Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Practices and processes/Archive 01

Admin

Perhaps just replace that with "See; Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship", or C&P the entire article due to being a lot more informative. --Naut 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to actually have this to replace that policy (and almost all other policies) in order to allow the wiki to work with much less bureaucracy. Erasculio 22:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

On which I'd like to add the only thing that's been bothering me atm: What if consensus is simply not going to be reached? Points start to repeat themselves and there is no medium for it. Waiting will not accomplish anything; then what? An admin makes an unbiased decision OR actually counting support/oppose for a vote depending on the discussion preceding it and changing dependent on that? (Not a majority vote, but rather a support count. Under the circumstance only previously mentioned supports are counted, rather than new ones.) - Infinite - talk 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have there actually been situations where consensus has not been eventually reached on this wiki? If there are situations where consensus has not been reached how was the situation resolved? - we can document it here. If concensus is eventually reached every time then there is no problem which needs to be documented. We don't need to solve every problem before it occurs.

I definitely like this light-weight documentation of how it is. -- Aspectacle  22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Elder Dragon Resolved in the first way I described, by a single sysop. - Infinite - talk 22:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus on what actually is a consensus, that's what I call hard task. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so if you'd ask me, let's go with the authority call and have unreached consensus result into a forced change made by a sysop/bureaucrat? - Infinite - talk 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, i guess--Icyyy Blue 23:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: We could call it "Tiebreak" or something and have a "Request for Tiebreaker" on the community portal. - Infinite - talk 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for that (remember, as Erasculio said above, we want less bureaucracy).

Elder Dragon was just one situation where this occurred; it can't really set a precedent. Tanetris just got more info from an Anet guy, had the tool to do an easy move quickly, so did it. The context in which this occurred isn't common, and an impasse in a future situation will probably be resolved differently. pling 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case I'm fully supporting the article so far. :) - Infinite - talk 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Turning sysops into "tiebreakers" or "authorities" to resolve questions of content runs 180 degrees contrary to their original intent to solve user disputes but not having more say on content issues. --Xeeron 14:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Tanetris's role there was as a user; he only used his admin tools to delete the obstructive redirect, but that could've been tagged by someone else and deleted by any other admin. In other words, he wasn't involved in the discussion as a sysop with a higher say in the decision. pling 02:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

I would like to start off by saying that this is bloody brilliant, if Guild Wars Wiki would have had this to start things might be a bit better over there and less bureaucratic. This page keeps things concise, allows the community to build around it, and gives us a more clear cut set of practices to follow. I only have a couple concerns... What about things like the RFA "process" which Xeeron and I pointed out before? Would that be documented here or on another page entirely? What happens if our practices get much more specific over time and make this page large? Would we make a new page for them?

Other than that, this is fantastic and if my questions can be properly addressed then I put in my full support. --hnzdvn 23:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a very strong feeling we will need more specific pages in the near future... But for things like formatting, not things like NPA or the old Adminship policy. Erasculio 23:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA is something I never understood on GWW; it was basically a popularity contest on the outside and only the opposition seemed to be making fair points most of the time (not excluding the positive and elaborated support on other occsaions). Question is, though; do we need RFA? We might as well try to have an admin span covering the greatest part if not all of the day, in the sense there's a high probability of a sysop/bureaucrat checking things. Might as well decide on which sysops and bureaucrats we're going to go with, prior to the massive flood of members, as this avoids a repeat on what is now GWW's RFA policy.

(Also, it might feel as if I'm objecting to virtually the enitre proposal, but I'm actually making sure we don't expand it too far, whilst still covering basic future faults.) - Infinite - talk 23:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never liked the idea of bureaucrats being the sole deciders of who becomes an admin and who does not, but I also think that popularity contests are a bad idea too. It is one of those subjects that I am torn on. --hnzdvn 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Infinite, I'm glad you brought up availability. I wouldn't mind seeing this happen again. That was a criteria that was somehow lost along the way. Ultimately, it was one of the deciding factors in a user being nominated to sysophood. After voting occurred, questions were raised, such as, "How active are the nominees?" and "Do we need more help in a certain time zone than another?". This enabled us to provide a solid range of admin activity within a 24 hour period. — Gares 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I expect each section to get naturally larger as time goes by, so some sections would need splitting into their own articles. Things like formatting wouldn't fit nicely on the page (in terms of aesthetics), so they'd have their own articles - much like GW2W:REF does. pling 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems from Policy

