user. If a third person began a long discussion about why he thought the update was bad, and then half a dozen users started a long discussion about why some think the update was good and the update was bad...Then IMO we would be back to the same problem we have now.

That's already more or less what we have today. IMO, until this point, I think everything in there should be allowed. Only this comment should have been removed - not because I would have anything against DN (of course I don't), but rather because that last comment was replying to something Zero said, as opposed to being a comment for Isaiah.

(For the records, it was mentioned above that some users believe the skill feedback pages share many of the problems Isaiah's page used to have - it would be useless to make comments there as no one would read them, given the problems these pages have. While I don't think the skill feedback pages - or everything else within the "Suggestions" section of the Arena Net portal - are impossibly confusing to be read, I can't help but to question a bit if they are worth keeping at all. Is anyone from Arena Net reading them? Do we have a way of knowing if anyone reads them without making Arena Net feel like we're asking if they're ignoring their playerbase? ) Erasculio 00:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in on the creation of the ArenaNet namespace, but have been told that the ANet management team were consulted about it and felt it was a good idea to move all suggestions to a central location. From that we have to AGF that they are then reading them. -- Wyn 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was also told more often (ie 2 times to 0 times) that they were reading the Ursan Blessing talk page. I suggest that you change the format of the skill feedback section. This would obviously make the article less organised but it would be much easier to navigate. You see, when you open those pages you get [insert name]'S ISSUE in BIG TYPE and, on something controversial, you scroll down and the names are all you see. It is impossible for you to skim. The names are NOT what is important. The format should be [PROBLEM -> solutions -> sign] not [SIGN -> problem -> solutions] That should go without saying. You should allow people to add their own solutions to the same problem to highlight which aspects are controversial without cluttering up the page with headers. You should also leave a note on both the UB talk page and feedback talk page to discuss whatever you want of the Ursan Blessing subject on the feedback discussion so people know there is a place for things like pride rants and debates and don't take the discussion to the devs.

Izzy's page is fine now. It was always frustrating to have people feel they're the expert on the subject when they're on the page of the expert. You just need to add a line, 'you can talk to Izzy under the same header but if you wish to talk amongst yourselves take it to your own talk pages or the discussion will be removed.' People are still confused and this: "Isaiah Cartwright gives players the chance to discuss skill balance issues on his talk page or on ArenaNet:Skill feedback" doesn't help. Oh and stop referring to ArenaNet:Portal as Arenanet Namespace and don't make the miscellaneous feedback area look skill related for the love of god. Spawnlegacy 05:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We had one of those notices. It didn't work. I wouldn't mind re-adding it, but it alone isn't enough to keep people from spamming the page.

I don't mind your suggestion for the feedback pages. It's how it is now because multiple people can have issues with one skill. Instead of listing "Problem; skill sucks too much to use" four or five times, they (whoever set the section up) decided to use names in the header instead of issues. You can definitely start to get that changed if you bring it up over there.

And... the portal is the anet namespace :< -Auron 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To support Wyn's comment please remember that we didn't start the suggestion pages. All of them were created by ANet members before (most of them by Gaile and the skill suggestions by Izzy as they are now); when we came up with the ArenaNet namespace, ANet supported that idea to centralize all those suggestions which were laying on user-subpages before.

For suggestions I think it is really important to have them centralized in a small room instead of spread through the whole wiki. When a new balance update comes out, you always can see topic created on the update's talk page (which is fine imo, as I see the update pages as some kind of ArenaNet-namespace page - see also my comments on that when we created the namespace - and as the comments also belong directly to that), there are also comments created on Talk:Game updates (which is bad as they are split from the update page), sometimes in the suggestion pages (which is how it should be) and of course on many skill's talk pages (which should be avoided). I think we can all agree that - assumed that we have a space for suggestions that is easy to use for editors - we want to have the skill's talk pages clean from skill discussions apart from general things like trivia; so the problem is only to provide a usable suggestion space.

For that I have to say first, that I, in general, dislike the system of creating one subpage for each issue. I said that before on ArenaNet talk:Portal, but people seem to kinda like that for some strange reasons. Especially for normal suggestions it requires a lot work to be clean duplicates and especially because of merging problems (GFDL) I try to avoid doing anything there (this includes deleting any suggestion page). For the skill suggestion page, I don't have a problem with creating one subpage for each skill as that involves a fixed number of subpages and maybe even maintains the feeling of discussing directly on the skill's talk page. However, and there I have to agree with Spawnlegacy, the template with the "XY's issue" and discussion goes on the talk page is a really bad idea. It somehow gives the idea that only the main pages are important, as they keep "all" ideas in a short room, but not the discussions. And even if one's suggestion was flamed to death on the talk page (with valid arguments), the basic (bad) idea remains on the main page, easy readable for developers and might be the only way there how they gather information (?). Also it splits up discussions which should belong together. For example there is a "XY's issue" which is discussed and improved, then someone comes up with a minor change to that suggestion and creates a new header on the main page with a new discussion section on the talk page - so the people discussing that from the beginning now are separated into two discussions.

What I want to say is that I while having one page per skill, I would rather have discussions merged with the actual suggestions on one page. If this is the talk page or the main page doesn't matter; but we might could include the current skill page on the main page so that people can go on that page to remember what the skill does - or we could even keep track of previous balance updates that affected that skill.

For Izzy's page I would like to keep off all those discussions that belong to another page, including game update discussions or "thanks" (which both belong to the update's page) and skill discussions (obviously). Also I think it is important that we make the least possible changes when removing those comments to not add the same number of changes with administrative actions.

That is all for now, might add something else later. poke | talk 07:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, telling Izzy good job on the update is something that belongs there when what everyone is saying good job to is the skill balance that affected PvE and PvP, not the update as the whole, y'know? I respectfully doubt anyone on that page right now is saying good job for bug fixes or whatever, but for changing the skills the way he specifically did. The same people say good job to Linsey Murdock, but they are saying it for the stuff she did. People say good job to Regina, and they are saying it for the stuff she did. As for A's original thing, it is rather simple in implementation imo. Archive old stuff (I don't know the current rules on archives on this wiki and can't find it) but I think choosing a point in time, say week old stuff all be archived. Someone will have to do this for Izzy, I am sure. For bad stuff, just have rules against anything that is attacking another user, not about the current discussion, incites another user in any way. You should go for a far more stricter definition of trolling etc here, in order to make sure discussion remains on topic at all times, and make sure to punish user's for breaking it obv. As for organization, I know how annoying that can get. I've seen people add onto stuff from like halfway up the page from the bottom and that would basically be the equivalent of posting a post in between 2 previously made posts on a forum. o_O I don't have a good solution for that, but I think a good thing would be to ask people to add to the bottom of the discussion on that page? That seems a bit weird, but there is logical things you can use to explain it. Let's say 4 people are discussing the new GvG changes (which I remind people need to be discussed in a place where he can see it and add to it) and someone says something confusing. Rather than editing in below the guy, that person can just reword it as a new thing at the bottom, and mention the guy. The problem with organization isn't that the users don't get it, but rather that its confusing for Izzy (imo anyways, maybe it is confusing for users), so I don't see this as being a problem for user discussion.

I think whatever is done, I will be okay with it as long as the fans can actually talk to Izzy about not just his User page, but about skills and GvG discussion. Skill feedback would still be there, so it should probably be for important skill issues/discussion so that they can be seen by Izzy quickly without having to burrow through a ton of links in Skill Feedback. (ie: the Bodyguard only having Oath of Healing, Xinrae's Weapon crashing GvG matches (yes, it's a bug, but I think getting it to the most people is more effective, Incendiary Arrows being retarded awesome, etc)), GvG discussion (discussion about new mechanics), etc. I think if the rules against flaming/trolling are enforced enough to keep the discussion on topic, you could have a pretty damn awesome page. More discussion-esque pages, can work. If you look at Regina's talk page, it works! Because she keeps it clean. If we can keep Izzy's page clean, and more inviting, I am sure it can work too.

Also, a minor request, but someone should probably unarchive the Izzy Status from his last archive, imo. (just a minor quip) DarkNecrid 12:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, IMO - a person's concern will be important for that person, so the idea that only important discussions should go on Isaiah's page is something too subjective to work. I think one important point is how (in theory) something does not have to be in Isaiah's page for he to read it - Arena Net is supposed to be reading all the Arena Net section, so a discussion about how Xinrae is crashing the game ought to be read, even if it's deep within the skill feedback subsection.

My concern is if Arena Net is using that section or not - and I mean this not in an "assume bad faith" way (that they would be just allowing the section to rot while pretending they're reading it), but rather in that we don't know if the current format is a good one, from Arena Net's point of view, or not. If, for example, Isaiah thought the current format is too confusing, maybe he would not read it - not because he wouldn't want to or because he would be willing to deceive players, but rather because the format would not work. Isaiah has always been changing his feedback system - from making different subpages in which to discuss Heroes' Ascent changes (he did some of those back then), to the oldest skill feedback system to the last system used to the current one - but we don't know if he thinks the current system is easy enough to understand or not.

