Guild Wars Wiki talk:Talk pages/Archive 2

Regina's talk page...

→ moved from Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Admin_noticeboard

...Is a fansite forum. However, the wiki isn't a forum, the goal of the wiki is not to be a forum, and we don't even have proper technology to deal with big discussions (see the indent mess people eventually make). I also don't agree in cattering to users who have almost no contributions in the main space but one thousand contributions on the talk page of the Arena Net's staff and don't plan on changing that any time soon.
I have mentioned this problem a while ago, and I have decided to mention it again now given how we have just had an influx of new sysops and the return of some old ones. IMO, we need sysop action to make users understand how Regina's talk page (and the talk pages of Arena Net's staff as a whole) are a mean to talk to their owners, not to act as forums in which to discuss Guild Wars. Erasculio 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think an approach similar to what was done on Izzy's page would help, forcing people to take their issues to the appropriate Feedback pages and moving discussions between users to their respective user talk pages? — Why 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And blocking people who ignore the warnings and insist on discussing there. With no long term tool to change the mentality of the users there, it would only become a very high maintenance talk page that the sysops would avoid. Erasculio 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, clearly the size of Regina's talk page is becoming problematic, but she's not a wiki-illiterate (wikilliterate?) like Izzy. I'm a bit hesitant to take drastic measures on the talk page of someone who is community manager but it indeed looks like Regina can't handle the influx of chatter, so I guess it would make sense to do it. I would be prepared to help enforce such a decision, anyway. — Why 18:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to create or revise policy on limitations of non-user space discussion pages and include ArenaNet staff pages as these things seem a major point of controversy and problem. Likely something to the degree of: conversational content will be removed, off-topic and/or derisive content will also be removed, etc. I'd offer to create such myself, but after spending a few hours reading and re-reading the stuff on the policy pages and policy creation, I'm no closer to understanding it than when I started. Plus I don't have the best history with wiki software when it comes to creating pages unless the software walks me through it, but I'll be glad to contribute and detail such an idea once proper procedure in creating such a page is done. Seryu 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"conversational content will be removed..." You know, as an example, Gaile kinda encourages idle chat on her talkpage. Then again, she usually logs on to the wiki everyday, unlike Regina. I'd hate to make a policy that shats all over unproblematic users. --RIDDLE 18:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I can only say that it is not for us to manage the staff pages. They have been given tools to make it as easy as possible, but as long as they wish to have a wiki presence, there is little we can do. There are those members of the community that do abuse those pages, and they can and should be dealt with by sysops (posting rules are posted prominently at the top of their pages), however, every time I have tried, I get told to stfu and gtfo. If I try to take it any farther, I get called "hostile" or "Anet fanboi". It's a battle that can't be won by adding administration, and what ultimately is going to happen is the staff are just going to stop participating in wiki communication (see Izzy and Linsey for two prime examples). -- Wyn talk 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, one idea down. Perhaps we could have Users create enforceable policy style requests for their user/discussion pages. Probably way too much for all users, so we'd just have such for staff pages. That way we'll have a big bold policy right at the top of those pages that says: sysops, please feel free to remove the following clutter content. It does seem that hoping for random wiki users to have to read through rules on any given page is a lost cause a lot of the time and I've seen enough sysop abuse in the past two months alone to wonder what god-like virtues keep you all from quitting. The only other idea I can offer is all-but abandoning personal user pages, even staff pages, and letting the individual do their own maintenance outside of obvious attacks and vandalism (might have to lighten the policies for that, however, as nonsensical commentary appears to be protected content). Seryu 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There's a difference between having "posting guidelines" at the top of the page and having an "Important notice" signed by one of the admins that says exactly the same. The latter implies the sysop team is prepared to enforce the former and that you are in serious trouble if you violate them. For you Wyn, it would lighten your workload considerably and reduce the shit that's thrown your way when you take action. I believe the strict rules on Izzy's page were what stopped the spam on that page, not Izzy leaving the wiki, and I'm prepared to write such a notice and help enforcing it, but I need to know if there's consensus in the sysop team. — Why 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Anet staff chose the wiki as their primary source of communication. People get hostile, that's a given, and action should probably be taken against hostile users. However, not allowing people to ask "difficult questions" is simply outrageous. I think we all wish that Anet had chosen a better way for us to communicate with them, but sadly they chose this place. We can neither baby the staff, nor beat down "difficult" topics. Either will cause problems. Karate Jesus 19:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about censoring "difficult" topics. This is about moving or removing things not directed at Regina (such as discussion between users) and directing feedback to where it belongs. If people have a "difficult" question for Regina, there's no problem with posting it on her talk page. — Why 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Moving Feedback is fine (after all, that's what the Feedback space is for) but moving discussion is, in my opinion, not. Different users have different viewpoints, discussion between users shows these viewpoints which in turn help Regina etc get the different opinions of their player base. Of course, not all discussion is healthy discussion, so these can be moved. That did not come out exactly as I wanted to, but you know what I mean.- Mini Me talk 19:21, 13 January 2010

(Reset indent) That's what the move template is for. If Regina wants to head over to so and so's page to read the wall of text that was generated because a discussion veered from a question about update timing to bitching about the "meta", she can do so, there's a nice blue link for her. -- FreedomBound 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

While difficult topics do indeed occur the big issue I've been seeing is when posted matter is simply complaint rather than constructive feedback or actual game discussion. This is occuring on more than just the staff user pages, too (see the frequent clutter of popular pages). I feel that it would be in all of our best interest to do something that frees up administrative action so that we can cut down on abuse of wiki and users alike. Seryu 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, the thing is, Regina's talk page does not belong exclusively to Regina; it's a tool for the community to get in touch with her, and it's part of the wiki. She may want to allow behavior that is otherwise disruptive, but she has as much a saying in that as I have in trying to simply delete comments in my talk page without archiving them. The "wiki is a forum" mentality is detrimental to the wiki, and its main focus (although not the only one) is in the page of the Arena Net staff. Besides, if the only way to solve the user abuse on those pages is for the staff owner to stop using them, I guess it's clear we are not dealing with those pages properly.

The problem with just moving the comments is, IMO, how it doesn't work. It's not in the best interest of the wiki to have our sysops perpetually engaged in pushing Sysyphus' rock upwards only to see it coming down whenever an user wants to comment on the state of GW at Regina's page. I believe we need stronger action - to block the users who continually ignore how the wiki is not a forum and insist on discussing between themselves in those talk pages - in order to make those users stop, and thus solve this problem on the long term. Erasculio 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the sysop team is going to be blocking 70% of the community on a regular basis. -- Wyn talk 22:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

^ and again...it would be easier if we had another way to communicate with the staff, but there's just not one. And, I would tentatively point out that Regina is more active on GWGuru now than she is on the wiki. I would venture to assume that GWGuru is far more negative than the wiki. Karate Jesus 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, a large number of the "regulars" at Regina's talk page basically only contribute to her talk page; it's not that common to see the users who contribute to the wiki in discussions there, and thankfully the latter group is far bigger than the former. I would expect a few users to be blocked some times, and then the rest to fall in line. Erasculio 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Let's get back to the points made in the original post, because I get the impression this is spinning offtopic rather rapidly.

1. Regina's talk page is currently used pretty much as a forum, and it's established that wiki talk pages should not be used as a forum.
2. We've had this problem before, at talk:Ursan Blessing and Izzy's user talk.
3. Those situations were solved after the community had reached consensus and notices were put on those pages [1] [2].