I see this section as a problem -) "Personal conduct"
It is not detailed enough for new users to grasp how a wiki works. You guys must know by now and I feel that many of you seem to forget ... Is how you treat other people... It seems as if everyone treats each other as if they all know the wiki. As many of you are from GWW. People like Venom are not. So I would RATHER treat this as a new wiki. I do not see most of this on this policy workable for hew users to understand. Therefore, I am for each individual policy with more details for new users and old ones that seem to forget (as I recall) us temporarily borrowing gww's policies till we have our own. Right?
So please before you all get hasty with this, really work at these becoming more detailed for new users - those who are unfamiliar with how contributing, etc., works... After all, aren't we suppose to be positive and be a community creating by players for players? cause this isn't very user friendly. Not detailed enough for many to understand or to follow. I don't think New users would understand the 1 revert rule, or personal attacks, etc. as this is lacking in. As of now, I strongly oppose this policy for these reasons. Ariyen 02:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol who the hell reads policies. That's like voters ACTUALLY reading laws. Never happens, so lets move on shall we?--Emmisary 02:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Emmisary is right. A vast majority of all contributors on either wiki never read or will not read the walls of text we call policies. It's better we find a short, simple, concise explanation of what is generally accepted so that new users will never, under any condition, have to read walls of text we conjured for "new users". It's like telling someone to read a 50 page summary of a book, before actually reading the 20-pager. - Infinite - talk 03:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Ariyen: Policies aren't user friendly. They aren't written for the newbs, they are written for bureaucrats. When I first started on wikis I never read them. I couldn't even find them to read them. I just contributed following what others had done to the page before me. On wikipedia - where the policies are extreme it is a fairly unfriendly environment for new contributors. Do something strange you get some intimidating acronym quoted at you with a densely written rule set backing it up. Ew.

Personal attacks and the 1RR are covered enough in the personal conduct section which discusses both edit warring, and ad hominem arguments to the extent that we can clearly see they are bad for the wiki, we don't want it and it can result in blocks for those involved. I don't think we need to explain it in any more detail than that. -- Aspectacle  03:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think we need to explain it in any more detail than that": I agree. This text tells users all they need to know - "behave". Adding anything more would be just a way to invite wiki-lawyering. Erasculio 03:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hard to find the policies? I find that hard to believe when policy is linked at top within rc, etc. Ariyen 05:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. 5 years ago I wasn't a big contributor, I didn't use RC (I don't think policy was linked off RC at the time), I didn't understand the namespaces, I certainly couldn't figure out where the skill information came from, when I looked for that sort of stuff I had trouble finding it. People would quote policy shorthand but not link it so I knew of policy but everything I knew about it was second hand. Basically, I learned about policy and expected etiquette through osmosis. I don't think I've ever actually read a policy (1RR, NPOV, AGF - I've used formatting) for anything but discussing and contributing to writing policy. -- Aspectacle  06:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your problem now. A lot has changed on there since then... And if you haven't read any... Q. why are you in on this? Cause If I never read any, I wouldn't participate in what I won't read.. and I'm curious... Ariyen 06:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I lurk and I do see the sort of chaos which trolls cause. I've seen what rules lawyering and strict application of rules gets you. I now have opinions on what works and as for most people my opinions matter to me. Here I am active and interested in what happens. Contributing to these policy discussion makes sense as they do determine the character of the place even if they aren't something I would ever need to use. -- Aspectacle  07:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Simplistic, in a good way. This proposal seems to lean more towards the spirit than the letter, giving the user enough information to know the basics and allowing them to use common sense to fill in the rest.