That's one of the reasons why I like the current skill feedback system - there's a (usually very long) discussion about each proposed change, but also a small list of bullet points allowing people to quick understand what is being talked about. This kind of summary is IMO needed for something as massive as skill feedback, even feedback for Arena Net as a whole.

(IMO, the wiki isn't a good place for suggestions. If we are to keep these suggestions here, I think we could use a vetting system so Isaiah/Arena Net has at least some idea if the suggestion is viable or not. The problem, of course, is who would be responsible for said system, and the huge amount of work such system would take to be created.) Erasculio 12:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point about the important stuff. The thing is, is I am pretty sure (like I said) Izzy still reads it, just very rarely, because...there's too much! I mean, I doubt any of us would honestly want to open up the same 100+ tabs every day looking for new changes. The thing is, a lot of the stuff in the skill feedback is not really needed or not being looked at at all because of various reasons, so it's just bloated. I wish there was a reliable way to sorta allow it on his talk page, and then move it to skill feedback so he can see it and possibly respond to the issue BEFORE it gets thrown into the sea (so to speak), but I dunno about it.(To clarify, I have heard that he very rarely checks it, but this was like, nearly 2 months ago. He has stopped responding all together on that section, and there has ever been 2 changes made in response to it and that was a hella long time ago near its creation, so take that for what you will.) DarkNecrid 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Well...I have the feeling the most urgent issues are those introduced in the latest update. It used to be that whenever a new update was released, a new discussion page for it would be created, with a red box in Isaiah's talk page (as seen here) directing users to said feedback page (here's one of those update discussion pages). Maybe we could bring that back, in a similar way:

• Always, when a new update is released, people like to discuss the changes. Like poke said above, currently such discussion happens on that update's talk page, but maybe we could create a new subsection within the Arena Net section specifically to discuss balance updates.
• Said discussion pages would be within the feedback section, using the same format as the old update feedback pages (as I linked above). They would be the place to discuss the changes brought by that update, even though we would have some redudancy with other feedback pages.
• The most recent of such update discussion pages would be linked at the top of Isaiah's talk page, in the same red box that used to be in his page whenever an update was released.

This way, urgent issues would be visible from Isaiah's talk page, so the community and Isaiah know they're being discussed and have easy access to them, without cluttering Isaiah's page.

(See, this is one example of how the wiki cannot hold forum-like discussions: my entry above was a direct reply to DN's comment, so it's up here, but Nuklear's coment below was made before this, yet it was little to do with what I'm comenting, so here comes indent madness...) Erasculio 13:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't read the entire wall of text above me, I think the problem comes from "Anet" namespace looking (and acting) too much like a forum. The protection was, I believe, a temporary solution, becuase, as I have stated earlier, the ANet namespace will always be a forum. I predict that in, say, 2 or 3 weeks, things will be "bussiness as usual" for the trollers.

(Opening a gigantic paranthesis here, I'd like to compare ANet namspace with the Builds namespace. Think about it - back in Gwiki, we had thousands of of idiotic builds submitted every damned day - and most of it got trashed in miliseconds. The entire weight of the idiocity of it all, plus the fact it was absolutely no use to anyone got that section deleted. Right now, ANET namespace has been eerily repeating this bit of history. The feedback pages are rarely moderated, and most of the ill-informed suggestions and Trollish comments are just let be. It is no use to Izzy, due to the immense pile of shit and nonsense he has to wade through to get anything worth his time at all. And, just like the builds section, the feedback pages cannot be dealt with conventional means and old ways.)

How do we solve this? I say if it acts too much like a forum, treat it like a fucking forum. Izzy's talkpage, for one, should be heaviliy monitored and moderated, and all of the inane trolling should be deleted by someone in charge. That entire section has a lot of potential - but the current amount of moderation there is simply nowhere near enough. Izzy's talkpage should be treated like the talkpage of a game developer, instead, it is treated like an urban garbage dump. People should be forced to take their rants and trolling elsewhere.

Second, the amount of moderation has to be greatly increased in the feedback pages. Those pages are meant for serious discussion about game balance, and some of the crap that turns up there greatly devaules it. Izzy doesn't bother with that page, and, personally, I wouldn't want to wade through a lake of shit, just to find a quarter or two. He does what any sensible person does - leaves it be. We need to clean out the crap, the trolling, and immature suggestions; and bring the good ones to his talkpage - the current format, while keeps it in order, is really difficult to browse through a casual wiki-er, and I haven't seen izzy as a hardcore wiki man.

Furthermore, I think it would be beneficial to everyone if we had a group of admins dedicated for the mederation of these pages. Tbh, I don't think any of the current admin staff would like to wade through the that shithole as it is.

I'm going to emphasize this one last time for tl;dr'ers: WE NEED MORE ENFORCEMENT ON THE FEEDBACK PAGES. They act too much like a forum to do otherwise. -- NUKLEAR IIV 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing a couple of common points here. First is the point that some people feel that by having access to discuss things with Izzy on his talk page, they have a personal relationship with him, and they feel this has been stripped away. It hasn't, it's just been made so that the comments that are on Izzy's talk page are actually personal comments, and do not involve skills, game balance, game mechanics. Second, because you don't see any direct feedback from ANet on the skill pages, you are assuming they aren't being read. That is the wrong attitude to take, as we have an Assume Good Faith policy here. It should not only apply to the addition of content, but to the idea that people (ANet employees, wiki admins) are in fact doing their job. Third, people don't feel that there is enough monitoring/moderation (for lack of a better word) on both Izzy's page and the Feedback pages. There isn't, and the only way to change that is for people to GET INVOLVED. Rather than sitting here (or on any other of the dozen pages this is being discussed) bemoaning the fact that 7 active, and 5 semi-active sysops aren't doing their job, submit an RfA and become part of the solution. -- Wyn 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the first to admit, from an admin point of view, I keep well away from Izzy's talk page. It is a mess of flaming, baiting, with very little useful information, and with current policies it is very hard to moderate. If a policy or guideline was established where with regards to izzy's talk page only useful content is kept, all other verbal diarrhoea is removed and the posters warned, warned again and banned if they continue. Then I would probably monitor it more. --Lemming 13:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wyn, I don't think it's that simple. This discussion became more heated when a sysop acted to moderate more Isaiah's page and some users questioned his actions - in other words, without the community making a decision, more people becoming sysops would not solve the issue. And I don't think anyone has stated that Arena Net does not read the skill feedback pages because they do not reply there - rather that we don't know if Arena Net reads the skill feedback pages because they're confusing, too long and too filled with long discussions that the wiki can't really handle well. Erasculio 13:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"I'm seeing a couple of common points here. First is the point that some people feel that by having access to discuss things with Izzy on his talk page, they have a personal relationship with him, and they feel this has been stripped away." It isn't about a personal relationship, it is about having a link to the man who does this stuff in an easily viewable place he will want to read, to me anyways, especially when the only other option is places he doesn't read and in-game when he's doing his job (and is doing work so he can't discuss stuff)

"It hasn't, it's just been made so that the comments that are on Izzy's talk page are actually personal comments, and do not involve skills, game balance, game mechanics." And sent to places he doesn't read for the same reason he doesn't really read his talk page now.

"Second, because you don't see any direct feedback from ANet on the skill pages, you are assuming they aren't being read." He has told a lot of the people he talks to often that he doesn't read his talk page or the skill feedback (except very very rarely) which is the reason he had a secret forum made in the first place: a place where he can discuss without people trolling him every 5 minutes and not get flamed out the rear end..

"It should not only apply to the addition of content, but to the idea that people (ANet employees, wiki admins) are in fact doing their job. Third, people don't feel that there is enough monitoring/moderation (for lack of a better word) on both Izzy's page and the Feedback pages. There isn't, and the only way to change that is for people to GET INVOLVED. Rather than sitting here (or on any other of the dozen pages this is being discussed) bemoaning the fact that 7 active, and 5 semi-active sysops aren't doing their job, submit an RfA and become part of the solution. " I have no clue what that is, if you are willing to give me some information etc, I would love to do whatever I can to help. Just my take. :) DarkNecrid 14:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

DarkNekrid, you say that Izzy does not read his talk page. Why, then, do you think that posting on his talk page will mean he reads things? Your first paragraph contradicts with the rest of your comment.