Now the question is, should we do something like this again for Regina's page? I personally think an approach like that could really benefit Regina's talk page. As far as I know the Izzy-page situation was resolved with a relatively low level of drama, moving discussion between users that wasn't directed at Izzy, deleting the trolling and short-term block for people that consistently broke the agreed-on rules of posting. In fact I don't recall "70% of the community" getting blocked in that instance (which was very similar to the one currently at hand), I remember it were three, four, five, maybe a bit more blocks, but certainly not a shocking amount. I think we can safely proceed as we did last time, should it be deemed necessary. — Why 03:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Erasculio 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. —Tanaric 03:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Regina's page is a monster, one that I have taken to avoiding due to the way its used. By the way, I presume someone will draw her attention to this proposal before it is implemented; I know the wiki is not a forum and she can't override that, but just so she's not surprised when her talk page is suddenly semi-protected. — THARKUN 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Why. I also already took the liberty of drawing Regina's attention to this topic as soon as I saw it pop up earlier today. — Jon Lupen 04:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all Why, et al. Regina's page has gotten a bit out of hand, and this approach worked very well for Izzy's page. And thank you, Jon. Hopefully we'll get a response in the next day or two and be able to implement this shortly thereafter. calor (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but my opinion will be relatively pointless since you allseem to have your minds made up already. There is a big difference that needs to be pointed out between Izzy's page and Regina's page ~ Regina IS the Community Relations Manager. It is her job to communicate with the community, and take their comments. Izzy on the other hand was the skill balancer, and while he did at first ask for community input, it very quickly became more than he could deal with time wise with the rest of his job, and provided little if any benefit. Regina however is paid to communicate with the community. While the crackdown on Izzy's page stopped the initial wave of ranting and raving that was going on, it also became apparent that he was no longer going to respond, so there was really a "what's the point" sort of attitude as well. As CRM, Regina is NOT going to simply stop using the wiki as a form of communication, and while the current crop of users who feel it necessary to comment on every topic posted on her page may be stopped, there will always be a new set coming behind them. This will be an ongoing effort that in the long run will, imo reap little benefit for the wiki community. Since people now can't seem to grasp the "this is not a forum" concept, I don't see even a few blocks changing their minds. I've been "preaching" take it to a fansite for months, if not years, and the same people are still there in every topic. You will notice that KJ is opposed to this idea as well, since he'd be one of the first ones to be banned for abusing her page, along with Qalatega, ilr, and Boro, all of whom have been warned (and some even banned already) for the same thing yet they continue. -- Wyn talk 04:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No matter what level of control we enact, no matter what measures we take in any area, if you impose a policy that hinders people's normal habits, there will always be the sticks in the mud that refuse to change, no matter how many times you ban them. There are incessant vandals that always return once their block is over, but does that mean we just stop blocking vandals because they'll return anyway? I sure hope not. "But some people will keep doing it anyway," is never a legit reason for opposing a restriction. "I've been "preaching" take it to a fansite for months, if not years..." Yes, but when you have no authority to back what you preach, people aren't inclined to listen. Penalties for not adhering is likely to change more minds than just a lecture.

On the flip-side of the same coin, Regina is the CRM and it is her job to interact with the community, so imposing posting restrictions on her page may be counter-productive. While the majority seem to have made up their minds, I hope we plan on waiting for Regina to weigh in before any restrictions are put in place. — Jon Lupen 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Regina's page would become easier to be used as a way to comunicate with her if Regina did not have to read massive walls of text that are not addressed at her in every other section. Short messages for Regina would still be there and would become actually more likely to be answered to, if this change were implemented. We're not really preventing people from talking to Regina; we're preventing people from using Regina's page to talk among themselves. Erasculio 09:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No offense, Wyn, but I don't think the users on those pages are even listening to you anymore, you somehow lost your authority there to some level.. That's why I don't think Wyn should be the one to sign such a notice. poke | talk 10:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What does any of this matter? She's just gonna tag it all with "answered" and have it archived, regardless of the fact that she never answers anything.

In another dimension where I care, I agree with Why's suggestion above. -Auron 10:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Linsey has left the wiki (at least partially thanks to this kind of thing, IMO), but if she ever returns the same thing could apply on her talk page as well. It's more or less the same users who use those pages as a forum, anyway. Erasculio 10:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's quite a lot to take on for sysops enforcing this kind of thing. I'm not too eager to involve myself in moving discussions. For one, our suggestion and feedback system is different to what we had then - instead of centralised pages for each skill, for example, we have suggestion pages for each user. Where do the moved discussions go? If it goes to a user talk page, which user's? The OP, or some other user involved in the discussion that should be moved? Do we create feedback userspaces/userpages for people? (And who do we create them for if the discussion is spread out among multiple users?)

Having done this with Izzy's talk before, I encountered complaints, QQs, reversions, and also general confusion from good-faith editors. How many sysops are willing to enforce this, and to what extent? Are they willing to put up with the flak they'll inevitably get? Personally, I found it tiring and frustrating. Is it worth the trouble and extra time that'll go into it? Should only sysops be enforcing this (as was predominantly done previously), or can users do it too?

I'm not particularly a fan of this system anymore. I think Regina is quite capable of weeding out the things she doesn't want to answer, and is sufficiently familiar with wiki-editing (as opposed to, say, Izzy). What goes on on Regina's talk is an example of the larger problem throughout the wiki - trolls, forum/pvx exiles, people frustrated with ArenaNet and venting their spleen on any contestable subject's talk page, a general forumness, and a lack of enthusiasm or motivation to improve articles (whether by editing them directly or contributing to talk page discussions). Mainspace-editing is a kind of niche-project, while discussing endlessly the problems of Shadow Form, the XTH, and skill balances is the popular thing, and the more unproductive thing.

If we're going to enforce something like this on Regina's talk page, I won't be actively opposing. However, I wouldn't actively enforce it either - I'd stick with the usual policy breaking and trolling problems. — pling 14:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving discussion and feedback to a user's Feedback talk page (Feedback talk:User/Username) would be best I guess, wouldn't it, with licensing and such? As to whose page, if we have a ruling like last time, I think it's best if the user initially responding to the OP would be the one that receives the moved data, unless the moving sysop decides it is better placed elsewhere. In fact, do you think we should write a policy on this, a GWW:NOFORUM or "GWW:What Guild Wars Wiki is (not)" before taking action? I remember you proposed implementing a policy here last time this issue came up, it might help, I don't really know. On enforcing, I'd be willing to do moving, removing and mildly blocking if I know consensus is in favor of the system. — Why 16:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding creating feedback spaces for users, I don't believe it's a good idea (or legal) to force them to accept the different licensing terms. elix Omni 16:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I suggest moving it to their Feedback talk page, as they're posting on a Feedback talk page (Regina's) in the first place, so that shouldn't be a problem (I think, unless I'm mistaken. I must admit I never really read into the whole Feedback namespace terms and conditions etc.) — Why 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's still part of the Feedback namespace. To clarify, it's not a problem creating subpages of Feedback:User/Blah, as long as the user himself originally created the page Feedback:User/Blah, because that's when they agree to the licensing terms. We can't create that page for them. elix Omni 16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But aren't they agreeing to the terms by posting in the feedback namespace to begin with? — Jon Lupen 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe that's on a per-case basis, and not a blanket statement. elix Omni 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Um Felix.... Regina's page is in the feedback namespace, there is no change in licensing terms moving discussions to a user's feedback page, I however, also don't agree with us creating a feedback space for someone who doesn't have one. The Feedback pages and the steps to get one were set up for the specific purpose of making sure people understood their posts were licensed differently in this area. Seriously, how many people do you think actually read the text under the edit box? Creating pages for people who don't otherwise have them totally bypasses this process. This also doesn't work for unregistered users. There is also no issue in moving to their userspace, other than further discussion cannot be used by Arena Net in any official form. I will have to (omg the world is going to end) agree with Pling. I will not be actively working to enforce this as I was one of the few who actively assisted Pling with Izzy's page, and it was as he said tiring and frustrating. I also feel that comparing Izzy's page with Regina's is like comparing apples to grapes for all the reasons that have already been pointed out. On the occasions with Linsey's page where I have moved discussion to the user's space, I always moved it to the OP's talk page, in it's entirety, leaving only the original post on Linsey's page. I have often been met with the same attitudes as Pling encountered with Izzy's. -- Wyn talk 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to save myself from looking stupid, I know her talk page is in the Feedback space, but by moving an entire conversation to a specific user's Feedback space, you would be violating the bit of Feedback:Rules about collaborative editing, would you not? elix Omni 16:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Edit conflict) From my end, posting in the Feedback namespace and not having your post subject to the licensing terms is like posting anywhere on the wiki without being subject to any of the policies. In my books, the fact that you're posting it in the feedback namespace means you agree to the terms, what page within the namespace seems to be irrelevant after that. Someone please correct me if this isn't how it works. As for doing the actual management of the page, I handled Izzy's page before it ceased to see attention, so I'd be willing to continue that on Regina's page. That is, if the fact that I'm not a sysop is irrelevant. — Jon Lupen 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As for collaborative editing, I'm 95% sure that only applies to content posted outside the feedback namespace. Besides, a comment is not a collaborative piece of work. We'd just be moving a collection of comments. — Jon Lupen 16:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well putting all that aside, there are a couple of points in Feedback:Rules#Game suggestions about not creating pages in another user's space... is it worth discussing and modifying that policy to reduce clutter on a single user's talk page? elix Omni 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it's not worth moving comments to the Feedback space. If someone makes a new section at Regina's talk page with a suggestion, leave it there; move only the other users' comments about that suggestion, which can be moved to a common talk page anyway. Having to create a feedback page would eventually become too high maintenance for those pages; I wouldn't be against simply deleting those comments, but I doubt other people here would agree.

