User talk:Ereanor/GWW Report: More articles, less policies

The majority of these new policies-

Are farces just to make a point. Its the equivalent of higher level trolling. Congrats for adding another one to the list. -elviondale (tahlk) 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making this one not another proposal. -elviondale (tahlk) 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reaction

Well, the third part sounds like the back cover of a fictional novel, but once it sinks in, it makes a lot of sense. I suppose a lot of us hope for the "third party" to emerge as leaders, or for the admins to see their problems and be bold. Here comes another epic wiki discussion... Calor - talk 06:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently, there has been a push for guidelines where a policy isn't absolutely necessary. Right now, the only policy holes I can think of are arbitration, blocking and reversion. In my opinion a clear blocking policy will make the admins less cautious about blocking and a clear arbitration policy will make bureaucrats less cautious about arbitrating, solving one side of the mutual fear problem. As for the other side, would anyone care to write up a really polite, non-threatening, non-passive-aggressive policy violation form letter? The only alternative to warning people of their policy violations is not telling they're violating policy until they get blocked for it, which would lead to more fear and hostility. -- Gordon Ecker 06:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to fear, but fear itself. We need to stop being afraid of nothing. There are too many policy proposals trying to fix problems that don't really exist, based on isolated (or even imaginary) cases. Just let users be and use the ArbComm when a special problem comes up. Users won't be stalked if there's nothing to stalk them for.reanor 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the main role of the wiki is to document the game. An user who does that...Is going to be "stalked" how? Someone who looks at an article, notices it's incomplete, and decides to add something to it...Will be breaching which policy? Will receive what kind of warning? None. Even if an user makes a contribution completely outside the current formatting guidelines ("guidelines", not "policies"), the custom here is not to "warn" the user about how he did it "wrong"; rather to apply the proper formatting to the article, nothing more.

All the discussions about policies, all the very long arguments back and forth, concern the inner workings of the wiki, what happens beyond the articles (articles which are the focus here). They also don't apply to common users (in their majority) - an user is not going to accidentaly type "you are stupid" on someone else's talk page. Notice one of the main discussion we have had about the admins began not thanks to a common user who was being "stalked", rather thanks to an anon user who, by his own statements, was spamming talk pages. This could not possibly be attributed to an user acting out of ignorance.

In other words, do all those policies matter? A bit, but only a bit, IMO. They don't concern the main focus of the wiki (the articles about the game itself), rather smaller problems (the "problems that don't really exist"), and so their own significance is small. The size of those discussions and the number of policies isn't a sign of how important they are, IMO.

In other hand, the way this page has been worded is exactly one of the reasons why I don't want a change in how the admins act. The moment one side in a discussion states that it's "bolder", "better" or whatever (with the connotation that everyone with a different opinion is "coward", "worse" or whatever), IMO the discussion goes from the topic at hand into a battle of egos. If a "leader", in a discussion, states that his opinion is better and everyone who disagrees with him is unreasonable...What discussion could possibly follow that? Likewise, an statement about what the "silent majority" of wiki users think is useless - if they're silent they haven't expressed their opinion, and therefore no one here has the means to know what they think. An user who constructs his arguments based on how "good" he is and on how he represents the opinion of the "silent majority" is bad for a discussion, IMO; a so-called "leader" who bases his "leadership" on those is bad for the entire wiki. I would rather allow the community to express itself (yes, including through the discussions that lead to policies) than have someone who assumes he knows what others think. Erasculio 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Carebear?

I think I'm offended by your statement that the 'admins' are 'shaky carebears'. We sysops are what the starting community of this wiki saw as the right way to go for this wiki. Since then a lot of other users migrated from GuildWiki to this wiki expeciting it to be 1-on-1 regarding the powers of sysops, but that just isn't true. The entire basis for this wiki is different. It also isn't a forum (like GWG or GWO), where moderators have much more individual power to act on certain posts.

May I suggest you reread Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship? And if you really want to change it, that you bring it up on it's talk page?