As to the suggestion for how to fix this, I agree with Erasculio -- the proposal given by Auron takes into account the technical problems of commenting by reducing the amount of traffic; reduces the amount of text on the page; and will mean it is easier for trolling and policy violations to be enforced by keeping things manageable. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Uhm, I never said that him posting on his talk page means he reads it??? Where the hell did you get that from! There are several players who talk to him on a daily basis (hourly) and know more about him than a lot of you or even I do. They know what he reads and what he doesn't and are generally nice and talk to him as a person not as a developer. There are people who know information, such as what the update was weeks before it was done. They know if he is reading his talk page or not, and while he might occasionally scavange through it, and skill feedback, he does not read it to any great length or post there anymore for the reasons stated. Compare this to how he used to be very active there when it was clean. Basically, what I'm trying to say (this is the tl;dr version) is you can keep ferreting information off to various places, and all that is going to do is confuse Izzy even more (more places to occasionally check), make more places that don't get read hardly ever, and give users more places to flame and troll him. The trouble users will follow wherever you move that information (even if they don't like you've closed off a previous avenue), and the instant they do, Izzy won't even bother with it. No one wants to be somewhere where they are ridiculed every single waking moment of every single day. Instead of running around in circles, you should just make the talk page GOOD again. The more places you open up and the more places you throw information to, the harder you are making it on yourselves & Izzy to control the situation, since you're giving yourselves more burning builds to extinguish (so to speak). Why make a ton of burning buildings that no one really likes? Nuclear posts often on Izzy's talk page, and somehow I really doubt he likes it at all. One could ask why you would be such a masochist, but I bet he will tell you the reason he posts there is because Izzy's talk page can still be a very useful place. Instead of having a ton of buildings that are all burning with trolls and flames, why not make one building that is extinquished often? It's easier to track, easier to read, easier to take care of and take action against, and can give a place for the low/mid/ and top tier players to discuss with Izzy, without it being ruined by trolls and flames 24/7. DarkNecrid 14:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your request to know what an RfA is, see Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship-- Wyn 14:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! All I have to say Brains, is I very much so do get your reasoning why you don't want to put the talk page back the way it was (really, I do...a part of me even agrees with it fully.). But all I have to say, is how long does this have to go on, this circle of trolls and flamers and moving information everywhere? You can ferry the info off to the Anet portal and skill feedback places, and when all the people who flames and trolled Izzys page moves there, then what? (and they've already been there and trolled there) Are we going to move it somewhere else? Then somewhere else? Then somewhere else? With enough planning and management we can make this work again as one page, and get rid of the trolls and flames as best as we can as a community. Izzy has shown time and time again from long ago that he has no problem with that type of discussion on his page, until he gets pushed away from the offensive content belittling him and other players on his page. You can say that we'll just remove the trollers and flamers from those places, but now you've got 3 places to watch extensively, compared to 1 and 1/2th (skill feedback if it stays around). I really harbor no doubts that if the community can come together to figure out a way to make his talk page better and more inviting, that it will be a very good page again. If you show troller and flamers that they are not welcome there, and to what extent they are not welcome there, they will stop after some time. Sure, you'll get the odd troll or flame, but those are much easier to extinquish than trolls and flames out the rear end on 3 different setups, no? DarkNecrid 14:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reformat for feedback pages? Get on board! I'm thinking the crappiness of feedback pages is the source of this Spartan madness. Clean them up, make them more attractive to use and people + devs will be more likely to do so. Less for the sysops to moderate and less edit conflicts on talk pages. Tell us what you think and criticise as much as you need. Spawnlegacy 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

@DarkNecrid: Your long comments that raise the same points again and again is exactly the problem that has plagued those talk pages (also, try to avoid dragging in the skill feedback pages again - they are off-topic). You also seem to not realise that when this wiki first started, very few people knew that Izzy had a page here. Now? I think you don't understand just how many users, like you, want to be a little more personal with Izzy. Going back to a single page will simply not work, even if we start becoming more draconian (ever tried suggesting to forums to merge all their threads into one?). Your suggestions have merit but moderating talk pages that gets changed by a different user every couple of minutes is not as simple as you think - it certainly is nothing like moderating a forum - but yes, it has merit and similarity with Auron's suggestion. -- ab.er.rant 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye sir, I know it is the problem that plagued those talk pages, I try to reword it in ways that get the same point across but in different ways because I feel maybe people aren't understanding the crux of what I am saying, which is mostly why I am doing it for this important issue. To me (and others), it isn't necessarily about being personal with Izzy. In fact, that name section I made is the first "personal" thing I've ever asked him. If I want to be more personal with Izzy, I know his myspace, etc. It's more about discussing important issues with Izzy, because the man can't do it all by himself! The difference here is that while a single forum on a forum doesn't work, this isn't a forum. Izzy originally had no problems with it being used the way it was, it just became too cluttered - not from multiple types of topics (as on a forum multiple forums would be needed for), but because the spam, trolls, and flames became too much, which is why I think that forum comparison is not an apt one. I'm not trying to annoy anyone or make it about the skill feedback pages, but 3+ places to manage is very very hard, even if you have a lot of users moderating each place. Especially with how bad Izzy's pages can get. I honestly do not think you'd have much problem with one page except at the very beginning. At the beginning of such a system you will have people who try to challenge it in the most volatile way possible: spamming, flaming, trolling, etc as hard as they possibly can. But when they see they ARE being punished, a lot of those people will back away faster than you can say "moo." DarkNecrid 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We get the point, but we (some) may just disagree, which is why we (again, some) argue and refute those points. (And again, I notice you're reposting the same point.) -- Brains12 \ talk 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeh sorry, I'll stop posting...er...talking. I guess. ^^; DarkNecrid 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Solutions - take two

A wiki is simply not a forum. Regardless of how we may try to make it seem like a forum, it is simply not a forum. How we move on from here depends on where we want to move to.

Consensus-supported:

1. Izzy's talk page and talk pages like Ursan Blessing are getting out of hand.
2. Due to the frequency and volume of changes/users, admins are unable to adequately monitor and manage them.
3. We don't know what ArenaNet staff members want.

For me, I believe that this wiki is first and foremost a Guild Wars encyclopedia. The discussion on the state of the game and feedback/suggestions to ArenaNet are secondary, even to the point of triviality (and I acknowledge that many people think otherwise, so tell me so if you must). My opinion is that they bear little importance to what Guild Wars is. Feedback gathering is the job of ArenaNet employees, not wiki users and GW players. We should help them, not do it for them (see point 3 above).

I am in support of either of the following:

1. A hard-line stand:
   • On talk pages that we, by consensus, deem to be "highly volatile", admins are to border on being draconian. On those pages, normal talk page rules are sidelined in favor of maintaining decorum and focus.
   • Sysops are given discretion to remove whatever they deem to be flaming, trolling, or indirectly attacking another person.
   • Off-topic or unrelated responses are to be moved to the talk page of whoever started it. Remove if trivial.
   • Warnings are recommended but not required. Severe incidents mandate immediate blocks.
2. We adopt a hands-free stand:
   • The organisation and management of ArenaNet feedback pages shall be dictated and done by ArenaNet, supported by wiki users.
   • Standard policies are sidelined in favor of ArenaNet rules and needs; admin discretion encouraged with precedence to the latter.
   • Feedback pages that are not actively considered "in use" by ArenaNet are to be deleted.

The first option is since we all acknowledge that there is a problem with users being too free with their comments, conventional wiki responses and wiki etiquette will simply fail to work; a hard response is unavoidable (and seems to have garnered some support from most of the users that responded above).

The second option, I'm basically saying we don't care about them and leave them be, unless ArenaNet specifically wants us to help them. So far, I haven't seen much from them saying how useful they're all turning out to be, and how much of those feedback actually made it into the game or garnered any response from them. (Truthfully, I'd rather just delete it all and replace it with a "Try posting it on a fan forum"). -- ab.er.rant 16:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well summarised and suggested, and I agree with your points. I'm in favour of the first solution; unless ArenaNet actively give their opinions, feedback on feedback, suggestions and help on enforcement (whether by actively enforcing or contributing to policy), it'll never work. Considering their stance that Guild Wars 2 takes precedence over Guild Wars and the wiki isn't their place to 'manage', it seems even more apparent that solution two won't work. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Frankly, I like the "third" option best ("Try posting it on a fan forum"). That obviously won't work. Realistically, the second route is probably best. This is an encyclopedia of Guild Wars-related information. Not a vehicle to communicate with Anet. The feedback pages, as it appears, have achieved little to nothing in the way of in-game changes. We can let Anet deal with and sort through the Anet namespace if they wish. We'll help if (and when) called upon to do X, Y, and Z. The first approach simply won't work. Wiki users would simply set that namespace aside and let it be whatever it turns out to be (nothing good, likely). Calor 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support any approach to resolve this situation and reduce the volume of useless talk page posting. I fully agree that mostly posting feedback here has little to no actual effect. Any feedback given here has probably been given on a fan forum too, and arenanet has stated that they read fan forums (like guru etc) to get an idea of player feedback. This renders any feedback here redundant and unnecessary and for the most part just unnecessarily increases admin workload. --Lemming 17:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Solution two won't work without ANet actively doing something. As long as they won't help us to regulate "their namespace" it is impossible to solve other problems like the Ursan talk page or Izzy's.

As it is now, I would prefer option 1, in full agreement with Pling and aberrant. poke | talk 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with option "three": "Try posting it on a fan forum". There it's much more likely Arena Net will even find it, not to mention actually bother to read it, while here we have to overcompartmentalize stuff just to make it somewhat legible.

