Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy Enforcement

Policy/guideline proposal

I would think common sense would be a general thing... but common sense doesn't exists after all, meaning that is just the way the majority feels. As such, i think we may need a clear way to state how policies and guidelines are enforced, in order to avoid holy wars against users who don't want, don't know, or don't care about them.
What i mean is: "Let users inform, let sysops judge, let bureaucrats decide...". Otherwise, i think we are all just wasting time on discussions where we will never agree until one side withdraws.

Back to the topic, i tried to cover all the bases on the proposal, but i am sure i missed something... so i guess i will need to clarify the "spirit of the policy" if someone feels something on the proposal is too excesive :)--Fighterdoken 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok... your entire section on Guidelines seems to be predicated on the notion the Guidelines handle formatting and style (correct me if I'm wrong). However, I would argue that guidelines are in fact almost directly the opposite of "Guidelines are not subject to interpretation, and only dependent on requirements of the wiki and the documentation of the game itself." A guidelines is essentially a looser version of a policy. Actually... see here. That's how Wikipedia defines a Guideline, and I think it's a pretty good definition. And, even if you're dealing with Style Guidelines specifically, Guidelines shouldn't be rigid. Sure, formatting guidelines should eventually get around to being enforced, but, just like how the spirit of the policy trumps the letter of the policy, an attempt to improve the Wiki, for instance creating an article that doesn't conform to standards, should trump formatting guidelines. *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that pretty much sums it for guidelines, but the thing is, here our guidelines mostly work regarding formatting. Usually, what is not a formatting guideline becomes a policy, or is ignored as such but still followed because it is common sense. On the other hand, our guidelines (formatting) are applied as rigid entities, and when we don't agree with something, we actually try to push for a change in the guideline instead of imposing our interpretation of it as happends with the policies (with too little exceptions to be considerated).
The way i see it, guidelines (formatting) are currently regarded in a higher tier than even policies, and are actually respected, that is why the proposal still remains a bit strict about them. Otherwise, we would need a "formatting guidelines policy" or we would end declaring guidelines as a whole as "flexible", which would kill the purpose of formatting guidelines and the whole process of standarizing the content of the wiki.
In any case, the third point of the guidelines section should cover any problem that may appear with them (because is what currently happends)... I feel this wiki solves quickier guideline conflicts than policy conflicts.--Fighterdoken 07:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd still prefer you name the section Formatting Guidelines, since, as is, it's extremely misleading. Particularly if for instance there was a push to make SIGN a "guideline" (as per Wikipedia definition) or something along those lines. *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea behind this proposal, but I have issues with certain aspects of it:

1. "While Sysops are allowed to enforce the "spirit of the policy" instead of the policy itself, they are asked to amend the policies after this is done." contradicts both the letter and spirit of the changing existing policies section of Guild Wars Wiki:Policy. I suggest replacing the above section and "If required, previous actions regarding the enforcement of the "spirit of the policy" should be documented and used as reference future issues." with "While Sysops are allowed to enforce the "spirit of the policy" instead of the policy itself, they are asked to mention such "spirit of the policy" enforcements on the policy's talk page so that the issue may be addressed in future policy change proposals.".
2. "Guidelines are generated as a way to standarize the content of articles on the wiki. As such, users are expected to abide by them."; I don't think we should remove the possibility of non-formatting guidelines.
3. "Guidelines are not subject to interpretation, and only dependant on requeriments of the wiki and the documentation of the game itself."; "Guidelines enforcement should be put on hold if a reason for its not application arises. If this is the case, a change request should be done, and the article or guideline corrected once consensus is reached."; I don't think we should make guidelines strict or require the suspension of a guideline and a lengthly guideline amendment discussion whenever someone finds a case in which a guideline should not be strictly applied.

I'm okay with the rest of the proposal. -- Gordon Ecker 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a policy to retroactively support Eloc's ban. 58.110.142.135 08:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Will leave it as proposal for a while, until i get a clear idea... then switch to draft so we don't lose the "spirit of the policy" XD... and, had this been up before, Eloc wouldn't have been banned because he would have been unable to keep arguing on that page in the first place, so everyone would have saved themselves a few headaches.--Fighterdoken 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you implying that the intent of this policy was to retroactively support Eloc's ban (as well as those like his). I'm not speaking as to whether or not it would, but are you suggesting that that is this policy's sole purpose? *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon, does it matter? Are you rejecting a policy solely based on something that so strongly "disgusts" you? There are quite a few policies here and elsewhere that are a direct result of user actions or situations.