As for this wiki being more about policies and e-drama... that's just not true. Everything in the game is being documented as good as it can be. Some people will spend more time looking at discussions in the Guild Wars Wiki:-namespace, but I bet that is hardly 1% of the entire userbase of this wiki. The other 99% will just start at Main Page and go from there, either through links or the search function.

And for making users aware of the policies regarding image naming (the one that is overlooked the most), how can someone become afraid of that? It is only a (usually) friendly reminder that in order to keep all images separated in the various namespaces, people have to abide by the policy governing that namespace. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 13:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"I think I'm offended by your statement that the 'admins' are 'shaky carebears'." <-- I lol'd — Skuld 14:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote Anja's first post in her honest User talk:Anja Astor/Adminship. "I don't feel supported by community, nor policies. I can't act without being afraid of what kind of mud-slinging I might cause now. This is not a good thing for an admin, in my opinion. This is not meant as a drama good-bye-letter, I'm not leaving, and I'm not resigning until I feel nothing else can be done. But the spirit and general feeling of the community is making my time here stressful, and this is supposed to be fun. That's why I felt the need to post this."

And the note at the end, (in small letters) is even more revealing of this: "Also, if you feel pointed out, I want to apologise, it is not the intention." What's with that? There she is speaking her mind, and she thinks she has to apologise, in small letters. What's she so afraid of? I certainly didn't tried to please everyone with this article, and my world didn't blow up. Why are admins acting like this? I mean, look at how you started your post Corrran, "I think I am offended". You shouldn't need to point out that it's just what you think so I don't feel I offended you, you're not attacking me. If I offended you, I'm sorry. But remember that is what you feel, don't make it what you think so it becomes "arguable".reanor 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are admins afraid? Because they want to help the wiki by being admins, but they realise that the current method of selecting and maintaining sysops requires you to be a community favourite of everyone. If a group of people disagree with you or you somehow hurt their feelings by saying something bad or banning them they can get your status removed. If you're not popular you wont be an admin, period. Noticed that we haven't had any RfAs for new users in a long time? Because no one wants to get the stamp "not qualified for adminship" on them like I have. -- (gem / talk) 17:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it's like I said in User talk:Anja Astor/Adminship, we don't need more and clearer policies, we need to change the way we see admins. Personally, I expect them to take unpopular measures when they see fit, and I'll never ask for their resignation based on that, they are just doing their job. Why does so many ppl think otherwise?reanor 17:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned on User talk:Anja Astor/Adminship, what you mentioned you would not do has been done. Users are willing to call for the reconfirmation or resignation of an admin if they think the job is being done poorly, and the definition of "being done poorly" is as diverse as the users we have. Erasculio 18:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

New policies

I'd like to point out that sysops/crats are hardly the only people proposing or driving for the implementation of new policies. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you should check your comments and Gem's on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Harassment. Another paranoic policy to counter inexistent problems.reanor 17:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop nor a bureaucrat. Get your facts straight. -- (gem / talk) 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, then. I'm just saying there's only a few ppl going for more policies, but admins tend to support them because they feel they need them. They don't, they need users to leave them do their work, trusting their judgement more than how many policies they have behind them.reanor 17:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually many vocal policy dicussors are admins because the ones interested in policies and stuff like that tend to run for adminship. So it's really something that stems from the same reason, not a follow up of people being admins. :) -- (gem / talk) 19:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Correlation != causation. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's that. But it's also possible that a third unseen variable is causing both.reanor 21:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to User:Ereanor/Guild Wars Wiki:Don't be a jerk

I've placed a link to your mock up policy on my user page. I hope you don't mind. Dancing Gnome 16:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Zero Sum