On Isaiah's talk page, I think aberrant's solution 1 could work, as long as...

• Sysops still remove discussions between users, like Brains began doing. Users discussing among themselves really clutter that page, IMO.
• Regardless if users are warned or not, providing them with the proper link where to post what they wanted to say would be good, at least in the beginning of this change, I think.
• The sysops actually agree to do that. It's going to give them considerably more work to do.
• We try to contact Arena Net and at least ask them about some of this stuff. Ideally we would ask Isaiah about how we should deal with his userpage, but failing that I think we could ask Regina to see the new system and get to learn if she thinks it's working. This is mostly because if we have all this work and Isaiah simply does not plan to read his userpage at all...IMO, it would be just a big waste of effort. Erasculio 17:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For "solution three": "[19:15] <poke> As long as we have developers on the wiki, we will never get away from suggestions [19:15] <Calor> Poke: The sad truth. [19:15] <poke> And I prefer having a namespace that we can administrate (really administrate as in solution #1) and keeping the comments away from the "good" content than having it all mixed up (Talk:Ursan Blessing)"

Solution one requires actually that the sysops are given discretion, so that we actually can enforce something on those pages without having to discuss it with every user that doesn't feel like it. If that is possible, I could really see a working suggestion area. For the links, I think it isn't a problem to add links to the correct location in the edit summary, I can also see sysops bothering to move comments (which requires users to not argue about that and to not start a revert war with that admin). poke | talk 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Erasculio, I agree with everything except for your first bullet point. I think limited discussion between users can and does work, should it be done in a way that doesn't devolve the actual discussion. I think a really good example is on Team Quitter, people are discussing the current GvG changes, and one of the members suggested a change, but one of the other members who suggested an alternate change earlier in the topic agreed with this other's users idea and gave reasons why. I think as long as it isn't a couple users arguing back and forth the same points with no advancement to the discussion that is ok. This type of discussion is I guess kinda rare, and I think if any point is shown as being slightly devolving the discussion or the heart of the issue it be actioned, but if some actual good spirited discussion that is advancing and changing minds is going on, it should be kept IMHO. Regardless, I am favor of route 1 if it means actual good discussion (between good members and Izzy who do not have a malicious intent to devolve the discussion or attack the user on his own page or other users) and ideas can be talked about without the page being devolved by spammers and flamers and trolls (the page's greatest problem). I really do hope that some kind of user discussion will be able to take place, rather than just having it locked down now. I personally believe though in this "signing" for this route, that if the discussion is advancing something (even if it is between users), it should be allowed as long as it is not devaluing the discussion at hand, rather than removed. The only problem with route 3, is that even the CR can't catch everything, there is limited PvP CRing (Izzy's main focus) right now, it's hard to really see and know what the CR see and pass on to him, and the main point of a suggestion (the heart of the issue) on a forum can get lost or derailed by posters, just as a suggestion on Wiki on Izzy's talk page was getting cluttered by flames/trolls/spam. DarkNecrid 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Due to the frequency and volume of changes/users, admins are unable to adequately monitor and manage them." Unfortunately, this remains a problem in your scenario. It's not just the type of comments (i.e. flaming/trolling), but the number and size of comments too. Also, Team Quitter happens to be a forum, so something happening successfully there isn't very relevant. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] /agreed sysops should have discretion to move comments to their proper places or remove them if deemed trollage. Admins need to do some positive work however, to encourage (not only restrict) users to enforce the new rules onto themselves. ie feedback proposal + noticeable, positive signage and links on respective pages I'm sure Izzy will make a return to his userpage soon enough and when he does he'll get a pleasant surprise at how orderly it has become. He might even feel welcome enough to contribute if we can just clean this mess up. Afterall this discussion should not be about 'to what degree is ANet at fault?' 'Is it really our responsibility?' and 'Do we want them here?'

In short; "clean up" Izzy's page on a regular basis, replace the warning message from multiple users with something more definitive, provide more prominent links to the feedback area and make that area easier and more efficient to use. -- Spawnlegacy 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC) edit conflict from like four posts up

^Agree'd. :) @Brains: That is true, it does remain a problem according to that statement, but generally there isn't usually "very long" statements on Izzy's talk page in the first place. I think the longest thing I've seen was actually a letter I wrote to him and it was 3 paragraphs and that is by far not the norm. Generally they are nothing more than ~3 sentences or so, and again, this type of discussion would most likely be rare, but certainly something worth keeping around if it actually promotes more and good discussion, no? Sysops aren't the only ones who will be monitoring this page, I am sure Nuclear and me and other users are more than willing to help remove flames, trolls, etc, and report them to Sysops etc. This actually works better than forum structure, since Wiki contains a history, you can make sure about comments in the past, etc. Also that's an adequate point but I couldn't really remember anything off the top of my head in the short amount of time I had from Izzy's old page, because I am in a rush. I gotta head out so I hope this all makes sense. :P There are a lot of users (not just sysops) who want that page to be clean (but also useful for discussion too), but I think a big reason why we never did anything about it before was because it was just too much work for the users, but with sysops on board it could become not so big a deal, especially when the trouble makers realize that it is NOT wanted, and WILL be punished, it'll settle down considerably soon after that. DarkNecrid 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"but generally there isn't usually "very long" statements on Izzy's talk page in the first place. I think the longest thing I've seen was actually a letter I wrote to him and it was 3 paragraphs and that is by far not the norm" um, you haven't been looking hard enough then. Even so, 100 1-sentences posts is just as bad for readability as 1 100-sentence post. Edit: Also, if it's "too much trouble for users", how exactly is it not going to be "too much trouble" for sysops? There are thousands of users; there are maybe 20 sysops. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And only <10 are active. Calor 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

@A - True, but it's more or less a morale thing IMHO. If people who have more power aren't into something, the lower people (yes blah blah blah we're all equal you know what I mean) won't be into it either. If the mods of GWO all decided to not moderate anything for a day, the place would turn to hell in a hand basket and people would quit because the normal people would see that there is no use in self moderating. Likewise, if the sysops all decided to not do anything on Wiki for a day, every page would become worse than Izzy's page, and you'd probably have people undoing it at first, but eventually people just give up. If the police all quit for a day the world would burn, etc. That's probably not the best example I could come up with, but hopefully you get what I mean...? After awhile of no action it just sorta feels to people (me at least) that "hey this page is crap that's the way it's always gonna be because no one else seems to care...(and at the time I had no clue where the relevant place to bring it up was)". Seeing the locked page made me happy because it meant action is being discussed, even if the current locked page structure isn't the action I prefer. DarkNecrid 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) On a somewhat related note, this edit by Regina is quite interesting. An insight, perhaps, to how forums, rather than the wiki, are used by ArenaNet. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think it would be viable to actually remove all the suggestion pages? Whether it would be desirable or not is another issue (I would be happy with that), but as poke said above, it's likely that as long as Arena Net developers come here we will have people making suggestions to them. Erasculio 22:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Poke said, people will still come to the wiki to post suggestions, as unfortunately, thats the image that the wiki has right now. Changing that would be for the better, but it would take a lot of time and effort by everyone to remove the forum attitude from this wiki and reform it into an "old-guildwiki-esque" wiki. For the moment, I don't think it would be practical to remove the suggestion pages, as the flow of comments wouldn't simply stop; they would just go out to different pages, and that would be more of a headache than it is now.-Warior Kronos 04:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Burning knowledge is hardly the way to go. We should feel privelaged to be 'part of the team,' not discussing whether or not its a good idea to remove feedback altogether. it seems increasingly obvious however, that mine is the sort of mentality you want to remove. Know this, the only thing I have used this wiki for, other than the betterment of the community, game and the knowledge and entertainment of others, is for looking up elite skill locations. I disagree with the concept of removing mystery from entertainment altogether. By removing feedback, you're removing the reason why I'm here but I guess my plight doesn't matter when I'm the problem. Good day to you all. -- Spawnlegacy 06:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO this discussion has strayed far off topic. Skill feedback pages are only tangentially connected to long talk page discussions. -- Gordon Ecker 06:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The feedback and suggestion areas were/are supposed to be part of the solution. Everyone has agreed on sysops using their discretion to clean up UB talk and Izzy's user page and that people should use Izzy's talk page to talk to him rather than others (except Dark Necrid and Readem to my recollection.) That's already been implemented and is working fine albeit frustrating for the majority of parties. Trolling and off-topic discussion is now inexistant on that page. What needs to be discussed now is how to accomodate those users who submit and critque suggestions and feedback, if at all. That is what Izzy's page was used for more often than not and was the source of many long winded debates and edit conflicts. Spawnlegacy 07:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Spawnlegacy, it's really not that I dislike the idea of suggestions or feedback; my own personal view here is that it's simply something that the wiki software doesn't support well, and thus those issues cascade over into others and make them worse. If you can think of a viable solution that doesn't cause undue hassle for sysops attempting to maintain it, while at the same time keeping things orderly enough that the pages are worth reading, please, by all means let me know. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I realise its a lot of work and that's why people need to be encouraged to do the right thing for themselves. It involves intimidating/visible signage and prominent/appropriate links and it requires sysops to take action so users don't learn bad habits from examples set by people doing the wrong thing.