There is only one suggestion I have at this time. Paragraph 2 under Personal Conduct lists Ad hominem arguments as disruptive. Staying on the same approach and keeping the definition of ad hominem in mind, I would suggest adding pejorative, such as Ad hominem arguments and pejorative remarks (usually known as personal attacks) are disruptive, both towards the community of users and the documentation of Guild Wars 2. The sentence will still keep it's simplistic nature, yet it will also encompass disparaging remarks outside of the ad hominem "range" without going into specifics. — Gares 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have links from wikipedia? I like gww's ideas of their own npa, etc., to keep from linking to these sites. That's more sites for other people to go to - a discouragement of this wiki. So, my question is... Why? Why not the policies we have here? (Removing that they are policy and add them to this?) Ariyen 17:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

apointing admins

under this proposal how would such a thing occur? is it just if a BCrat see's a user doing prolonged and consistent good work and attitude. Or will it be the classical RfA/RfB, or otherwise? ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This page doesn't propose how admins should be appointed (nor indeed does it 'propose' anything else). It's waiting for a decision to be made first; the consensus determines the article, not the reverse.

I think a good starting base for building an appointment system would be to discuss the merits and downsides of a nominated (self or otherwise) user, seek consensus, and have bureaucrats decide using consensus and their judgement. It would be similar to, for example, discussing the positives and negatives of implementing a navbar on articles; except in this case the bureaucrats could guide the decision and make sure things go smoothly and end up with an effective conclusion. We can then review how those discussions go, highlight consistencies, improve the process, and apply it for future nominations. It would thus presumably avoid a democratic vote-based system.

That said, I wouldn't mind your first suggestion. To use an analogy, individual administration issues are mostly decided between administrators; as this is a user rights issue, it could be decided between bureaucrats. In both areas, user input could still obviously be sought. pling 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, I don't prefer the idea of bureaucrats being the sole deciders of who becomes admins and who doesn't. I think a system that involved community discussion, in which a bureaucrat can review and participate in would work a bit better. However, I see problems with this as well... but perhaps this is not the correct place to discuss this. --hnzdvn 01:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think just as sysops can apply discretion with their tools, bureaucrats also should. The mentality of sysops being just a channel through which users are blocked and pages deleted (i.e. glorified janitors) has largely been put aside in favour of sysops with judgement. The wikis have vastly improved because of this. Yet, for some reason, that isn't the case with bureaucrats. (If anything, the reverse has been done if you look over the last 5 years or so.) pling 01:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I like very much the idea that bureaucrats are almost nothing, and have almost no power. If GW1W had originally the feeling that sysops were just janitors, it also had the feeling that bureaucrats were leaders of the wiki, a mentality that is still reflected in many aspects of GW1W (such as the incredibly convoluted election process there).

I would thus like a system in which bureaucrats don't really get to choose who will become sysops or bureaucrats, rather something in which people discuss it and the sysops (which includes the bureaucrats, but without giving any extra weight to them) get to decide where consensus is leaning to. More or less what Pling suggested, but with the sysops doing the role of bureaucrats. Erasculio 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall that it's because of the arbitration committee that elections and the like occur. The arbcomm is completely unrelated to any tool permissions the members have. The arbcomm doesn't do much because sysops can now apply discretion and therefore do the job better. Therefore, that bureaucrats-as-leaders mentality doesn't reflect reality. Also, if sysops are to determine appointment of sysops/bureaucrats, what's the point of having a separate bureaucrat usergroup at all?

Another problem this would unnecessarily introduce is that it would be harder to appoint new sysops because users have another hurdle to get over - "are they good enough to appoint sysops?". There are some good sysops that I might not trust to appoint new sysops. pling 02:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean a system in which sysops get together and decide who will become admins, rather a system in which people discuss it in order to reach a consensus and, if the discussion needs some pushes here and there, the admins themselves would help in that. Bureaucrats would still be needed in order to avoid the problem of choosing a sysop based on his/her ability of managing user rights, but having the power to change an user's status would not be the same as choosing an user's status.