And regarding Pling and Wynthyst comments about the problems they faced: I admire you both for trying to impose order on the Arena Net's staff talk pages, but I think your methods failed (as seen on how Isaiah and Linsey have apparently left the wiki). You were way too soft on those users; they had no motivation to stop, given how whenever they added a comment on one of the talk pages, at most someone would only move it away. Taking a stand and actually blocking those users until they complained would have gone a long way on reducing the "wiki is a forum" mentality. Erasculio 16:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Felix, Feedback:Rules was created by the community based on our own expectations of the feedback space - there wouldn't be a licensing issue in moving content from Regina's talk to another page in the feedback namespace, which was the whole point of putting Anet staff talk pages there. If the consensus overrides something in Feedback:Rules, it's the latter that's in need of updating. I wouldn't really say it's a "policy", but it's still subject to the most recent relevant consensus. — pling 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out the blurb at the top of Regina's page which includes: This is a space for community issues surrounding Guild Wars. I may be misunderstanding that green block of text, but it seems to me that she means for her talk page to be space to discuss "community issues". The fact "community issues" is incredibly vague doesn't help curb the size of the page, but at the moment she seems to be inviting people to do it. So my question is: Did anyone ask Regina about this? Or has she expressed unhappiness with the disorder or the size of the page? How would she like her userspace organized with regards to community issues?Mr J 16:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying it's a space for community issues does not mean it's a space for users to discuss community issues between themselves, rather to discuss community issues with Regina. And while it is her talk page, she does not have full control over it; try to delete a section of your own talk page and you will see how you will be told you are not allowed to do so. Regina's talk page is as much a part of the wiki as any other page; and if there is behavior there which is disruptive to the wiki (such as using this site as a forum), it has to be dealt with. Arena Net is free to make their own forum if they would like to have one. Erasculio 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great and all, but maybe it's worth just discussing this with her? At the end of the day, she does work for the company that effectively owns this wiki and they may use it as they see fit, but perhaps there's something that can be done outside the current capacity of the wiki to draw the majority of this traffic from her talk page if the community is finding it disruptive. I'd wager a 30 minute conversation with her will be a lot more productive than days of discussing this amongst yourselves on the admin noticeboard. Mr J 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"and they may use it as they see fit": not really. This site is run by the community, and the community decides what happens, not Arena Net. When this wiki was created an Arena Net employer asked us to host a notice about one of Arena Net's partner, and the answer was "no", as that didn't belong here. It's the same thing now: a forum page does not belong here.

Regardless, as mentioned above someone has already mentioned this discussion to Regina. If she happens to have time to be part of this discussion she will likely join it, but the community is not going to wait for a reply that may never arrive in order to discuss a problem. Erasculio 17:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

She knows all about this conversation and will be giving her response some time today most likely. @Eras, it's all well and good for you to say we were too soft on people, but you are not the one doing it. I for one would really like to know what the current definition of "disruption" is, as it appears to be more an issue of clogging up the RC is being used as the definition of disruptive more than anything else. I personally consider something to be disruptive if it is creating other breaches of policy (most notably NPA) where tempers are flying high. That is what I see as disruptive, and those types of issues are already being dealt with by admins. As for not using the wiki like a forum... that is something you are never going to achieve in this community... full stop. -- Wyn talk 17:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Eras, I think you'll find that was a courtesy on their part. I'm pretty sure they own the servers (or rent or w/e) and maintain the software (or pay another company to) and have the ability to strip every user and visitor of the permissions to even preview the source code of pages if they were so inclined. Just because they allow a community of people maintain a website they own doesn't mean those people have absolute control over it. But this is starting to sound very dramatic and I just wanted to point out that invitation to discuss on Regina's page. Mr J 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I say we ban anyone who dare's to ask the a CR manager a question. How dare we expect them to communicate with us here. Oh, and apparently Wyn does want to ban me. So, I apologize for being wrong earlier. Karate Jesus 20:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, there are many kinds of disruption here. Having all those pages filled with users talking between each other makes it hard to use the talk page for its intended goal, talking to Regina, which is a problem (although the smaller one here). Such behavior has led to the loss of two wiki users who added unique assets to the community (Isaiah and Linsey); making users quit is one of the biggest kinds of disruption we have. And of course there's the fact of people using the wiki as a forum, leading to the situation Brains described in which actually contributing to document the game became a niche, and we catter to users who at best have no interest in helping the wiki and at worst have no interest in helping the wiki and give trouble to the admins by breaching NPA and other policies.

The "wiki is a forum" mentality has to go. I'm sure you really believe we cannot stop it, but I think you are not willing to go far enough to stop it. Regina's page isn't where such mentality was born, but it's currently the most evident example of such behavior in all its glory. Erasculio 20:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, hypothetically taking another step forward, say we want to do away with the forum mentality as best we can. How do we go about it? calor (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the worst part of it are the talk pages of Arena Net's staff, especially Linsey and Regina's pages. Those two pages have created a mentality in which the point of the wiki is to discuss GW among other players without doing anything else, and from there said attitude is spreading to other pages (and to some other user talk pages). There are a few other problematic articles, like the talk page of Shadow Form, but those are transient problems and much smaller than the talk pages of the staff.

If the contributors who use Regina and Linsey's talk page to chat among themselves learn that they either stop doing so or they will be gone, we would be acting at the nearest thing we have to the root of the problem. It would also make those pages more useable, both for us and for their owners.

IMO, that would make many of the users who are here only to chat (and refuse to do anything else) to either be banned repeatedly and leave, or stop talking at Arena Net's talk pages, become bored, and leave. A few will likely rattle against the bars and will have to be dealt with, but once those users are gone, I think the forum mentality would become far more limited and only raise its head during big changes to GW (such as right after the incoming skill update, which theorically will nerf many popular farming skills). Erasculio 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pals, has reggie (or any of the arenanet staff) ever actually implied there was a problem? Izzy was wiki illiterate to begin with and Linsey's lack of participation on the wiki recently has been the result (I'm assuming) of an uptick in the work her job as design leader entails. Linsey (unlike reggie) is NOT a part of the staff whose job necessitates constant communication with the community. You'd think that if Reggie had a problem with her talk page she'd either point it out to the admins of this site or take care of it herself, wouldn't you? She IS a big girl after all! The pointless drama shitstorming on GWW is absolutely hilarious xD--TahiriVeila 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To give a further example of how the current system is disruptive to the rest of the wiki, it catters to users with zero contributions on the mainspace who demand admin attention; we waste the time of sysops as they have to do damage control on users who contribute very little to the wiki, outside user talk pages. Erasculio 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could have just answered his question rather than being a dick. But meh, so are the ways of GWW. Karate Jesus 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Eras. We should use 'selective breeding' to raise up a group of super-wiki'ers. Only they should be allowed to inherent the wiki. Those with faults or those who "demand admin attention" should be cast aside. Karate Jesus 23:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, everyone. So I've been keeping an eye on the discussion here, and figured I'd weigh in as well. My feeling is that if derailed conversations/discussions on my talk page is posing an organizational problem or any issue for the smooth running of the wiki, then I have no problem with wiki admins coming in to enforce standards that would help them do what they need to do as painlessly as possible. If this means enforcing no side-discussions/enforcing the concept that the wiki is not to be used as a forum, then I am perfectly okay with that. As Erasculio pointed out, the wiki isn't a forum. A wiki's function is different than a forum, and they're built to accommodate different things. If side discussions on my wiki talk page are posing the kind of disruption described, then by all means, I think it is okay to guide wiki users into the proper use of talk pages, in keeping with the aims and purpose of the wiki. I cannot speak to how other staff members feel about this, however. --Regina Buenaobra 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On an urelated note, please do not call me "Reggie". :-) I have this weird inability to respond unless I'm addressed by my actual name. I don't respond to people calling me "Linsey" or "Martin"--neither of those are my name. Likewise, as "Reggie" is not actually my name, so it's not something I react to, whatsoever (except for the reaction: "Why are you calling me that?". :-) --Regina Buenaobra 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Regina. It's appreciated. Erasculio 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the Reggie comment Regina, I always assumed it was a nickname you used fairly frequently since doing a search for "Reggie" redirects to your userpage. And i think part of the reason why discussions occur on your page is that there's no other OFFICIAL place where we can do that. Yes there's guru and yes there's teamquitter, but anet has very little involvement with guru (it's an unofficial site after all) and anet has no involvement at all on teamquitter (the premier forum site for guild wars pvpers). Your talk page is the one place where it can be certain that the concerns of the community get seen, which is why discussions break out there. I don't see why it's a problem, since it's a TALK page an not in the mainspace. If these side conversations were happening in the mainspace I could see the issue, but it seems like pointless drama-stirring to make such a big deal over players having discussions on discussion pages. Hope that last comment was passive agressive enough for you Eras, the next time you want take shots at me instead of answering my questions/arguments come right out and say your insults. You can bet I will.--TahiriVeila 01:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ups, my bad. A Search for User:Reggie redirects to your userpage, just searching for Reggie redirects to your page in the mainspace--TahiriVeila 01:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tahiri, how about I save Erasculio the trouble and I take a shot or two at you. Regina's page is for contacting Regina. Her talk page is NOT for discussing the game. Forums are for discussing the game. Wiki user talk pages are for contacting users. GWW is not a forum. This is about people using Regina's talk page as a forum, which it is not, and how to prevent it. — Jon Lupen 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've summed up this entire debate as "Do not use Anet staff pages as a means of discussing things pertaining to their products." However, this seems to be a tad bit ridiculous. As previously noted, this wiki is used daily by Gaile, and regularly by Regina and other staff members. This, a well-known fact, is spurned on by users who find the in-game reporting system to be bare-bones and generally useless. Going to the NCSoft website to report is very cumbersome, and doesn't exactly fix anything as well. Also, the reporting system in game, only covers a handful of problems in the game at the moment. You have griefers, bots, leechers, gold sellers, account phishers, etc. Not only that, but the game balance seems terribly off currently (lol). This meta is stagnant and users are becoming more and more unsatisfied with the game they are playing. This leads to them coming where?