Something as definitive as this needs to occur:

READ BEFORE POSTING

This page has been deemed volitile by administration. Sysops retain the right to move sections where they deem it apropriate and delete any comments they believe to be inapropriate at their own discretion. Discussion between users not specifically aimed at the page owner will be removed or pasted on a more relevant page. Issues with such discretionary actions must be brought to the Admin Notice Board and revert wars will result in an immediate ban. If there are any issues with the rights sysops currently hold in such matters, a proposal must be brought to the Community Portal.

<font-size|18px> Random Suggestion For Izzy

Moved to ArenaNet:Guild_Wars_suggestions by Brains12 (sysop) suggestions and feedback belongs here

Discussion between Spawnlegacy annnnd.. Jette has been moved to User talk: Spawnlegacy by Brains12 (sysop) Discussion between users is inappropriate on a page deemed volitile.

Once people recognise that their discussion belongs elsewhere, and there are people to enforce that, it will congregate to the appropriate place. Of course there will be work to do before such time but that's why there's administration. bl Spawnlegacy 09:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion pages are a little out of hand and no amount of work will solve the redundancy and flaming. Terra Xin and Jette are making an effort over there but they're too biassed to keep original suggestions intact not to meantion, follow NPA. I can only conclude that we need more sysops and a couple dedicated to that area alone or just leave it up to the aforementioned to diligently discourage the less than thoughtful. Skill feedback reformatting would solve a couple issues with Izzy's page but the GW suggestions.. I dunno. Its just gonna be hard work. Spawnlegacy 09:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd need more sysops. I think we need a suggestion organization project. If edit wars are a problem, we can expand the reversion policy to cover edits to pages in the ArenaNet namespace. -- Gordon Ecker 11:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

@Spawnlegacy, I am all for moderation of Izzy's page (100% behind that), but there should definitely be a way to keep the good discussion, rather than locking it all down. @Aiiane I see where you are coming from, obviously, but I mean, it wasn't all "bad users" using the page. There were many good users, they just got flooded. I think with some careful reworking of the rules for special namespaces (I think that's something that should be discussed seperately from this, no?), and adequate explanation of them along with an early careful hand by the sysops fixing any mistakes by the good users and explaining to them why, suggestions and inner user discussion (as long as it is "good") can work, because the good users will moderate themselves once they understand what the rules are. You have a ton of people who moderate themselves on this Wiki every day, reverting bad changes, etc, so I don't see this as very farfetched because I do have good faith in the users. The trouble maker users aren't neccessarily a gigantic pool of users either, just very active and talkative and hateful. Of course depending on how this goes, the Skill Feedback system could get reworked to be even better, which is very good too. I'm not sure if this was brought up - is there any plans to keep the page locked down away from anonymous users or something? I'm not sure if you can block IPs or not on this software (I'm assuming so), but generally I try not to ban IPs because of dynamic IPs possibly giving you a banned one. Then there is proxies etc... DarkNecrid 14:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with Gordon and Aiiane - I don't think it's a matter of more sysops, rather of trying to accommodate two things that don't work well together: the wiki software and forum-like suggestions, given how, as the title of this section says, wikis are not forums. I believe alternative solutions would work better than trying to adapt solutions into this wiki - telling people to go to forums, creating a new wiki only for suggestions (like PvX wiki was created to solve the builds problem on GuildWiki), creating a new forum as linked to Arena Net as this wiki only for suggestions, and so on. Although I doubt these ideas are viable at all.

Regarding Spawnlegacy's tag to be added to "volatile" pages: I would suggest removing some parts of it that could lead into sysops being questioned more than necessary, such as the "Issues with such discretionary actions..." phrase (all sysop actions may be discussed in the Admin noticeboard, so that's not a trait specific to the kind of page we're talking about), and rewording the "Sysops retain the right to move sections..." phrase into "Inapropriate comments will be removed and sections belonging elsewhere will be moved to their proper location". Erasculio 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They aren't viable in the sense of getting a response from Izzy. :P Also yeah, I agree about rewording it, especially the Sysops retain the right part, that stood out at me too. DarkNecrid 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you want to keep the interesting discussions Dark Necrid so what I'm proposing is, if they aren't full of flaming before those in charge find it, they'll move the discussion to the talk page of the most prominent user in the discussion. Leaving the header and a reason why it was moved from Izzy's page will both advertise the topic to those that visit and set an example for those who don't read the tag. Allowing the discussion to exist and reducing Izzy's editting traffic respectively.

@Erasculio, I don't mind if they dodge the responsibility of those lines but the last one If there are any issues with the rights sysops currently hold in such matters, a proposal must be brought to the Community Portal must stay. This topic is controversial now and it won't cease to be controversial if we ignore it. Spawnlegacy 15:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Instead of keeping this on the community portal, once the system has proved effective and its methods can be easily documented, it would belong in some policy or other -- that would be able to explain clearly (without having all these walls of text), and also have somewhere centralised for related discussion. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Thanx for reset Brains -- Spawnlegacy 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to keep that last line, too. It would be good to point people to a place with a more detailed explanation about why this is being done and to give them a chance to discuss the community decision itself. Erasculio 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read most of this massive wall of text, and a few points have stood out to me. First, this entire problem developed because of the volume of pure crap that was being placed on these volatile pages. This leads to the comments that this wouldn't be happening if the sysops 'were doing their job' and properly monitoring and maintaining order. However at least one acitve sysop has indicated that it's the total reason he avoids Izzy's page. I believe the others feel pretty much the same. The same issue is happening with the suggestion pages, there is just TOO much of it for the 12 active/semi-active sysops to monitor and maintain. So @ Gordon, I have to respectfully disagree that this is NOT a question of not enough sysops. I know that we all have certain things we focus on, and none of us want to deal with the sheer volume of stuff generated on these pages. I believe that in this case, the addition of 2 or 3 more sysops who's focus would be on maintaining these 'volatile pages' as well as the suggestion area is something that should at least be talked about. People keep saying we have enough sysops, I don't believe we do, not if you want the kind of monitoring and maintenance of these pages that everyone seems to agree is necessary.

Secondly, I agree that some restructuring of the suggestion pages should be looked at, and Spawnlegacy seems to have made a start at it, so maybe work it into a full blown proposal, using the parts of this discussion that pertain as a basis, and moving further discussion to that proposal talk page.

Thirdly I agree that this entire idea has blown itself into something that should be formalized into an actual policy, so another proposal page maybe? and move this 109 kilobytes of discussion there, and off the Community portal? -- Wyn 17:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To your third comment, yes, but when the system has been carried out and proved effective -- we need to keep the focus on the problems and solutions, rather than on how to put it into policy. Once the methods have been used effectively, it'll be easier to document without detracting concentration away as it would at this moment. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is Highly Volitile :O

I suppose that means I can stop talking now... HAZZAH! Spawnlegacy 03:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: the following is a tangentially related proposal in that it was sparked by the discussion which can be found above. Can we all at least agree that things like this, retrieved from the skill feedback page for Ursan Blessing, should be removed forthwith?

WOOOHOOO!!!! AHAHHAAAA U LITTLE URSAN FAGGOTS!!! TAKE THIS! AND THAT!!! BWUAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!

inorite, take that you fugly ursan pussies.Oni User talk:Oni 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I think ursan blessing should be change back to the original form and not only be 60 seconds

I think it should not. WOOOHOOO!!!! AHAHHAAAA U LITTLE URSAN FAGGOTS!!! TAKE THIS! AND THAT!!! BWUAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! Dark Morphon(contribs) 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

*Defiant Elements* +talk 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would write something humorous but since no one appreciates it atm I'll just stick with /agree -- Spawn ‎ Legacy 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Solution - take 2.1

(because headers for summaries are "in", right?)

Aberrant's first solution seems to form the basis of the discussion that followed it. It may not be plausible to rely on ArenaNet's enforcement as we have no idea what they're thinking. Contacting them for large-scale wiki issues has shown in the past that their opinion takes months to formulate (e.g. the skill sound project).

This is a mixture of a summary of the solution-discussion, and a proposal:

Outline

• Outline: Discussion is to be aimed only towards the user to whom the user talk page belongs, or only towards the article to which the talk page belongs. On user talk pages, discussions between other users are to be dealt with as described below. These so-called "volatile" pages are to be deemed as such by admin discretion and/or community consensus. A clear notice should be at the top of these talk pages, with links to certain pages (e.g. skill feedback section, suggestion pages).
  • "Useful discussion" not following the outline above will be moved to the correct location, with a notice showing the new location and a reason why (can be removed when archiving) -- to be left to admin discretion.
  • Inappropriate discussion (i.e. non-"useful discussion") will be removed entirely (reasons can go in the edit summary) -- to be left to admin discretion.