I see no evidence that those that take part in the running of the wiki would otherwise have used that time to contribute. And I can easily find counterexamples, myself included. Backsword 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When I check recent changes, most are new guildpages and userpages edits, a few skill talks and the ocassional content discussion. If you check Request for comment, you see Guild Wars related, but also more policy related than there should be. I'll give an example of how even GW documenting becomes dramatic. When I started working in Task#3 of Gem's project (skills for game integration), I realized there was no formating guide or even an infobox for evironment effects and blessings. I made an infobox for each of them, and started creating articles. This action draw attention to the issue, and a discussion about the need for them started. After a long discussion involving mainly Poke, Anja and myself (again, admins are the core editors, despite the fact that it was on Request for comment for a while), we agreed on a formatting guide and an infobox for what we understand as Effects. Later, an article with the definition of Effect was created as a subproduct of the formatting guide. Again, e-drama came in, and another discussion started, you were there Backsword, actually you were one of the main oppositors. So, here we are trying to document the game, and out of nowhere rules and clear articles about "how to do everything" become more important, delaying actual work. That's what Guild Wars Wiki:Be bold and Guild Wars Wiki:Document the game and shut up about everything else are talking about. Why is people so afraid of making a mistake?!

Anyway, this is just and essay, is my opinion, what I think, just because that is the way I see it. And yes, it is supposed to be flammable. You may agree with me or not, but I am calling attention on the situation.reanor 17:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Why is people so afraid of making a mistake?!" - maybe because when someones does a valid move to improve the wiki, someone will call said move "paranoic policy to counter inexistent problems", despite giving no other arguments to support such impression? When we fall to the point in which empty big statements are used to dismiss someone's idea to improve the wiki, without further arguments, I don't see how someone could feel like acting without expecting such needlessly negative reply. Sitting down and discussion the merits of each idea is far better, IMO, even if it takes longer - I don't see the wiki crumbling around desperately needing changes. Erasculio 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki works fine without a policy for everything that happens, or may happen. "Harrassment"? WTF.reanor 18:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki also happens to be a different wiki, working on different principles (and worse principles, IMO) than this one. The fact they have chosen to do something on one way over there does not mean such way is the only one, much less the best one. This wiki is different - and such difference was not an imposition, rather the product of a choice done by the community here. Erasculio 19:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But they funtion with those principles, still. Yes, it's different here, here we are trying to cover our lack of a sysops respect principle with more policies.reanor 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet, here this wiki is also functioning and growing, enjoying our lack of sysops who assume they speak for the entire community, rather with policies that are created through the direct feedback of the community, no middle man required. Erasculio 19:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This wiki is growing into a policy factory. The community is trying to tell admins what to do before they do it, that's not feedback. The whole point of sysops existence is to act without the need of previously reached consensus. That's where policies come in, giving sysops boundaries that have been approved by the community. That process got out of control because of users' stupid fear of admins, and admins fear of users, and became this process: 1)Admins don't act, afraid of users reaction and losing their adminship. 2)Little problems are not solved. 3)Overreaction on this problems leads to a new policy proposal in hopes for admins to act, wich is what they should've done in the first place 4)Admins are now confident because they have a policy backing them up. Those to middle fases (2 and 3) need to be eliminated. As Skuld said in GWW:Harassment: "I would guess people have more respect for a sysyop with a brain than a drone". Sysops should overcome their fear of users and start acting by themselves first (even if it means speaking for the community), and getting feedback on their job later, that's their job. At the same time, users should overcome their fear of admins and give them feedback without endangering their position.reanor 20:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This wiki is growing, period. More articles are being created, more things relevants to the game are being added, and the community is also saying more and more how it wants the wiki to be run - hence all the policies being created. The idea that having policies is bad is, well, wrong, IMO; the idea that "The whole point of sysops existence is to act without the need of previously reached consensus" is an absurd that has no place on this wiki, also IMO. Sysops act in order to do what the consensus told them to do - anything else would be to assume that the sysop knows better than the entire community how to act, and that's not "courage", it's arrogance (and speaking for the community, instead to the community, is exactly the same thing, just arrogance). They are tools to act following the consensus, not the decision makers who would be above said consensus. This isn't how GuildWiki acts, but that's how this community, in this wiki, has