The one place they can (somewhat) directly contact someone from said game.

That being said, assuming users will always bring just the complaints (compliments, even), and only those to a staff members page is just dumb. You can threaten to ban all you want, but in terms of being a functional wiki, you want discussion. Yes, things do get out of hand at times, but a lively discussion is an exchange of ideas no matter what. Trolling and constant NPA can be handled by the sysops. Implement a policy (I'm a bit unclear on GWW's policies) that allows disruptive comments to be removed. If more than 2 users believe it is so, remove it and carry on. We're customers, and some actually care a lot about Guild Wars. Hell, at some point, we all really have. We wouldn't be on a wiki dedicated to it, right? I'll agree that the rampant discussion and childishness should be kept away from certain pages, but I believe that telling users not to post on a talk page is a tad bit stupid. Enforce your policies, whine about how large some talk pages become, do whatever you all please. In the end, all of this will result in, as also previously stated, a lot of banned users. If you look at 90% of talks on here, including my new talk, you'll see that people like to just talk back and forth over talks. Hence it being a 'User talk'. Yeah, you're only supposed to contact and notify using the talks, but honestly. Name one user on this entire site that has done only that. That's all I have to add to this. -- Dee Strongfist 07:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Take 2

Since we now have Regina's approval, how would you people like to implement this? I think Why made a good summary some paragraphs above, but there are a few things I would like to ask:

1) Notice at the top of Regina's page or no notice? I'm a bit wary of adding a notice at the top of her page due to how crowded it's in there; between the (usually huge) TOC, the posting guidelines that are already there, and the huge boxes at the right, I'm not sure a new notice would be seen. We could add it to the posting guidelines there, but IMO it's important to let users know how that's a move by the wiki and its contributors, not just Regina telling them what to do. And adding a red flashing notice above everything currently there would maybe be seen by the users who don't just skip down, but it would look ugly, and would be altering the content of Regina's talk page in a way I'm not exactly comfortable with. Besides, as much as Regina's page is one of the more problematic places, the idea that the wiki is not a forum does not belong exclusively at Regina's page; it's something that applies to the entire wiki.

We could add a notice, of course. But maybe it would be better to write a small paragraph whenever a section is partially moved, explaining users why the move and how Regina's page (and the wiki) is not the proper place for such discussions. Or, we could follow Why's suggestion and write a GWW:NOFORUM article to link people to, in order to explain it better.

2) What to do with moved stuff? IMO, it would be better to leave the first "post" of a new section there (until people begin to use this to troll, such as making a section titled "In reply to the section above"), since theorically it's addressing Regina, and move the following discussion between users to someone's talk page. Suggestions are usually the first post (with the rest being comments about it), so the Feedback space/User space problem would be avoided, and we would avoid taxing sysops with the creation of Feedback pages for users (which would only make this system way too high maintenance).

Erasculio 10:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Any notice really should explain why the move is being made. It's vital that we highlight that the cleaner the page, the more likely it is for A.net to continue to communicate with us as a community; that walls of texts are effectively "Interrupt target Arena.Net poster." A template to use that mentions that a particular section (/"thread") has met criteria gone off-topic and is no longer suitably considered communications with Regina and should be moved, with some kind of admin power behind violators once tagged? It could be generic to use anywhere. --Emkyooess 12:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you remove everything but the OP, you will lose some relevant information. Case-by-case evaluation is the only policy that I'd personally like to see used in this matter, but I understand that that is less than practical. is for Raine, etc. 12:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Raine, sometimes the question is actually answered by a user before Regina can even get to it (although that sometimes usually leads to whines of "but I want to hear Regina say it"), then Regina just comes by and tags it for archiving. So I don't think it will be quite that simple all of the time. -- FreedomBound 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But couldn't that same person answer the OP's question on their talk page? --JonTheMon 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you simply go back to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 6a and designate Regina's page as Volatile. -- Wyn talk 15:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Raine and FB have a point, in how some times a question can be replied by any common user. However, I'm not worried about the "but Regina must be the one to answer it!" demands, rather with the wave of discussion that follows any reply, even if it has completely answered the original question of the section. Given how our goal is to remove the mentality behind such discussion, I think that, for now, it would be better to remove all replies to a section that were not made by Regina; in the future, when there isn't such a forum mentality anymore, we could leave proper answers from users there knowing they would not be followed by massive walls of text. Of course, blocking an user for replying to something at Regina's talk page would have to be a matter of sysop discretion, and not an all or nothing scenario, but then again that's how blocking works anyway. Erasculio 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:TahiriVeila

If they are questions that can be answered by anyone, they go on Help:Ask a game question not on Regina's page. Regina's page should be for questions that only Regina can answer. In that case, there should be no reason for the rest of the community to create walls of text regarding them. -- Wyn talk 16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice

In regards to the notice, maybe it can be placed at the top of the edit screen, similar to how we have a message for guild pages at the bottom, and how we used to have a notice at the top for ArenaNet-namespace pages. Similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&action=edit. Since it wouldn't be in the middle of other notices, and people aren't used to having large notices above edit windows, it might be effective. — pling 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That, or a template added when something is moved (it could even be merged with the move template, so it would be easier for the sysops to use). Although Brains' idea is better, as the sysops would be free to simply move the discussions away without having to bother repeating the explanation (as anyone editing the page would have already seen it). Erasculio 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How about, to the edit screen:

Note: Please remember that the wiki is not a fansite forum, but rather an encyclopedic resource about Guild Wars. User talk pages exist as tools to contact their owners, not for a group of other users to discuss the game or each others' ideas. Such comments will be moved from this page, and users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked per admin discretion.

I tried using a more generic language, in case we would later like to use the same notice on other pages. I would rather avoid the big red warnings, too, hence using the less garish notice. Erasculio 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Too mch text, nobody will even look at that box. Pling's idea would be better. poke | talk 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And that notice ignores policy - namely this one [3]. You need to either re-write the policy or re-write the note. Karate Jesus 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Poke, that is for Pling's idea; it's the notice for the top of the edit screen, not for the top of Regina's talk page. Erasculio 18:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Karate, first that policy, especially that section, is about the user pages, not the talk pages. See the direct section above to see that all user talk pages are to be treated like normal talk pages. Also you are forgetting that this is the Feedback talk namespace, so nothing of that policy actually applies. poke | talk 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio, yes I know, still too much text. poke | talk 18:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions, if you would like to write a shorter version. I'm not sure how much we should explain in the notice, and how much (if any) we should explain somewhere else. Erasculio 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait....Feedback talk pages don't count as talk pages according to policy? lolwut? Karate Jesus 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The feedback namespace, especially its talk pages are not covered by the User page policy, yes. poke | talk 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How about:

Note: Please remember that the wiki is not a fansite forum. Discussions between users will be moved, and users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked.