Opposition

• Those who revert an admin or do not follow the outline may be blocked according to admin discretion.
• Opposition to the outline is to go on the community portal talk page (for the time being), and then to the policy talk page if created. This location is to be clearly linked in the opening notice.
  • Note: policy is to be created if and after this solution proves effective, so it doesn't detract attention and concentration from the matter at hand, or to give us more than what we can handle -- see the election proposals as an example where trying to put something into policy straightaway led to the discussion coming to a complete stop; the policy was only changed when we took things slowly and discussed each issue step by step.

This should work to help the issues of useful discussions that don't fit the outline by moving them elsewhere, keeping the new location apparent to those who are interested -- it decreases the traffic on that page, increases the usefulness of that page (e.g. allows the easy contact of its user or discussion of its article), but also keeps a certain "presence" of that topic. It also works to solve the situation of flaming, trolling, or other such inappropriate discussion by "strictly" discouraging them, and removing them entirely if they occur. This should total to an enforceable, controllable, manageable, and easy-to-use talk page.

Note: users can "disable" this process on their talk page if they so wish; however, they should still be aware that the problems are problems to the rest of the wiki, as well as to that user; compromise will be necessary in order to find a solution which works for the community as well as that user.

-- Brains12 \ talk 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I like and support it :) poke | talk 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To put some concrete examples for user talk pages, under these conditions, "first"s, "wub"s, and all other kind of topics we have dealt (and ignored) in the past because of our non-existentant "no harrassing" policy could finally be removed, and users insisting in creating them (without the "owner" of the talk page giving consent) sanctioned?. In any case, i also like where this discussion is heading.--Fighterdoken 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is just for the highly problematic talk pages such as Izzy's and Ursan's. This doesn't affect other talk pages not deemed to be "highly problematic" by consensus/admin discretion. If removal of other text on other pages is what you want, join in the discussion at GWWT:USER#Allow deletion of text on user talk pages (revisited). -- Brains12 \ talk 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope the discretionary power doesn't start creeping too far but yeah. Solution-1, Problem-0. -- Spawn ‎ Legacy 20:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok, this was mendel's idea from Gwiki about the situation; honestly I could care less if this exentsion was implemented or not, but I want to see if this is what the people want linky. --Shadowphoenix 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I like Brains' idea, as long as it will not outlaw "firsts" and "wubs"; which as he just stated it won't --Shadowphoenix 21:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that would overcomplicate things for wiki-folk (DPL isn't simple), and still pose the problem of enforcement. Also, it's not that we wanted to but couldn't make the wiki a forum; as Aberrant said, our primary concern is documentation -- we aren't a forum even if capable technically. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brains' proposal. I would only like to suggest we try to find a way of asking Arena Net if this is working or not, some time after implementation - like I said above, this is going to be a lot of work, all which would be a waste if Isaiah has decided to not read his wiki page at all. Granted, I can't think of a way to ask Arena Net about this, but... Erasculio 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regina or Emily would probably be interested in this and might answer some of our questions. Some questions which would be nice to have answers for include things like how they deal with content in the ArenaNet namespace, what they intend to use certain pages for (e.g. Izzy's talk, article talk pages, the skill feedback sections), how often they do so, how useful they are, etc. Of course, we'd need solid facts and genuine answers, not appeasement in the form of "yes, we listen to everything" (unless, of course, that's the case, but still: I'd prefer something more expanded on :P). -- Brains12 \ talk 00:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hooray back from a trip and off for another~. I'm okay with it I guess. I still think it is pretty terrible to throw good discussion away to reaches Izzy doesn't read/other places not on his talk page entirely since it just slows him down (and I doubt a notice is going to change anything at all), but I'm obviously not going to change anyones mind here so I give up and say screw it and don't care anymore. Hooray! If there was a section entirely devoted to good discussion on his page (I actually don't know what the term is, but kind of like how Linsey has the Journal section with its own talk page) I'd be okay with it slightly more, but this is just going to make discussion in general useless (it already is, thanks to the problems with the Skill feedback section and the lockdown on his page atm) if it gets ferreted to stuff not on his talk page (which is much easier for the user to see). Do whatever, I don't care anymore. The reason some of us wanted the good discussion on his page (and not on a page among 300+ other ones), was for his reponse (which isn't able to be gotten in the Skill feedback system right now) and so its a place to easily see it (also not able to be gotten in the Skill feedback system). Bouncing ideas off of him can be a very good thing (The Strip Enchantment idea was a very good change IMHO, and it happened because of Wiki users. If Skill feedback can be reworked in a way that would help Izzy so more stuff like this can happen then I wouldn't be so down on this current suggestion too much either, but that is a lot of work (probably way more than allowing discussion on his talk page) to do and even the current feedback suggestions on changing it isn't enough to make it "useful", and quite honestly I have no clue how you could make it useful on this Wiki software, something that requires more thought), and there's no other way to get a response out of him. Sure, he reads forums, and he's in-game, and he has a forum that only 200 people can see the contents of, but he doesn't reply to the general user on those 3 things. You can't just say "hey I think Strip Enchantment should steal Health on removal" in-game and get a "whoah that's a really good idea I'm going to check that out", or a "Hey man Victory is Ours sucks really bad because it just makes the game even more about NPCs maybe you should change it so it affects both sides equally" and get a "I'm going to test that out!" like you can here. It was used that way, he used it that way, and that was what made it special when it worked was that it wasn't some transparent link to the developers like it always is with the transparent "we read everything" or the transparent way they conduct themselves, it was a way to really talk to him for a lot of people and actually get something back and not just posts on a forum that you pray to god he reads or the CR tells him. Either way, I'm okay with this cause I give up. It's better than nothing (moderation over none), but I honestly don't think that is saying much if you remove the good and the bad. Now I'm in a rush cause I have to catch a bus so yea. DarkNecrid 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How often do you want to hear that Izzy doesn't read his talk page and it is just not possible for anybody with not very many time to track all skill suggestion on one page and even commenting on them!? I think you already said it yourself that the way forums are organized is better for discussions, then just think why forums are displayed on multiple pages with multiple subforums and multiple threads. It just doesn't work on one page. Also please read what this section is about again, it is not about how Izzy should read the suggestions, we had that topic often enough on this page; the section is about a resolution for "volatile" pages to reduce the amount of senseless discussion that do not fit the topic of the page.

Also please finally stop repeating yourself over and over again. It is really annoying to see text walls written by you again and again that all contain the same content! Thanks! poke | talk 21:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're going to moderate the pages more; which given the limited time Arenanet staff have on the Wiki and the mass of users posting here, which has/is encouraged by them, you would have thought would be a given.

• Still think keeping Ursan included in this conversation is outdated.

Also, one of you Sysops should discuss it with the Arenanet staff, I seriously doubt this kind of change would change the fact their time on the wiki is limited, and lessening due to their workload; they're not going to answer more if the pages as nice and neat. When people start following the rules more, posting on suggestion pages, feedback pages, skill suggestion pages, people are going to want more definitive answer to the question if they're actually worth the effort. We've got so many pages they Arenanet has encourage, suggestion pages for Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2, these pages are massive with hundreds if not thousands of ideas and I don't know anyone who's content with the "yes we look answers" ... [shrugs] Its early morning here and I did an all nighting going a friend to HzH. If I missed the points, please by gentle ^-^ 000.00.00.00 17:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ursan, one example: on GWO the topic discussing Ursan is still one of the most discussed things there (currently the second topic on the forum), with 50 pages of discussion added after the update that nerfed the skill. While the wiki isn't a copy of GWO, the fact Ursan is still being discussed so much there leads me to think that people still have stuff to say about it.

And about asking Arena Net...I agree, like I mentioned above, but I don't know what kind of question it could be. IMO, any question even remotely like "Do you people read all this stuff?" will get the basic "We read it from time to time" that is to be expected even if only to not make people think Arena Net is ignoring them. I think a different kind of question would be more useful, something along the lines of, "We have made some changes to the feedback system and on how some volatile pages work, and so we would like to know if they're better now from Arena Net's point of view, or if you guys think this kind of player feedback is better suited for a different kind of media, like the fanforums". Erasculio 22:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

uhm, 000..., I think you misunderstood what this is about. It is not about making the wiki suggestions easier for ANet to read. It is about making the wiki, as a documentation for users, and its pages less off-topic and more useful to improve the wiki. poke | talk 22:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(RI) So...I take it there is a consensus between those in this discussion to accept the idea above? Erasculio 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem so. I'll adapt the notices on the two talk pages. I suspect the time is nigh for the suggestion pages suggestions now. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Volatile talk page tagging seems like a reasonable compromise. I've suggested that we formalize them at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Talk pages#Volatile talk pages and added a link at RFC. -- Gordon Ecker 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia, this is GWW. Part of the fun of using it is using the discussion pages to talk about article content as opposed to the article itself. Not only that, but you redirect to another discussion page, which just makes things overly complicated. The current GWW sysops and bureaucracy ought to kindly ask their community before restricting what the users can and can't do. After all, the users that make up GWW, the sysops and bureaucracy ought to try to represent what the users prefer.