"that bureaucrats-as-leaders mentality doesn't reflect reality": originally it did, IMO. It's still visible in a few things, such as one of the proposals for an adminship policy here which begins with, "Bureaucrats are the ultimate authority on the GW2 wiki", and so on. Erasculio 03:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

describing vs prescribing

I have read the entire proposal page now. It read nice and well, but what exactly did I read? A very standard policy page (with several shortened policies crammed into one page). Despite saying it would "document" current practise this page runs right into the wall that is the difference between describing something as it is and something as we want it to be. Take a look at the individual sections:

• "The importance of assuming good faith on editors' parts is always stressed" - Is it? I hardly remember someone ever writing about good faith here. It is maybe 1 in 1000 edits mentioning it. Quite different from "always stressed".
• "edit summaries are used to explain changes" - Are they? When looking at recent changes just now only 10-15% of main space edits even have a summary at all.
• "At least three days is usually available for discussion to start." - Are you sure it is 3 days? And not a week? Or two weeks? I didn't go through old deletion decisions to check. The reason you write 3 days is simply because that was once decided to be in the policy in GWW, not because behavior here showed it to be 3 days.

So what I am saying is: This page is set up to describe a wiki as we want it, as we think a "good" wiki should be. But that is different from "describing" the wiki as is. If you try the latter, you'd also have to write stuff like "Trolling goes unpunished quite often, especially if the troll understands to hide his trolling well from admins". Do you want that? The more I think about this, the more I want classical policy articles that say what should happen (and as such hopefully make behavior converge to actually be as prescribed), instead of being descriptions of what currently is. --Xeeron 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

/agree--Emmisary 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith: perhaps I exaggerated that point a little, but it's a core concept in all wikis/communities including this one, so I didn't think it would 'prescribe' something. If the wording is too strong, it can be changed: can you suggest something that's more accurate?

Edit summaries: yes, I do often see things like "rv because this" or "undo because that".

Three days: I agree that GWW policy is the cause for this, because it has trickled into this wiki as well. Guild Wars 2 Wiki:List of candidates for deletion works the same way as GWW's, i.e. something is highlighted after three days, so that has some place in admins' minds when deleting. Perhaps a more fuzzy "few days" instead of "three days" would be more to your choosing. (It definitely isn't at least two weeks.)

Trolling goes unpunished: no, we wouldn't need to write stuff like that. As the top of the pages explains, it's about "practices that have been agreed upon or proved effective in the past and may prove to be effective in future"; trolling isn't one of those. Since you and Phnzdvn mentioned deciding things in advance as well as documenting the past, I included the "been agreed upon" part to take account of that. Reading it back, it does appear to be a little ambiguous: it could read as "been agreed upon [...] in the past".

I agree that some of what's described on the page is similar to some policies. This isn't a surprise, considering original policies (thinking GuildWiki here) were based on practice, and GWW policies were influenced by GuildWiki policies; and these both influenced the userbases.

"I want classical policy articles that say what should happen (and as such hopefully make behavior converge to actually be as prescribed)" -- I'll quote from Wikipedia:Product, process, policy and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy to highlight what I disagree about with your opinion (note that their nomenclature is different, but their aim seems to be similar to the aim of this page):

"Since the policy is a result of process and practice (instead of the other way around) it is quite possible that policy changes as a result of practice changing. Another important principle is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Policy is subservient to product [i.e. the wiki], not the other way around."

"Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed."

pling 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first highlighted part: It deals with how easy to change policies should be. That is different from the discussion of documenting or prescribing. Both types can potentially be set up very rigid or very easy to change.