Although I'm not sure that's enough to make people understand exactly what we're doing. Erasculio 20:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Personally I'd prefer a grand action like the "Refurbishment" of Izzy's page (moving the old talk to a temporary subpage, without locking the page) as we would start with a blank slate, it'd show we're serious about this and it is impossible to miss. It might be too drastic for the current situation though. If we make a simpler more subtle notice I think a link to this talk page has to be included. — Why 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that is necessary. Though I would prefer a larger, more prominent notice, making it clear that this is and administrative action and not something instigated by the user such as the notice that was placed on Izzy's page. Then it will be up to the administrators that choose to enforce it to carry on. There is no need to create a temporary archive of current topics, it should just go into affect as of the point it gets posted. -- Wyn talk 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I would like a larger explanation as well. The problem of linking to this page is how we would eventually be linking to an archive, so people who wanted to discuss it would likely begin editing the archive without realizing it. I believe either a bigger notice at the edit page, or a small notice linking to the article Why had suggested (GWW:NOFORUM is catchy), would be better. Erasculio 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even reading this discussion, I feel like ignoring the example notice boxes :/. I would prefer a full-width box and preferably some red and bolding, if this is the way we're going to go.

In regards to the policies and their application - I would say that what applies to user talk pages applies to user talk pages in the feedback namespace; they're only there because of the licensing. If the consensus disagrees with a policy, it's the latter that's in need of updating and improving, and based on the consensus it can subsequently be updated. However, the talk page we're discussing here is very much an "exception to the rule" - for the most part, it isn't a normal talk page. -- pling 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta-da:

The wiki is not a forum: before you edit, consider if you are using the wiki to document the game, contact another contributor and discuss the wiki, or to discuss Guild Wars and other subjects that should be at a fansite. Failure to comply will lead to blocks.

Although I still think that's too short; either more text or a link are needed, IMO. Erasculio 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How about recycling your first text:
<big>'''The wiki is not a forum:'''</big> user talk pages exist as tools to contact their owners, not for a group of other users to discuss the game or each others' ideas. Such comments will be moved or removed from this page, and users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked per admin discretion. Guild Wars Wiki is an encyclopedic resource about Guild Wars. Discussion about the game belongs on [[fansite]] forums.
The notice itself is good, imo. — Why 00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's much better! Although we might want to focus on the actual staff pages on the notice, because that is what we are targetting. poke | talk 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that should be clear, from the fact that this notice is only posted on a staff member's talk page. Feel free to elaborate on the text though, I'm out of inspiration. :) — Why 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I really liked your text, Why. Modifying a word and adding the box around it...

The wiki is not a forum: developer talk pages exist as tools to contact their owners, not for a group of other users to discuss the game or each others' ideas. Such comments will be moved or removed from this page, and users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked per admin discretion. Guild Wars Wiki is an encyclopedic resource about Guild Wars. Discussion about the game belongs on fansite forums.

And the plan would be to add that to the edit notice of Regina's talk page, per Pling's idea. Erasculio 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like this to include the fact that Regina's page has been deemed a volatile page by the wiki community, so that people know this action is something that has gained community consensus, or at least administrative team consensus. This will keep it in line with the precedent set on Izzy's page. -- Wyn talk 10:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean something like...

The wiki is not a forum: developer talk pages exist as tools to contact their owners, not for a group of other users to discuss the game or each others' ideas. Such comments will be moved or removed from this and all other page deemed as volatile by the community. Users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked per admin discretion. Guild Wars Wiki is an encyclopedic resource about Guild Wars. Discussion about the game belongs on fansite forums.

^That? I actually liked the previous notice more; three lines are better than four, IMO, and I'm not sure the users we are targetting with this know what a volatile talk page is (we never wrote that down outside the community portal archive, I think). Erasculio 12:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is how Community Relations in GW dies, to thunderous applause

Just saying. Now she has only more excuses to ignore us. Karate Jesus 17:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly KJ, you can't blame Regina or anyone making this proposal. Look to yourself, and the others like you that refuse to treat talk pages like talk pages, and insist on using them as forums for your gripes and rages. -- Wyn talk 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, their community relations isn't specific to this wiki - they did "well" before GWW existed, they'll do "well" (or whatever they consider "well") when GWW is a little more limited. The devs will continue using the forums. Anyway, weren't you complaining on Regina's talk page that she used Guru to inform people of the skill balance and not the wiki? Why would they stop CR there if we limited it here...? -- pling 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was complaining that she posted it on the 40th some-odd random forum page that only about a dozen people noticed at first. And I get upset at the CR of GW in general because that's typically where you find it - crammed in some corner for people to try to hunt down. Meh, I guess I'll shut up. I just like the idea of knowing what's going on and having a more open game. Karate Jesus 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Wyn, as I just said on Jake's page (TahiriVeila) talk pages will always be the tiniest bit similar to forums because they're talk pages. People like to talk on talk pages, believe it or not. And stepping in and saying things like "quit bogging down the RC" is just stupid. Karate Jesus 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is a response from Regina easier to see in a discussion with only a couple of comments, or in between half a dozen walls of text undirected to Regina? Keep in mind that Regina would still be able to post things, it's just other people's responses that will be toned down. -- pling 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I always thought Regina would appreciate the conversation, as a CR, because it gives her insight into how players feel about issues. The problem is that often only one side of the coin is represented :/ Karate Jesus 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

pling, yes -- it is. we have can easily see "contribs" by Regina and other a.net members. --Emkyooess 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

KJ, there is only one side of the coin represented for a good reason. When anet does something well, there are congratulations and thanks, because they are in order. Why is there currently so much bitching, venting, and rage? Because they are in order. is for Raine, etc. 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, would we be doing the same thing if all of the material "bogging down" the page were positive, thankful, and uplifting? I believe that we are, for lack of a better word, carebearing under false pretenses. is for Raine, etc. 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pling, that is a strong waffle argument. Seeing anet staff's comments in a section has not been an issue; why should we change things for an imaginary benefit? I believe the bigger issue here is that we don't want to create another "Izzy Situation" with another of anets representatives. To be quite blunt, anet staff needs to harden the fuck up. Short of that, they (especially the CR department) are not doing their job, and shouldn't, imo, be allowed to grow comfortable in that neglect. is for Raine, etc. 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Raine, I would do the same thing even if all the "bogging down" consisted on people posting rainbow pictures at Arena Net's talk pages, as long as said people tried to change the mentality of the wiki so people would believe the point of this site would be to see pretty rainbows, as opposed to documenting GW. It's not a matter of people whining; rather, of people assuming this is a forum. Erasculio 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In that, I believe you are a minority. I have never, ever, ever seen anyone oppose a wall of "thank you" or "good job". is for Raine, etc. 01:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Because they are usually directed at the user who's page is in question. — Jon Lupen 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As Jon said, those type of messages are generally appropriate for the reason he mentioned. You don't see KJ congratulating ilr for an impressive GvG win on Regina's page, nor would you be likely to, unlike the user to user discussions that occur on her page frequently regarding opinions about the state of the game. If every post on her page were directed at her, rather than at the other people posting there, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it is, one person posts a question/statement, and poster 2 responds to it, then poster 1 rebutts, and then poster 3 has to chime in their 2 cents, and on and on and on.... until Regina logs on and finds walls of text. Based on her responses, I would guess she rarely reads anything other than the original post that was directed at her to begin with so why is moving all the rest of that user to user discussion to more appropriate places a problem? -- Wyn talk 06:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If she doesn't read it, why move it? Discussing different opinions on a topic brought up by one user isn't a problem imo; either it adds information or nothing really happens. What else would someone do, create another section with the opposing viewpoint? As I think KJ noted, this is a direct feedback link with Regina, and people will naturally want to bring other views to her attention. In terms of disruption, I guess I don't see how it is disruptive and how it would warrant anything beyond normal procedure if an argument became too heated/personal.