I, as a wiki editor and user, wouldn't like to see discussion pages restricted only to discussion of the article itself but that's just my taste. I often find that going into a skill discussion to see what people say about the FUNCTION of said skill is insightful and helpful. If discussion pages are limited to merely the discussion of the article, it does a lot of negative things to the wiki.

First, it makes the sysops jobs harder; they'll have to go into a page and redirect all discussion to a new page or delete it. Secondly, it makes accessing the discussions, the page most users are actually trying to get to in the first place, more difficult. This clutters the wiki and makes things more complicated rather than less complicated. Thirdly and as previously mentioned, this limits the sometimes useful discussion about the content of the article. Lastly, and also as previously mentioned, some users enjoy using the discussion pages to talk about the content of the article, rather than the article itself. We ought to enjoy using the wiki as well as accurate information. This isn't a forum, but it isn't Wikipedia either.

Don't get me wrong; I would gladly support temporarily restricting hot discussion pages, providing a warning against spamming which would be punishable, (though if you have to make a new page for the actual discussion, I find this rather pointless), or creating a policy that punishes irresponsibility on the user's part. I truly think the wikis are poorer without the ability to discuss content freely. Spam is the lesser of two evils. Denizen Zero 03:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an extremely poor system for discussion. Why not try here if you want discussion? — Skakid 03:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuz' Guru smells like smelly cheese-loin cloths. That is, I hate their ads/load times. 4 realz. Denizen Zero 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been answered on my talk page. (By the way, the "sysops and bureaucracy" here aren't acting as "leaders", nor are they not asking for community input -- there's a reason why this is on the community portal, why the community discussion about this has become so long, and why the actions being taken are the actions supported by consensus. Concerning "the sysops and bureaucracy ought to try to represent what the users prefer" -- sysops and bureaucrats, as users of the wiki, don't "represent" anything. As Aiiane said above, we aren't a bureaucracy -- "bureaucrat" is just the default MediaWiki name for that particular user setting.) -- Brains12 \ talk 14:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. My doubts are settled. Denizen Zero 14:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Well, based on Isaiah's last contributions (especially here and here), I think at least on his talk page the ideas above have been well accepted. Erasculio 23:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr

Summarize above wall of text please. -- Armond Warblade 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some highlights:

• Talk:Ursan Blessing and User talk:Isaiah Cartwright got way out of hand. Wiki software is not designed to handle forum-like usage on that scale, and the pages had become useless for their primary purposes (discussing the wiki article and contacting the wiki user, respectively), and near-impossible for admins to manage.
• Izzy has specifically said he can't respond on his talk page due to the sheer rate of edits giving him edit conflicts. There is some question how much he even reads it.
• There is further question whether Izzy reads the skill feedback pages. People feel that their important suggestions belong on Izzy's talk page because that's the only way he'll ever see them.
• Various accusations have been tossed around about censorship, laziness, lack of admins, and various debate regarding the nature, useability, and usefulness of the skill feedback pages.
• There seems to be general agreement, for the most part, that unimportant things and arguments between users that don't involve Izzy should be kept off Izzy's page. There is far less agreement on what qualifies as important. There's even less agreement on what to do with the skill feedback and other suggestions pages.

Long story short: everyone wants to be heard, the system up to now hadn't scaled well, we're trying to change the system, people are angry. - Tanetris 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

{reset indent} And here I was thinking the issue had been resolved.. I guess I'm free to add some points from another biassed pertspective...

Article 1:

• Discussion outlining the rules currently enforced on Talk:Ursan_Blessing and User_talk:Isaiah_Cartwright.
• Brains wants non-suggestion-related letters to the user alone (people are kinda allowed to add related points but discussion between them is prohibitted.)
• Dark Necrid, Cancer Angel, Readem, Mr. 000s and I were coming to terms with the action of shutting down pages. They more or less believed it to be borderline fascist and generally inconsiderate.
• Sysops defended themselves; Harsh suggestions; RaRa flame.
• Brains shuts many users down.

Article 2:

• valid discussion. Poke and Auron 'like' (strong word to sum up a sysop judgement) Spawn's proposal for feedback pages which he believes to be somewhat related to Izzy's editting traffic.
• Erasculio and Dark Necrid bring up the points people believe their issue to be important, people wish to bring these issues directly to Izzy, Izzy may or may not check other areas of the wiki, people do not wish to be kept from discussing these issues. Erasculio has a disagreement with Spawn's proposal (likes the short summary) and adds a proposal to have a dev update box on Izzy's page linking to the discussion of the latest update in the feedback section.good idea
• NUKLEAR wants greater moderation of feedback, suggestion and volitile pages. Many agree. He believes there could be a group of sysops dedicated to those areas. Controversial: some users and sysops agree others think its not worth the trouble.
• Brains shuts many users down.
• Spawn selflessly advertises a feedback proposal linking here :D

Article 3:

• aberRant gets harsh: moderate heavily, allow ANet to have complete control or (not a serious proposal) tell people to take it to another site.
• Brains likes the idea of overlording. Poke and Spawn, on the other hand, just want everyone to be friends didn't say I wasn't biased
• Calor, Erasculio and Lemming like the idea of telling people to piss off. Aiiane's opinion on the subject may belong here too
• People generally discuss being dicks to everyone and removing their outlet for creativity until Spawn comes up with a definitive tag and template for the moderation on Izzy's talk page. scroll up, its hard to miss
• People discuss the tag instead for some reason but Spawn's if they aren't full of flaming before those in charge find it, they'll move the discussion to the talk page of the most prominent user in the discussion. Leaving the header and a reason why it was moved from Izzy's page will both advertise the topic to those that visit and set an example for those who don't read the tag. Allowing the discussion to exist and reducing Izzy's editting traffic respectively is yet to recieve feedback.
• Wyn reckons we need a few more sysops.
• Brains spreads wiki wisdom and sits on the bench.

Spawn's opinion: Proposal creation and discussion + people + effort = favourable result for all. That's probably all the points necessary. The proposal for Izzy's page seems to have consensus from all who read but we're yet to hear from Necrid. Skill Feedback is probably easier to work through than the suggestion area at this time. Unless anyone's got any objections, that's probably what we ought to focus on, discussion-wise. -- Spawn ‎ Legacy 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh what? Sorry, Spawn but you are not really summarizing the things that happened, or you didn't understand them yourself completely. (Example: "in full agreement with Pling and aberrant. poke" vs. "Brains likes the idea of overlording. Poke and Spawn, on the other hand, just want everyone to be friends") poke | talk 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

let's all be friends! ^_* --AnorithTalk 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why we're all in the same point but we're making Brains look bad. Spawn ‎ Legacy 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should say that: Brains = Pling :P poke | talk 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Silly Poke making himself look silly. Spawn ‎ Legacy 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I know! ..Last time I use sarcasm </sarcasm>

Eh what? Your summary is just bad, subjective and self-focussed. poke | talk 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Spawnlegacy, if you're going to summarise something, summarise it properly. And let's continue with moving to a solution rather than going back to what's already happened. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Armond, if you want to know what's been said, just READ the wall of text, the rest of us have. -- Wyn 18:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey, biassed perspective? Humour doesnt come across well from my computer at 4am. Anything I missed?(give or take showing a few people in bad light) Then keep talking dammit! -- Spawn ‎ Legacy 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad humour which might be used for a newcomer to formulate an opinion on a discussion is bad. He asked for a summary, not "comedy". -- Brains12 \ talk 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I got called a noob.. by a sysop Spawn ‎ Legacy 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC) fails objection noted. No more redundancy plz