Second highlighted text: I simply disagree. Part of the reasoning can be found above (it is not always feasible to have an established practice), another part is, that by just letting things happen and only afterwards talking about what should be done in a concise way (i.e. writing a policy) stuff might be established as common practice that is worse than otherwise would happen. In general, I feel that Wikipedia's policies are a big pile of unusable crap (long, complicated, sometimes even contradictory, hard to read ...) and we should not use them as models for our policies. --Xeeron 15:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read the first quote in context (i.e. read the whole page), it's not just about how easy policies are to change. As you said, this page "reads nice and well", so hopefully we can continue to avoid Wikipedia's verbose style of policy writing (and GWW policy isn't actually much better in that area). By the way, discussion will occur all the time for the Big Issues - something isn't going to be done spontaneously in its entirety. Take the discussion above about RfAs as an example. Discussion and improvement is always part of the process. pling 16:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Keeping all these pages short and concise is surely something we can agree on. I Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Sign your comments/Draft2|try that myself. Even then, I would suggest that you separate the page into its individual sections, since keeping everything on one page is just not feasible and it makes more sense to start with separate pages already. Just turn your sections into normal proposals. --Xeeron 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't believe we need more details for each existing section than they already have; to say more, IMO, would be simply to invite wiki-laywering and to waste time trying to define a fine print which would end up being mostly useless. I also don't think we need to split this into multiple proposals, going from a single very long discussion to a bunch of very long discussions that would take ages to actually achieve anything. Erasculio 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To put it as succinctly as I can, the policies should describe what our ideal process is. The rest is just semantics. 05:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Honestly, I disagree strongly with what Erasculio said and very strongly to Xeeron. I just see this as a fail project in the long run, due to so much being cluttered. I'm not going to say 'I told you so' - when people go to wiki-lawyering. I'm not going to say that people will not accept comparisons between gw1w and gw2w as there are people who will think they're different. (We do have some of those people already here.) This is gw2's wiki and it should be it's own wiki with Links to gw1w. Anyway, I'm going to say this, there are 2 proposals that would clearly solve either sided wiki-lawyering. You can have just enough, but having too much would cause problems as well as having too little (which I label this proposal). Ariyen 05:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen, I can't understand what you're talking about.

Felix, can you elaborate? I gather you oppose this system and would rather see a GWW policy system, but I'm confused because you're Felix and don't like GWW policy. pling 19:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant to decrypt my statement last night, but then I slept instead. What I mean is that, through trial and error and over time, we as a community and through consensus will eventually arrive at a process that works well. When we can say "Hey, I think we're onto something here," that's when we write the policies. 21:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well that sounds like support. pling 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It absolutely is. 21:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pling, this is not set in stone, because you don't have enough consensus to make this 'fact' or put in place instead of all that other. I prefer a compromise, hence I strongly disagree in using this basically shortness of what I call crap and I strongly feel it will be "wiki-laywered" and to keep from repeating. I'm going to quote. "I just see this as a fail project in the long run, due to so much being cluttered." Your policy or what you call statement or whatever - lacks information, details, etc. You don't need too much, but that does not have enough at all. A lot can be assumed. We don't want assumed, do we? "I'm not going to say 'I told you so' - when people go to wiki-lawyering. I'm not going to say that people will not accept comparisons between gw1w and gw2w as there are people who will think they're different. We do have some of those people here, already. This is gw2's wiki and it should be it's own wiki with Links to gw1w." Quite frankly, many were wanting policy type stuff, right? So... "There are 2 proposals that would clearly solve either sided wiki-lawyering." This would solve problems that I see in the other quote to happen. We need something to define the policies, not detail things inside policies that we do need. I don't think we need a lot separately, but some together, similar. Not too little, but not too big like say for instance. Agf, 1rv, and Npa can be combined and there is something like that there created by one of our other members/contributors. This right here is not the spirit of the wiki in my opinion. What is? What I have said. A page that describes the spirit, what policies are, not what is in a policy and I would expect this to include Admins and Bureaucrats and what they are. It would have links to actual policies within, not be the only item to use. Wiki-lawyering in the future is what it would have done to it and we'd be right back here again. So, I'm completely against this as it's childish to use just one thing and think it'd work. I've seen places use one set of rules and it fail. That's why so many places have terms of use, privacy policy, etc. as they do. It's basically them covering their butts, even this wiki has that at the very bottom. 3 links - 2 that could have been combined into one, but aren't due to the problems I just mentioned. Having too little information can cause confusion or assuming that this or that could be gotten by with and when sysops get involved - their opinions could vary in their choices on those things and then there'd be conflicts. Not everyone thinks alike or similar. Having too much information can hurt a wiki. Either way, you might end up with trolls or people causing issues and it be worse than seen on gww. Hence I refer to the Npa one that I did up or more so the Code of Conduct that I like and prefer. The code of conduct combines many of those type rules or standards of what we expect or like/don't like . It's not too much and it does not lack in information - it's enough to suite for how a wiki is conducted. If my idea of how a page for the policies is wanted - I'll do one, but I just want all of you to know, there will be problems with this article. Ariyen 08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen, you don't get it at all. So let me try to reply to some of your points:

“this is not set in stone, because you don't have enough consensus to make this 'fact'” – right, it's not fact, and it was never meant to be fact. The page documents the current pratices. It's not a ruling that is supposed to be set in stone and seen as fact. It's a simple "hey look here how we do it" page.