That being said, there are a lot of comments that don't relate to the topic, such as bashing Anet in general as opposed to on the specific issue. Even though KJ and Boro (for a non-inclusive example) are right, it gets a little stale when the standard stuff is tacked on to everything. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that any sysop willing to enforce whatever limits could be decided upon would be able to handle removals without bias, but on the other hand not all users will be reasonable enough to modify behavior if it is seen as an issue.

I think the underlying problem is the age and state of the game. After 5 years, how much is there to really do "for the Wiki"? Sure, there are always tasks to be done, but with so much of the game documented the wiki is shifting toward a focus on social networking and creating policies to cover every possible event. I can't see policy fixing stupidity and lack of common sense, or changing what the culture here is now. --67.240.83.137 07:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"After 5 years, how much is there to really do "for the Wiki"?": A lot. Really, there are a lot of things missing from the wiki. It's not that users came here eager to contribute and, upon finding how there wasn't anything left to do, decided to just chat among themselves; rather that users are coming here ignoring how this is an encyclopedia and believing this is just a big forum in which to talk about GW with their friends. Erasculio 10:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erasculio, there is a lot that still needs to be done, and this wiki has actually not been around since the beginning of the game, so there is probably more than you would imagine. I would also agree that too many people here are using this as a social networking forum. While it is a community of people with one primary thing in common, the game Guild Wars, it is fragmented into several sub-communities, those who are documenting the game, those who are suggesting changes/fixes for the game, those that are complaining about the state of the game, and those that are just hanging out with their buddies. The first two groups are appropriate for the wiki, the second two belong on a fansite forum or social network somewhere. -- Wyn talk 10:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also the group of people who don't play Guild Wars anymore and couldn't care less about documenting it, but still contribute positively to the wiki as a community entity. elix Omni 22:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

anyone who responded to this section got trolled. 1/10 KJ. -Auron 06:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, I think Regina along with all their staff members want to just let this game die already. It's four years old ffs! Over half the skills in the skills roster for PvP has been nerfed to all hell to passively force players to leave the game. Sales [I'm pretty sure] are low enough for them [Anet] not to give a shit about the game anymore, hence skill update delays, died-down interaction with the "community", BS marketing moves to milk what's left of a dead game, etc. Right or wrong? --Ulterion 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

wrong. And now stop this. poke | talk 10:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To synopsize

The currently plan, it appears, is to...

1. Add a message to the Edit notice of Regina's talk page. Currently the supported notices are (I like the first one more, for the records):

The wiki is not a forum: developer talk pages exist as tools to contact their owners, not for a group of other users to discuss the game or each others' ideas. Such comments will be moved or removed from this page, and users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked per admin discretion. Guild Wars Wiki is an encyclopedic resource about Guild Wars. Discussion about the game belongs on fansite forums.

The wiki is not a forum: developer talk pages exist as tools to contact their owners, not for a group of other users to discuss the game or each others' ideas. Such comments will be moved or removed from this and all other page deemed as volatile by the community. Users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked per admin discretion. Guild Wars Wiki is an encyclopedic resource about Guild Wars. Discussion about the game belongs on fansite forums.

2. Keeping messages to Regina, moving the walls of text that usually follow those messages.

3. Blocking people who insist on discussing there per sysop discretion.

So, gogogo? Erasculio 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would make sure you have the sysop support you need for this before you post the notice, since it's going to take at least one dedicated sysop if not a few to really make this work. -- Wyn talk 21:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I have mentioned this here before doing anything. Erasculio 21:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Willing as long as I'm not alone. — Why 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that Erasculio won't be able to change the edit text, sysop support is required anyway.. poke | talk 10:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be nice to have a little more.... black and white set of rules. So, I'd propose a variant of point 2 saying "Only messages to Regina will be retained, and walls of text that follow those message will be moved. Exceptions may be made for topics where all message are to Regina." That way, there is a rule that even non-sysops can understand/enforce. If this suggestion derails this process too much, disregard; just shooting the breeze. --JonTheMon 02:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

@poke ~ I was confused, I thought this was going to be a notice box on Regina's talk page itself, not as a change to the edit text. I didn't even know it was possible to apply an edit text notice to specific pages.. go figure :D -- Wyn talk 03:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, let's have none of this nancy girl "moving topics" business. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I also thought this was a notice for on the page, not the edit text. Anyway, I wanted to point out I can't do much to keep Regina's page clean as long as my laptop isn't fixed. I can still access the wiki and edit through my cellphone, but it's hard and time consuming to even write a text like this, let alone move stuff, revert edits and block users. Expect me to be back in full action two weeks from now at worst. — Why 04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking ifeq:fullpagename|Feedback talk:Regina Buenaobra|notice would do it? -- pling 10:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It really should go on her Journal talk page too, since that will be the next oasis of the nomadic bitchers. elix Omni 10:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the first box, and I don't have the bandwidth to regularly enforce. —Tanaric 17:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Both get the point across, but the first one is a bit more concise, which I like. I don't particularly mind either way though. -- Wandering Traveler 17:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel sad, I have been saying for three sections now that the notice would go on the edit text, and everyone ignored me ;_; I think Jon has a point, in how ideally we would only move comments between users and leave all messages to Regina in her talk page, even if a given section had multiple entries to her. However, I don't think that would work (not now, at least). Users would eventually try to wiki-laywer everything into being messages to Regina, regardless of how they would continue to discuss among themselves, as we have seen when suggestions were forbidden at Linsey's page and users tried to wiki-laywer their suggestions into staying there. If we just move all comments after the first one in any given section, any user would be able to do it, as well, given how no discretion would be needed; we would have a simple, "black or white" rule in which the first comment stays, everything else goes, and that's it.

Eventually, when people understand the "no forum BS" mentality and stop using the Arena Net talk pages as big forums, I think we could relax those rules a bit and allow all comments to Regina to stay there. Until then, it would be better to move everything, IMO.

I'm more concerned about how many sysops would actually be willing to enforce this. This cannot be done by a single sysop, or even by two sysops, otherwise we would very quickly end with burned-out admins. Erasculio 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've said this once before, but I'll say it again as I'm sure it got lost in the walls of text. As for sysop support, I know I'm not a sysop, but I'm willing to help enforce this as much as being a regular user enables me to, so I should be able to handle everything but the blocks. I'm around a computer rather frequently for good chunks of time, so I can afford to sit down and deal with things for extended periods of time. So it boils down to the question of whether or not this will be open to standard users to enforce. I'm not too keen on the idea of opening an RfA, and I don't thing the general wiki is either.

As for the notice, I'd say post it on the edit screen, as well as Regina's page, same going for her journal. Wording wise, I'd say, as Jon did (no, not self reference), spell out a bit more clearly what stays and what goes, but still leave it vague enough for sysop discretion.

On enforcement, like Erasculio said, start full blown, crack down on everything until it sinks in with the majority that GWW is not a forum, then once everyone gets it, ease up on legit comments, additional questions that are still geared directly at Regina.

tl;dr: Are users going to be allowed to assist enforcing this? Put the notice on the edit page, as well as the talk page. What Jon said. What Erasculio said. — Jon Lupen 19:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some playing with the notice. It's probably a little verbose, but here is what I came up with, feels a bit more clear to me.

Guild Wars Wiki is not a forum: Developer talk pages exist as a tool to contact the owner, they are not for groups of other users to discuss the game or each others' ideas. Such comments and discussions will be moved or removed from this page and all others deemed as volatile by the community. Users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked per admin discretion. Posts should be questions or comments for the user directly. Guild Wars Wiki is an encyclopedic resource about Guild Wars. Discussion about the game belongs on fansite forums.

— Jon Lupen 19:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Erasculio, I apologize Eras, I've just been skimming over most of this discussion and just missed it :( -- Wyn talk 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As someone who was once banned for posting NPA on Izzy's page, I'd like to throw my two cents in.

"On enforcement, like Erasculio said, start full blown, crack down on everything until it sinks in with the majority that GWW is not a forum, then once everyone gets it, ease up on legit comments, additional questions that are still geared directly at Regina." Good luck with that. We did try it in the past, didn't really work. It seems that people will rage despite authority figures telling them not to. In fact, taking away their editing rights compounds said rage. Funny how that works.

"Users would eventually try to wiki-laywer everything into being messages to Regina" Listen to the man, he's right...