As I responded to Coran below, I feel this is long overdue. I agree with Gordon's points. Guidelines are not just formatting guidelines but a documentation on the adopted and accepted conventions for this wiki. Guidelines do not need lengthy discussion for change. Guidelines naturally evolve when the situation in this wiki changes, like formatting and user behavior. Policy changes are mostly designed to inhibit and allow certain actions, while guideline changes are mostly to identify trends. That's how I see it, which is why I feel that policies and guidelines need clear definitions, and to consider whether we also need Wikipedia style essays. I also agree that this proposal needs to be renamed, into say "Policies and guidelines" (or split it into two) or "Spirit of the policy" or something, since it obviously doesn't deal solely with enforcement (and enforcement details would actually best left to each separate policy or on GWW:ADMIN instead, rather than making even something a simple as a friendly reminder to be so unnecessarily bureaucratic. -- ab.er.rant 14:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a policy

I might be wrong. But I don't think this should be a policy. I find this whole thing is an explanation of already existent policies. So I think this should be a guideline. Coran Ironclaw 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Which already-existing policy mentions what is proposed here? It's not a guideline. It's a policy to formalise what are policies, what are guidelines, and what is the acceptable way of dealing with them. In short, as I see it, this is something that's been missing - a definition of what policy and what guideline is. -- ab.er.rant 13:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What does this policy allow to do to users or sysop ? (that cannot be done by the current policy). What does this policy prevent to do to users or sysop ? (that can be done by the current policy). If both answers are "nothing" then this is just an explanation of the current policies and not a policy per se. If you think this explanation is needed then why not instead of creating a new "policy" these paragraphs are merged with the current GWW:POLICY and GWW:GL, the second indeed has a "Role of guidelines" so everything said here should be there instead, and I think the policy part should be at GWW:POLICY which lacks of a good explanation of what policy is. Coran Ironclaw 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is... there is no "current policy" that tells users or sysops what they can or cannot do regarding enforcement, when to stop, when to push, or when to ask for feedback before or after acting. The only thing we currently have is the notion of applying "common sense", but even that is not written as far as i know, and common sense is not actually common, or we wouldn't have problems like people enforcing policies beyond what is healthy, people breaching policies because no one cares to enforce them, or people openly defying policies instead of trying to change or clarify them.
About a merge... i feel the "Policy" policy only deals with creation, structure and function, and since enforcement is something more related to edition than policies themselves, it should stay separated. --Fighterdoken 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I see those two policies as well - policies detailing the processes on the creation and modification of policies and guidelines. They contain some of what is in here, which is also why in the above section, I made a mention of splitting this; I was implying that this proposal may also work as two separate change proposals. -- ab.er.rant 00:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it would be better as two separate change proposals instead of a new one. I don't find the reason to why GWW:POLICY can't have such an explanation. Coran Ironclaw 09:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

...But a draft

Ok, took time to read a bit and changed a little the wording to match some concerns. Also, switched it to draft so we can openly work on it (move/rename/change as needed). Regarding guidelines, i still feel that every guideline deals with formatting, just on different levels, because guidelines are usually just a set of steps we are more or less supposed to follow for reaching a certain end. In any case, and since formatting guidelines application is already somewhat covered on GWW:1RR, i think we could remove the paragraph if needed in order to avoid any misinterpretation of the policy. And third... nope, this is not a "Let's justify X o Y sanction" policy, my intention actually is:

• Establish a way to regulate how policy application is enforced by the userbase.
• Establish a way to clarify how sysops can apply the spirit of the policy, so that this is documented for further reference, and we don't end with sysop A applying a policy one way, and sysop B applying it on different ways (when possible at least).
• Avoid as much as possible generating feelings of harrasment, which editors may get when the same user tells him to comply with policies or guideline over and over, and avoid any verbal war that may arise from this.
  --Fighterdoken 17:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just want to point out GWW:AGF is a guideline, and we have alot of proposed ones that aren't formatting :) - anja 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and that is a good example of why i feel that the way guidelines are redacted here puts them as a bit more restrictive on interpretation than policies, even if they are redacted in a more open way (i mean, we have seen sanctions including "doesn't assume good faith" as one of the reasons)... heck, even the guideline infobox states that "is considered a standard that all contributors should follow"; of course, the key word there is "should" (given a opening for exceptions) instead of "must".--Fighterdoken 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the difference between guidelines and policies. One outlines the restrictions while the other outlines the conventions. One outlines the rules while the other outlines what is considered "common sense". One of the reasons (I suppose) why we have so few guidelines is because we haven't gotten around to resurrecting some of the older failed policy proposals to be considered as new guidelines. -- ab.er.rant 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Other policies

Since this would clash with policies such as GWW:POLICY and GWW:ADMIN it would be better to either advance it as revisions of those policies or as a replacement policy. Having contradictory policies is not a good idea. Backsword 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, i am not sure how it could clash with gww:policy, besides in cases where we already are applying the spirit of the policy (as this proposal only tries to make sure that interpretation is known, and decided by consensus if it's right and need to be included in the policy breached, or wrong and not applied again). Maybe just a rewording of that section.
Over GWW:Admin, the policy already states that they must not only apply the law of the policy, but also abide to consensus (as reached in the respective talk page, and which is what we could call the base for the spirit of the policy) so there shouldn't be conflict either.--Fighterdoken 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I believe Guild Wars Wiki:Policy is not stringent (inactive proposal) can be merged with this. -- ab.er.rant 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell

So what would this be in a nutshell. I read through it and am kinda having trouble figuring out the whole point of it. Is it that only Sysops are to give out warnings about policy violations? Or that they can simply ban people for "the spirit of the policy"? — ク Eloc 貢 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On what enforcement by the userbase refers, just make sure we can't become overzealous when trying to police things (as to avoid conflicts where we don't have real power to act, but where admins do). On what refers to sysops, making sure it's clear that they can enforce policies based on the consensus reached for a them, and not only on what is written on the policy.
About bans, remember that they are applied by discretion of each admin, or by decision of the arbcomm, and it's not the intention of this proposal to deal with that issue in particular.--Fighterdoken 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of Policy

This seems to mostly about what the "spirit" of a policy is. I have seen a lot of debate as to this lately. Seeing Admins who basically ignore whats written for the sake of the "spirit". I've seen people say the mission of GWW could be in conflict with a policy in GWW (not sure how that is possible with the community making the policy). I've seen many debates about how necessary it is for a policy to include something for it to be acted on.

Policies are meant to solve issues that arise as the wiki grows. Policies are not meant to become the source of issues.

Of course they are not meant to cause issues, but they will when some feel one should be modified, which is ok.

While policies try to cover as many variants of an issue as possible, they can still leave something out. As such, policies are in no way limited themselves to what is written, but to the reason why the policy exists (from now, "spirit of the policy").

This has to do with the whole "spirit" thing. To me, the spirit means what can be reasonably implied from what is directly written in the policy. NPA does not need to state every single form of NPA specifically. There is a common human understanding of what is a NPA. But if one can not clearly show where that implication is, then that policy does need to be debated, and determined if it shouold be changed. I find it sad how some admins seem to think they are above the law in a sense on this issue. Selectively listening to those policies points they agree with, and ignoring the ones they don't care for.

If there are doubts about how a policy should be interpreted, users should request help for clarifying it, and ask for amendments on the policy in case of being necesary.

Nothing wrong here.

Policy enforcement is placed in the hands of Sysops.

Fine with me

While Sysops are allowed to enforce the "spirit of the policy" instead of the policy itself, they are asked to mention such "spirit of the policy" enforcements on the policy's talk page so that the issue may be addressed in future policy change proposals.".

This is where it gets fuzzy again, the spirit of a policy and the policy itself should never really be seperate. They can not be two distinct things. If the policy is so flawed to where one can not reasonably see where it is a part of policy, it is not there. If you think it should be there, you need to work on getting the policy changed. Enforcing a policy itself is to enforce its spirit. Implied meaning should be the same as the specific meaning.

I don't really see the need or merits with having a really lose interuptation of policy. Could anyone say what that benefits?--riceball 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)