chosen to act (at least as far as I see it). Erasculio 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If sysops needed consensus for making decisions, there'd be no need for them, as they'd become normal users.reanor 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And that's exactly what they are - normal users. They are not leaders, they are not above consensus, they are not expected to know better than the community. The difference between the sysops and any other user is how they have access to more tools than the normal user has, thanks to how they have technical knowledge enough to use said tools, and wiki knowledge enough to know when the community has told them to employ said tools. Nothing less, nothing more. Erasculio 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "too many policies are bad, IMO, because they add too much complexity into both the wiki and the sysop role; but I think we either give sysops freedom to interpret and apply the rules as they see them, or we give them the rules exactly as they must enforce them" --Erasculio on GWW:Harassment. I totally agree with that Erasculio. Yes, the policy obsessesion works now, that's why it's happening. But some ppl, like me, believe the problem should be solved from the other end, letting sysops do their job.reanor 20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The policies allow sysops to do their jobs. I think right now they are one of their main tools in order to do said jobs. The job of the sysops does not include taking over the consensus and being free to ignore it, hence policies being important to them. Erasculio 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sysops main tool is their brain. Policies only help them back up their brain-driven actions. Policies became more important to them because of their fear, so now they want to do policy-driven actions to avoid negative feedback.reanor 20:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. The sysops have some (limited) freedom to interpret the policies, but their main tools are what they have been told to do - in other words, the policies. That's more important simply because the community is more important than any individual sysop, and fortunately our current sysops have the humility (and not "fear") to acknowledge that. Erasculio 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. On GuildWiki sysops were all powerful beings who could do what they wanted. Here they are required to follow policies. -- (gem / talk) 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point the irony in how GuildWiki currently has more policies than this wiki: they have currently 18 policies, and this wiki has 15. This wiki also has two guidelines other than the formatting ones; including the ones about formatting, GuildWiki still has more than this wiki, as they have more "style guides" there. If one assumes that we currently have too many policies on this wiki...I guess GuildWiki would be even worse, then. Erasculio 23:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But they are not running a factory atm.reanor 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean, the draft policies that have been made under the assumption that abusing the policy system is a good way to make a point? Between all the current policy drafts, only a few are serious new policies still in discussion - Harassment and the blocking one are all the drafts with those traits (and IMO, abusing the policy system isn't a good argument, just as strawman isn't). Is two enough to make a "factory"? Erasculio 00:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A point is being made for a reason. Add No Profanity, No vandalism and No Trolling to the list. It is really happening, we have to deal with it.reanor 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(RI) The point is simply wrong. No Profanity, No Trolling and No Vandalism are all about the same kind of issues; Harassment deals with the points behind those, especially the later (as I know better than anyone else, given how it was my idea). You are speaking as if we were trying to make all those into policies, while the discussions in those talk pages, together with the status of those policy drafts, make clear how they're different ways to deal with the same problem, each being created after the previous one failed. Once one policy dealing with that kind of thing finally gets approved (and those saying they're about imaginary problems, despite there being four policy drafts dealing about those issues, stop using strawmans to get in the way), the influx of different policies trying to fix the same problem will stop. Erasculio 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the problem, if not sysop's depending too much on policies, due to sysop's discretion being attacked. Vandalism is not what those attempts are trying to fix, vandalism will always be an issue, policy or not. There's no need for a policy to cover all those issues, the influx can also be stopped if we fix the source of the problem: GWW:ADMIN being broken.reanor 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What issues? Do you understand that the issue with No Profanity, No Trolling, Vandalism and Harrassment are as much a matter of letting users regulate their own talk pages as of giving more powers to sysops? GWW:ADMIN is perfectly fine as it is. What needs to be fixed is the amount of silly jokes and strawmans made every time a valid idea is proposed, making decision making to take far longer than required and wasting the time of users. The community is deciding what sysops can or cannot do and that's how it should be - sysops are not here to lead the community, they are here to serve the community. Erasculio 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Satisfy me baby

"A little less conversation, a little more action please". - The King

— Skuld 20:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about adding that quote actually.reanor 20:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)