"Eventually, when people understand the "no forum BS" mentality and stop using the Arena Net talk pages as big forums"... okay, maybe not. I feel the need to doubly underline the problem with this hypothetical: It doesn't work.

"It really should go on her Journal talk page too, since that will be the next oasis of the nomadic bitchers" I like this quote because some people actually can foresee the future. The journal talk page needs it, and so does the game updates page. Not that I think it'll do anything, but it's better to be thorough when you're doing absolutely nothing.

"Blocking people who insist on discussing there per sysop discretion." Wait, aren't we already doing this? If not, we should, and most of the problems go away. If we are doing this, how is doing this more going to help (see, you made me murder english)?

"Only messages to Regina will be retained, and walls of text that follow those message will be moved. Exceptions may be made for topics where all message are to Regina" Not only are you expending a huge deal of admin attention for infinitesimally small gain, but you are also giving trolls all the fuel they need to feed their collective fire (or sex drive, that makes for a better metaphor). A wiki-wide initiative to fight back at trolls is... well, to be quite honest, I find the prospect quite chilling.

There, I think I covered most of it. It would've brought me great pleasure to go through this entire section and shoot holes in more arguments, but I think I made my point without looking too much like an ass. Being serious here for a moment, the bottom line is that you guys are trying to fix something that's too damn bothersome to fix. Call me a troll if you want, disregard my posts if you wish, but heed my warning when I say you don't want to stir up more drama than we have now. I don't want to be a naysayer, but past experience requires me to be one.

Is this initiative doomed? Well, I haven't read the tl;dr above this section, but the way I see it is that Eras want to stop people from making large forum posts on Regina's page. You will succeed in that endevaour, that much is obvious from the past. What is also obvious is that by doing so you will generate just as much drama, only at a different location. Cracking down hard on trolls and whining ex-players isn't going to stop them, only make them harder. When you have a lot of gasoline and no water, the best way to put out a fire is to let the forest burn, not try to douse it. See, this is why you can't use decent rhetoric on this wiki, other, selfish people take advantage of it. Fine, ignore my great metaphor and respond to the quotes... NuVII 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading some responses, the "Only messages to Regina will be retained, and walls of text that follow those message will be moved. Exceptions may be made for topics where all message are to Regina" line is a bit too lenient. Trimming it to "Only the initial poster can respond to a topic" would allow that person to respond to Regina's response. And Nuke, isn't it easier to put out fires if it's less concentrated? --JonTheMon 20:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@NuVII: This is a method in forest-fire control, you cut down a band of tree around a fire to limit the area that it can burn, Apply to wiki.

@Jon: I've seen this enough to make a point of it. say user posts, "What will happen to X if Y happens?" and then another user follows it up with something along the lines of, "What f Z happens?" Moving it to another page only to have the user repost it under a new topic is both a waste of time and counter-productive. — Jon Lupen 20:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuke: ""Blocking people who insist on discussing there per sysop discretion."" "Wait, aren't we already doing this? If not, we should, and most of the problems go away.": the entire idea above is just me wiki-laywering a way to block people who insist on discussing at Regina's talk page. I agree with you, that's what we have to do.

I also agree with Jon (I never know who is who) in that the "Exceptions may be made for topics where all message are to Regina" is too lenient, we shouldn't have that kind of exception. Otherwise we will have discussions such as:

User 1: "Regina, when will you nerf Shadow Form?"

User 2: "Regina, please ignore the above user, he's stupid and Shadow Form should not be nerfed. It helps the game."

User 3: "Regina, User 1 is right, Shadow Form is bad because it causes elitism."

User 4: "Regina, user 3 doesn't understand how elitism is going to exist anyway, SF doesn't do anything for it."

And so on. The same users will continue to have the same discussions, only pretending to be talking to Regina. Besides, users would have an argument to be against any move made on Regina's talk page, so in the end only sysops would be capable of making moves (and even them would have to defend their moves more often than not). Erasculio 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious what are quality contributions to the topic and what are not; just say "sysop discretion" and don't bother spelling it all out.--67.240.83.137 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Erasculio: Aren't users essentially going to do the same thing anyway, except putting each post as a new topic? Then they would see their posts as even more solidly protected saying that their topic is a legit comment/question to Regina, as their post would now be the original post of the topic. We need better over-all wording, as minus a "Exceptions may be made for topics where all message are to Regina" clause, the results will be the same, except they'd surface sooner. — Jon Lupen 22:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Posts should be questions for the user directly." Should about cover every base. It leaves no room for comment, which closes the door to discussion between users period. As for users loop-holing this by stating their comments in the form of a question, what constitutes a legit question will have to be up to sysop discretion. No matter what restrictions we impose, or how we word them, people are going to wiki-lawyer and mask their posts in a way to try as pass it as a legit post. Locking it at Questions to the user directly is a more restrictive in the right directions than locking it at Only posts directed at the user, no follow-up posts unless it's by the OP, as the later still leaves room for abuse and wall-of-text complaints, ect. — Jon Lupen 22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think people would wiki-lawyer less if we didn't explicitly mention an exception to the rules (which would also make them less verbose; more than three lines at the notice is too much, IMO), but I'm not going to argue against it if other people are for it. I think the issue of how many sysops would actually be willing to enforce this is more important. Erasculio 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How's this sound?

Guild Wars Wiki is not a forum: Developer talk pages exist as a tool to contact the owner, they are not for groups of other users to discuss the game or each others' ideas. Such comments and discussions will be moved or removed from this page. Users who consistently engage in such behavior may be blocked per admin discretion. Posts should be questions for the user directly. Guild Wars Wiki is an encyclopedic resource about Guild Wars. Discussion about the game belongs on fansite forums.

No mention of exceptions, clearly states what to do and what not to do, while not being explicit, allowing plenty of room for sysop discretion. — Jon Lupen 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement

This is an important enough topic that is getting mostly ignored or lost in walls of text. There are two questions:

1. How many of our sysops are willing to stand behind this and enforce it?
2. Are we going to allow standard (i.e. non-sysop) users to enforce?

— Jon Lupen 00:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a better question: How are you going to enforce it? NuVII 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That has been described above: by blocking everyone who insists on discussing at Regina's talk page. Erasculio 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Then the sysop team is going to be blocking 70% of the community on a regular basis. -- Wyn talk 22:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)" Correct me if I'm wrong Erasculio (and I very well may be) but I don't think you got general consensus when it comes to enforcement. Now, I tl;dr'ed my way down this section, so if a consensus was reached before, there is a very good chance that I am ignorant in this matter. However, past experience (and logic, tbh) dictates the inevitable failure of your notion. NuVII 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuke, we have consensus on how to enforce it (and Wynthyst's concern was also addressed above); the problem is having enough sysops willing to do it, considering how much work that would be. Not as much blocking users (which is simple), but rather having to defend each decision regarding each move when some of the trolls who infest Regina's talk page try to wiki-laywer their chat back into existence. Brains had a lot of pressure sent over him when he tried to keep Isaiah's page clean, and Wynthyst had a lot of pressure over her when she tried to keep Linsey's page clean, proving how this isn't something a single sysop can do. I think blocking users (something both didn't do) would make it a bit easier, but it would still be a lot of work. Erasculio 23:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected then. Bear in mind though that this whole project rides on the theoretical that banning people will stop trolling. I happen to find this belief utterly ridiculous, but since I can't find a past case to cite I'm not going to go out on a limb and defend that belief. I just want you (since you seem to be the driving force behind this initiative) and the rest of the folks here to be prepared to cease this project if it gets out of hand (we really, really don't need another Gordon Ecker around). NuVII 00:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if we are going to be able to implement this at all; but if we are, I would expect a few hard months to be followed by a quieter time. The moment people can't use Regina's talk page (or any page from any Arena Net employer) as a forum, both by being blocked and by having discussions moved away from there, so the massive walls of text don't get to happen, I think the most problematic users will just get bored and leave (eventually). Erasculio 00:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) my two cents to all of this feel free to move it(sorry i couldn't bring my self to read all of it so bare with me). is that we should just let the original question stay on the page but any discussion should be moved to the users talk page. so for the people who just want there questions seen by anet staft can have that and the page stays shorter because the long walls of text are on someone's talk page.- Zesbeer 02:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Eras, I have and will continue to block users who systematically abuse staff talk pages, ask Boro and Wuhy.... but I for one don't feel that there really is a solid consensus behind this proposal, and with the rest of the administrative team for the most part staying silent on the entire issue (other than the 4 of us who have stated we can't/won't actively enforce it) it's hard for me to even consider it so. While I agree that many users misuse the staff pages, I'm not really convinced that it is really so much of a disruption of the wiki as you are portraying it as. The sysops already censure users who become hostile on any page, and we already recommend moves of off-topic user discussions (and sometimes actually move them) that become problematic on staff pages. I do honestly believe you will never remove the "forum mentality" from those pages without killing communication completely, which should NOT be our goal, especially where the Community Relations Manager is concerned. -- Wyn talk 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, I'm not sure we don't have consensus. Not everyone agrees, true, but I have the feeling those who don't agree are more in a position of not being willing to be the ones to do it than being against the idea. I think it's not going to be implemented, though, since we don't have enough sysops willing to do it (considering how much work it would be).