Just a question, why is Ursan Blessing's talk page an issue, since the skill has been changed and hasn't been swamped with people ignoring the policy proposed? Ursan seems to be a lesser issue, almost a non issue at the moment. 000.00.00.00 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree, I don't really think that Ursan Blessing is as big of an issue now...we have to wait and see if the page calms down or if a new flood of people screaming for change reverts on the skill appear on the talk page. If it calms down, I think we can forget about it. The real concerns are the suggestion pages and Izzy's/anet staff member pages.-Warior Kronos 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason for the discussion on Talk:Ursan Blessing calming down is because the proposal is working there, not because people have suddenly seen the light and stopped essaying and debating the skill itself. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job guys =) — Skakid 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, I wouldn't agree with you there, Brains. The skill was charged in a way that a large portion of those using the page wanted, there's no need to go on about it being overpowered or bad for the game anymore. 000.00.00.00 23:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of people against the nerf, they'd be arguing there now in the pro-nerf users' place. — Skakid 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

no, more than 99% wanted it nerfed and the 1% that didn't were mostly trolls, people who didn't understand english or also play wow and like grinding. none of those categories would listen to common sense which angered people and started drama, which have now when ursan is nerfed, toned down to nothing and is no longer worth disussing. --AnorithTalk 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's highly exaggerated (and some of it just incorrect). The "don't nerf" camp was smaller than the "nerf it now" camp, yes, but there were still people opposed to nerfing and would want to vent in the usual way. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

neither exaggerated or incorrect. also, the one's who screamed "nerf it!" will no longer go back to the page as it's not an issue anymore and they were proven right so they no longer have to explain why the opposite 1% is terribly wrong. so the only one's who are left are a bunch of retarded kids who QQ without anyone answering them. --AnorithTalk 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if that were true, where are the comments from those "retarded kids who QQ"? "so they no longer have to explain why the opposite 1% is terribly wrong" -- actually, no, people continue to discuss despite the current situation: if people are "wrong", people will still discuss how they are so. Also, don't carry on with the "retarded kids who QQ" stuff, it's inappropriate and it's just another example of the problems on some of these talk pages. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

the 99% against ursan have left as there's no longer any need to disuss something that's not an issue anymore. most of the drama was caused by the frustrated 99% agains the 1% who refused common sense, now when there's the 1% left the discussion is dead, or at least dying out very fast. the update that nerfed ursan caused the last wave of drama and then it was over, the admins only helped a bit, which seemed like a heavy blow when it came but the discussion would've died out anyway. and yea, marking words is cool. --AnorithTalk 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Refused common sense? Valid, logical arguements for and against nerfing Ursan Blessing were made on the skill's feedback talk page, the relevant discussions are archived here. -- Gordon Ecker 04:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

More than 99% wanted nerfing? only 99% of the DOA/TOA freaks wanted nerfing, who were too lazy to level up norn title and used those nuker,Obi tank comboes only. Ursan levelled the game. Now class discrimination is back, Getting to rank 8 wasn't that diff. Fiunish the game and 2 books were enough. I hate those freaks who are celebrating victory of their old ways. 220.245.178.131 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop the off-topicness now, yes? (Yet another example of what happened on those pages...) -- Brains12 \ talk 07:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A little late, but just to close this section by answering 000's original question. The Ursan talk page is merely one example of currently 2 pages under discussion to be considered highly volatile and requiring special administration. It is not just a discussion of the Ursan talk page specifically, but includes talk pages that may become it. -- ab.er.rant 13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone summarize (seriously) the proposed suggestions?

I am very much TL;DR'ing at the gigantic vault of daunting text wall of great doom above me. Could someone repost the proposed solutions? -- NUKLEAR IIV 10:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Read solution 2.1. Brains' conclusion is a good compromise for everyone's interests. Let us know what you think. -- Spawn ‎ Legacy 12:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading solution 2.1 and some of the wall of text, I have to ask, will it actually change sysop behaviour patterns when dealing with the volatile pages? Given that some of the admins used to avoid moderating the area, are they willing to put in the legwork necessary to redirect/delete discussions with the current rules etc.? I'm not against to moving lengthy discussions over to individual talk pages and leaving anything else to forum based sites at all but someone has to enforce those rules long after this blows over. PlacidBlueAlien 16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe admins will give up on enforcing those rules. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My only concern is this: Will there be greater admin activity in the "forums"? Becuase from where I'm standing, that's exactly what that place needs.

A couple of lines above (couple lol?) Wyn suggested getting another admin charged with this task. I fully support this. I can do it. Or, if I'm too volatile/new/troll, armond can do it. Yeah, let him do it. He has Xp from PvX anyhow. -- NUKLEAR IIV 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now that the pages should be easily manageable, they'll get more admin attention. Also, I think Wyn meant that for the previous state of those pages -- of course, we can never have enough admins, but it's probably no longer necessary to need a specialised admin for the "forums", as you put it, considering the proposed solution. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Or, if I'm too volatile/new/troll, armond can do it. Yeah, let him do it. He has Xp from PvX anyhow." You need someone who is actually good at the job, not someone who bans users on a whim or because they disagreed with him. Also, you would need a person who isn't biased or who is closer to to being unbiased.

Brains12, before you acted and changed Izzy's talk page, did you contact him to see if it was ok? Also, since some people were talking about messing with the skill suggestion pages, how does Izzy feel about that? ~ Sabastian 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, links or it didn't happen. -- NUKLEAR ^IIV 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue how to do the link thing but go to PvX Wiki and look around. You'll also notice a lot of people begging not to be banned for disagreeing with him and look in his archives for people complaining to him for banning them because they disagreed with him or because he just felt like like banning them. It's a fairly well known event to people on PvX wiki. ~ Sabastian 16:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

@NUKLEAR -- OMFG Armond?!?! You kidding right? He one of the biggest trolls of Izzy page and always NPA all over there. If he have his way enire page be one big NPA and he ban all not agree with him stupid ideas there. 66.7.210.15 01:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Links or it didn't happen. -- NUKLEAR ^IIV 04:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sabastian, how would one contact Izzy on the wiki (and in such a way that he could and would respond quickly enough)? His talk page has a large, adverse effect on the wiki, which is why I chose to act first rather than wait for the usual post-update threads and his reply. Any improvement to his talk page would, I think, be welcome by him. Also, now that the skill suggestions pages have moved into the ArenaNet namespace, waiting to find out his "feelings" shouldn't get in the way of improvement in terms of making it easier for users to post there. Of course, the preferred solution is to find something that helps both wiki and ArenaNet (which is what the "messing", as you call it, aims to achieve), but we shouldn't have to wait for a response that might take weeks in order to achieve that improvement (see some of the comments above in response ArenaNet communication). Wiki > ArenaNet. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this Wiki have that whole send mail to someone thing? Also he goes on IRC as well if I'm not mistaken. You could have also went through Regina to get into contact with him.

"His talk page has a large, adverse effect on the wiki" See, the funny thing here is Gaile's talk page, when she was CR, was flooded by a heck of a lot more people daily and the Syops had no issue keeping up with it. Izzy's page had less than 10 regular posters that spammed his page and flamed him non-stop. Yet the Syops couldn't be bothered to deal with those few people there.

" Wiki > ArenaNet " Actually, no. It goes like this: This Wiki = Owned and Hosted by ArenaNet for their game. All the users and the Syops and bureacrats help them in adding correct information and keeping it clean from trolls. The Syops and Bureacrats do NOT own this wiki, ArenaNet does. ArenaNet is more than capable of deciding how they want to receive feedback. It's not your guys place to dictate to ArenaNet and everyone how ArenaNet wants feedback on this wiki. ~ Sabastian 16:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference was that Gaile was active, came on almost every day, could control her own talk page in terms of size, trolling, personal attacks or off-topic discussion. The same cannot be said for Izzy. Also, the subjects on those two pages are very different -- skill balance and PvP, you'll find, are a much more hostile topic than, say, invitations to the next player event, or questions on support or future implementations. As I explained above (or somewhere, this thing has spread around a bit), contacting Izzy/getting him to respond/getting a "formal" ArenaNet response would take a while; in fact, this is what this proposal is supposed to be helping. I don't know whether he goes on IRC (and "IRC" is a pretty big place).

"Yet the Syops couldn't be bothered to deal with those few people there." -- uh no. That's already been explained -- the page couldn't be managed in its previous state; there's a difference between not doing something, and not being able to do something. And when something is being done, there are still complaints.

ArenaNet (as a company) serves the wiki, not the other way around. Their hosting has no effect on administration, policy, its aims, or its methods. They give all that responsibility and "control" to the community; read the FAQ/About pages which say the same thing. Of course, they may choose to contribute to the wiki, but they do so as any other user would. If the wiki was in "danger" that the community couldn't solve, they'd intervene, but the otherwise "day-to-day" activity is left upon the community. If we as a community decide to, for example, get rid of the ArenaNet namespace because we can't cope or because it gets in the way of our aims, I'm sure they'd adhere to that; they'd probably contribute to the discussion as part of the community, but that's just it -- they are part of the community. Nothing here apart from the servers is "owned" by ArenaNet; contributions are released under the GFDL and any other wiki with the same license can use that information. If anything, ArenaNet aid us -- they give us servers and other technicalities of which they are capable and willing, and in turn we document their game and administrate as necessary. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sabastian, you are mistaken about how things work. As Brains mentioned, ArenaNet has specifically mentioned that wiki users should decide how the wiki is to be run (one reason why discussions always end up dragging to weeks). As for the skill feedback pages, I believe it was primarily designed and created by wiki users, not Izzy. And as a user himself, if Izzy really cared enough to object, do you believe that he would not already have by now? -- ab.er.rant 13:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

@PlacidBlueAlien, yes good point, future sysop involvement may still be non-existent. Aside from sheer volume, I believe another problem was that the policies was never created with these situations in mind, hence the reluctance of at least several admins from getting involved in those pages. If the wiki has a formalised stand on how such situations should be handled, perhaps they'll feel more confident of tackling them. We can of course try to bring in more sysops while this discussion continues or after its implementation. -- ab.er.rant 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, as an easier alternative to writing new policies, sic someone onto the feedback pages, give them no bag limit, and declare open season. -- NUKLEAR ^IIV 14:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)