“I strongly feel it will be "wiki-laywered"” – Something, that is especially not a law or policy can't be the source of wiki-lawyering. Never. After all, it just documents what is done, not what should be done.

“Quite frankly, many were wanting policy type stuff, right?” – Partly right. People wanted policies, because they wanted something. Policies was all that people were familar with so they just did what would be obvious for the quasi-successor of GWW: They wanted to start with policies, and in fact copied a lot of the GWW ones over (even if it was just ideas). Now this is a completely new approach to work without policies, rules for the community, at all.

“This right here is not the spirit of the wiki in my opinion.” – Then you seem to have a wrong image about a wiki's spirit. A wiki is all about the community. It's not about being unable to change unpopular policies just because some group decided about it a long while ago. It's about the community, that should be able at any time to change current practices when they would make the wiki better. And we have seen many times that this is just not possible with classic policies.

“I've seen places use one set of rules and it fail.” – … which is why we want to try going without rules at all.

“terms of use, privacy policy, etc.” – None of them are rules. The first one is the website's agreement to resign from the copyright; often this is regulated by some requirements. However it is not a ruling. It is a notice to the website's visitor about what they are allowed to do with the content. The second one is another notice to the visitor about what happens with private data. Again it is not a ruling, but just information, based on which visitors can decide to contribute or not. A wiki which works on a give-and-take basis, which wants to provide visitors with information but also would like them to contribute, of course should have such notices. But they are not part of any polcies or rules.

Again, this idea is not meant as a policy, it's a completely replacement for all policies, so that we only document actual practices and do not have to abide some policies someone came up a long while ago. poke | talk 17:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Change

What are the fundamental differences between this and GuildWiki? --Rezyk 17:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GuildWiki has a lot more bureaucracy, it wastes a lot more time with minutiae, it has set many decisions which this proposal leave vague since they are about issues that have never appeared on this wiki before, and etc, etc. The differences are far bigger than the similarities. Erasculio 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to me the similarities seem bigger than the differences. Course that's my view. Ariyen 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Guild Wars Wiki, not GuildWiki. 05:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mis-assumed. Quite the opposite. Ariyen 08:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

): 13:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So it's just a matter of time, then. --Rezyk 22:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not instinctively familiar with GuildWiki's policies, current policy culture, or userbase, so I can't compare that and this. However, I can say that the main similarity between GuildWiki policy and this is that both were fundamentally started to document existing practice. As we're aware of how perception of policy (and thus eventually policy itself) can be warped over time, we can hopefully actively avoid the same here. The first step is not calling it policy and realising it isn't policy as it is/was largely seen (on GWW). So no, I don't believe "it's just a matter of time". pling 22:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So...