However, the current approach is not working. I admire everything you do for the wiki, but the only reason this proposal was meant only for Regina's talk page is how the other developers in whose talk pages this problem existed actually left the wiki, not without expressing dismay at some of the things read here. I could give other examples, but I think that's proof enough of how the current system is not working. Erasculio 10:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The current approach isn't working, that much is obvious. However, the sad truth is that the current approach is probably the best approach for keeping GWW on it's feet. I don't like how those few talk pages turned into cesspools, but there's really nothing we can do about it. I suggest adding the notice on the page and leaving it at that. NuVII 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think it could become any worse than it is right now. Erasculio 10:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

like i said earlier just leave the original question and move the discussion to the users talk page easy fix imho.- Zesbeer 10:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sysyphus's stone. Users would continue to use Regina's talk page as a forum (since they would still have no reason to not do so), they would still fill the talk page of sysops with complains (claiming they would not be doing anything wrong), and as a result the current admins (who usually don't bother with moving discussions from there) would end with significantly more work, without a significant benefit to Regina's talk page or the wiki. Erasculio 10:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Project:Staff wipe? There shall be no staff on the official wiki. It worked once, it'll work again. —Tanaric 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Even better, pull a GWiki and transfer all staff (and the feedback namespace) to another wiki/forum/site. All problems go away. In fact, a good portion of the trolls emigrate to another site, eliminating drama here entirely. NuVII 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We need the opposite, Tanaric. We need admins who stand up more often. Settling down with the second (or third or tenth) best option because the first (and second, and etc) would be too much work to be implemented is not something I'm fond of. Erasculio 10:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know what Erasculio? I HAVE stood up, and over and over, when I do, I get kicked in the teeth for it. This community doesn't appreciate it, doesn't want it, doesn't want admins that will stand up, the other admins don't want anyone to stand up, I mean, look at the response you've had from the admins in this section. You say you have consensus? I don't see it, I don't see it at all. I'm sorry, while I pretty much totally agree with you that the staff pages are a cesspool of qqing, ranting, raving, off topic, forum like posts, I am NOT going to be the one that takes the heat for this just to be once again thrown under the bus. -- Wyn talk 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyn, you should not be the only one to do this. And while you were not the only one who ever "stood up" in this wiki, being in practice the only sysop who bothered to take care of something as consuming as Regina's and Linsey's talk pages (just like Brains was in practice the only sysop who truly enforced the "volatile" rules at Isaiah's talk page) could not have led to any outcome other than you being burned out, and all the drama that followed. If half a dozen admins had taken those tasks, maybe we would have avoided burning up valuable sysops, and they would actually have accomplished their goals (instead of resulting in Isaiah leaving the wiki, and then Linsey leaving the wiki). IMO, we have enough sysops for the more janitorial roles (which is something we need), but not enough sysops for the more controversial and demanding tasks.

I think there is (or was) a consensus for my idea given how it has not been refuted by arguments (unlike some of my other ideas) nor met massive disagreement; it received some "I agree" comments, but no one wants to be the only one to enforce this (with reason, given how that would be a sure path to being burned out), and thus we end with no action taken at all. Erasculio 11:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think most people just don't care, to be honest. This discussion has been going on far too long and has accomplished nothing. Meanwhile, Regina hasn't had any problems doing her job, and a number of sections of chatter have been moved to other talk pages with no complaints. Frankly, the whole "wiki is not a forum" thing isn't the big deal you're making it out to be. elix Omni 12:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Isaiah left the wiki. Linsey left the wiki. Among the Arena Net employers who had this problem in their talk pages, the only one who remains here is the one who has to be here as part of her job, instead of being here because she would like to be here. Meanwhile, Recent Changes is dominated by contributions on talk pages, and old holes on the wiki are left there instead of being filled. Wynthyst's comment here is incredibly pertinent.

Regarding what this discussion has achieved, common users have done everything we could: a plan has been proposed, measures to help fulfill such plan have been elaborated, and changes have been made to accommodate different opinions. All that is left is the part of the task which requires sysop action, but unfortunately that part is not going to happen. Which isn't entirely unexpected; I had mentioned, in the first paragraph of this discussion, how I began it now "given how we have just had an influx of new sysops and the return of some old ones". Said influx is not enough, though, at least not yet. Erasculio 14:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I won't repeat what Wyn said, with "The sysops already censure users who become hostile on any page, and we already recommend moves of off-topic user discussions (and sometimes actually move them) that become problematic on staff pages," as it is correct. But I will add that dissuasion on ANet staff talk pages is necessary and a notice is a good idea to help with that. Also, going ahead and, possibly using a guideline, to help those interested to move topics quickly to their respected pages, such as seen on Regina's header.

However, you can count me out when it comes to "That has been described above: by blocking everyone who insists on discussing at Regina's talk page." That is an overzealous proposal for which I will not support. Some discussions have merit and some banter will come with it, but not everyone should be punished because of some hardheads that can't understand where to correctly start threads. Quotes like your above are probably why most admins are staying silent regarding this issue or coming up with ideas like Tanaric's.

Also, pleading the case that Linsey left, Izzy left, and we don't want anymore leaving is not something that should be leaned on to re-enforce this proposal. ANet staff are nothing more than users, like you and me, on the wiki, but I will agree that their pages do need some protection. However, each ANet employee knows there is going to be some sort of flood on their talk pages. A talk page is like a direct link to a user and people use it thinking a)The staff member has the time to read everything and b)Their posts are important enough to bother a staff member. Gaile knew this, yet she's always stayed active (more so when she was a CRM, but still does in her current position to an extent). I don't want any ANet staff to get to a point where they think the only solution is to protect their talk page and leave, but that was their decision. — Gares 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If using the notice and moving more discussions is all we are going to get, then please, go for it. I don't think it will have any impact on the long run, and I doubt sysops will have the patience to continue doing that if they see how there will still be as many discussions there in two months as there are now, but it is definitely better than nothing.

However, "ANet staff are nothing more than users, like you and me": I agree. That's what I'm basing myself in - if there's such disruptive behavior in the talk page of an user (any user who actually contributes to the wiki, no matter if working for Arena Net or not) that said user leaves the wiki because of that, and not once but twice, I believe there is something wrong in how the system works. From a purely practical point of view, disruptive behavior that deprives the wiki of all future contributions of someone useful is one of the worst kinds of trolling possible here, given how simple vandalism is reverted within minutes. I don't think it's fair to remove Arena Net staff members from that standard and actually treat them as less than common users just because they work for Arena Net. Erasculio 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And six months later...

As predicted above, Regina barely contributes to the wiki anymore, Joe Kimmes barely contributes to the wiki anymore, Robert Gee didn't even bother, Emily don't talk anymore and Linsey not only doesn't contribute, her talk page is also still locked.
I would like to point to everyone who was part of the above discussion and who argued that the (at the time) current situation was fine, that doing anything differently would kill Arena Net activity on the wiki, and that any concerns about the subject were exagerations: we have effectively lost many valuable contributors to the wiki. While one could argue that the way those users' talk pages were misused was not the only factor making those users leave, I doubt anyone would argue that it was not an important factor. Erasculio 20:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Eras, I don't believe that anything we would have done would make the current situation any different. Linsey was pretty much finished with the wiki when her page got locked, and they've all been totally crammed what with the War in Kryta, the mass banning, and GW2 (Community is working on both if you didn't know). Robert never had any real interest in participating to begin with. As for Joe, well, there hasn't been much activity on his page from ANYONE, and when someone does post something he does respond. -- Wyn talk 23:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)