Yes? No? Maybe? This is being discussed in multiple sections above, so I think it would be better to focus the discussion on a single place. From what I have read above, the two main concerns are what exactly this would be documenting, and what to do with the admin election. Based on the discussions, it appears that this article is documenting the solutions we have already found for our problems (instead of trying to create solutions to be applied), and so it does not describe admin elections since we have not had any problem with that system (no one has tried to become an admin, and no one has questioned the position of the current admins). I wouldn't expect this to mention admin elections at all until we have applied some kind of election system to this wiki, as doing otherwise would be against the idea this article is trying to accomplish.
I'm all for implementing it. What do you people think? Erasculio 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm against it. We need a better article for things that you have mentioned for when people would question, etc. As seen across many articles. I think many are for admins doing an rfr (or rfa) to get their sysops certified and make sure that people would want them here, not appointed because they want to. I think many have not tried, because we don't have such a system in place. I can link you to a few sites here and on another place where a few would like to try their hand at this. This system is not documenting our problems in some ways. We already have two to 3 policies that would better suite to solving problems. We only need a document that would help describe the policies and what they are, not what's in side them and better details on the Admin system, not short items that'd have people wondering what else Sysops or even Bureaucrats can do. This just sums up many other policies by giving a summary and craming them in here expecting people to understand. Do you think new people that would come to this wiki would know half what we all do? Some I don't think do, because they don't go to gww. Some I think would, if knowing how gww works. This is why I feel it would fail - You would have people who aren't familiar with a wiki who would question, etc. and we don't have right now with this article enough in it to help the people like that. This wiki should be treated like a new wiki. I don't see that. This is a new wiki documenting a new game - a sequel to the other campaigns and expansion and that new game has completely different mechanics, etc. You'd want this game to reflect newness and helpfulness, not a short pointless document that just seemed like someone crammed as much as they could into it without working and actually creating documents that's not overly done, but enough for everyone to understand and that includes new and old people. This is a community for a community, not for ourselves here, but for the fans of guild wars 2, etc. for the world of guild wars 2. Let's not forget that. So, that's why I am strongly against this. I'm not going to repeat the above. I don't think it should be implemented until we have concerns, etc. solved. Ariyen 16:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the article. I'd rather not waste more of my time trying in futility to counter Ariyen's comments, inconsistencies, contradictions, irrelevances, and the like. pling 17:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with is as an overview of how the wiki works. --JonTheMon 17:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) So, you'd rather not question the above to those that had questioned this article? Seems contrary to consensus. I am talking about not this section, but the talk page. Ariyen 17:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I also support the article. 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I do have a question, what about policy? This a replacement or a place holder? If place holder, my goodness - might as well implement actual things that we know we'll need instead of this. Saves time and trouble. This imo is only a summery and place holder that leaves a distaste to wikis or I should say maintenance or core workings so to speak. Not professionally done either. Ariyen 20:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a replacement for policy altogether. It is a replacement for premature policy, and depending on how events transpire, it may turn out to be just as effective as policies. 20:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So basically a place holder? Not needed, might as well implement what we know we need. Nothing is premature, when needed. Ariyen 20:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, and I am about to do exactly what you suggested. Okay, done. 20:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the article. With over 100 active users in the last seven days and content nearing 1000 pages there is absolutely no evidence the wiki is falling apart without more detailed policy. -- Aspectacle  22:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"This wiki should be treated like a new wiki. I don't see that." On the contrary, I see less chaos and more efficiency. If anything, the content might strike one as similar. But at the end of the day, we cannot write a policy that is in no way different from the policies on GWW and equally effective.

Naturally I support this article. - Infinite - talk 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this article too ^_^. --Lania 23:42, 08 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Does anyone else other than Ariyen oppose? She has expressed her opinion, but I would like to know reasons why others oppose it as well (although if more people agree with it, please say so, too). Erasculio 00:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As of now, I agree with this article as being an overview of common wiki practices. — Gares 12:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"I agree with this article as being an overview of common wiki practices." this Venom20 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What's meant by "an overview"? As more practices become common (i.e. the wiki grows), the articles will explain more specific issues. While it can't do very much of that now as the wiki's still small, there are some areas which have been explained in details: for example, the deletion process and the complex image tagging/categorisation system. The articles will expand as the wiki expands. Should I infer that you think this should be in addition to common policy? pling 16:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand "overview" the way that this article is allowed to be split up when the length increases and it becomes harder to navigate. And that would make totally sense (and already has started as seen with the formatting section.

Anyway, I fully support this and the immediate deletion of every policy proposal on this wiki :) poke | talk 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Poke, what if we need those others - if this becomes useless when more people come, etc.? Ariyen 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense, thanks. Seems I misunderstood, sorry. (FYI I also support deleting/archiving those proposals. They're mostly copies anyway.) pling 17:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd support archiving them over deleting them. Ariyen 17:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with deleting them. Erasculio 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Venom or Jon (the other two that used the word 'overview'). I use my wordage in regards to the entire article, not the individual parts. This article gives a good 'overview' of "what and what not to do" covering each of the 4 most common areas, I've found in my experience, as a whole. These four areas include Content, Editing, Conduct, and Adminship.

Each section in this article, by themselves, differ in the level of specifics, but that should not change. It's not wise to try to explain tagging or templates in a broad sense to an entire community. That risk more mistakes than anything else. However, personal conduct common practices can be explained without going into specifics. Hope that explains it from my pov.

And +1 for archive. — Gares 17:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Since most of them contain a lot of potentially useful discussion, putting them into a rejected policy category might be better. Even those discussions from December 07 (dot dot dot) are interesting. pling 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'll repeat what I asked up there down here then... (since I'm not sure which place for it to be)... "Why do we have links from wikipedia? I like gww's ideas of their own npa, etc., to keep from linking to these sites. That's more sites for other people to go to - a discouragement of this wiki. So, my question is... Why? Why not the policies we have here? (Removing that they are policy and add them to this?) " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariyen (talk • contribs) at 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

The links to wikipedia articles are used because they are definitions of these words. You could also use Merriam-Webster, but it would not be as friendly to most users as the wikipedia links are. Except for the personal conduct section of this article, I know of no other areas that contain wikipedia links. — Gares 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

While we don't have unanimity, I think we have enough agreement to make this a consensus. Do you people think we could implement it, and move all policies and related articles to some sort of archive category? Erasculio 18:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw. I didn't meant to make that archiving/deletion an actual discussion point here (at least not now), but as we are on the topic; I don't object just archiving them, but what I want to see happen is that we clean up the Guild Wars 2 Wiki namespace so when people enter a policy name they don't randomly get on a proposal page which in the end doesn't apply here at all. We could for example simply make all those pages to subpages of Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy and explain on the latter that we don't use a regular policy system here. That way we can keep all old discussions and proposal but still have a much cleaner state of the Project namespace.

So in the end, yes, I'm in favor of implementing it (although, as it's just documentation, it's not technically an implementation :P) poke | talk 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Gares, I understand, but why don't we have our own definitions of the same/similar things? Ariyen 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We are a not an encyclopedia; we document a game. poke | talk 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

True. Just to me those are 'guildlines' (or whatever we can call them) and I feel things like that should be here. It'd look better with little to no links in this document to another wiki. So, I'm trying to understand. Sorry. Ariyen 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I personally believe that words like Ad hominem and pejorative are simple enough words that doesn't need additional clarifications, I think there are probably enough people that might need that link to know what it means (especially since a lot of people cry ad hominem w/o knowing what it means). Though I think pejorative and personal attack have similar enough meaning so we can probably remove pejorative from the wording to keep it simpler. --Lania 20:00, 09 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who is new here I think this is great. When looking at all the possible policies and guides etc. for someone new its a total minefield and it took me a while to get my head around where to start. From what I have seen this documents what currently happens and works on the wiki and I think is helpful to anyone new reading it and if more specific policy is needed at some later point in time we can cross that bridge when we get to it. --RaGingIMP 20:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lania, I actually added pejorative today. I was not satisfied until some thing more encompassing was added. Ad hominem defines attacking the source of an argument and is not actually related to personal abuse, name-calling, and such. By definition, an ad hominem occurs only when trying to undermine an argument. By adding pejorative, any attack (disparaging, abusive, derogatory) outside the argumentative range of ad hominem is included. Both of these terms differ, however they do both fall under the range of personal attacks. — Gares 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then lets keep it. At least this way most, if not all of the bases are covered. --Lania 21:35, 09 September 2010 (UTC)

We might not want to discuss too much about the use of single words.. after all that is what we want to avoid.. poke | talk 21:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Specifics and examples...no...bad. Broadness and all-encompassing...yes...good. — Gares 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I suggest:

• Moving Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy to Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Policy, making it clear how the project is close, and explaining how this article has taken the place of policies. It would also list all policy proposals in an organized way.
• Redirecting Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy to this article. Making an analogy with GW2, we have redirected "Enchantment" to "Boon" (despite how they are not the same thing) because people seeking the former may be interested in knowing it has been replaced with the latter. Same thing here.
• Moving all proposed policies to a "Refuted policies" category, together with the main Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Policy article.
• Deleting the {{policy}} template. We only need to add the code for "rejected policies" to the current proposals, but we don't need an entire template for that.

Opinions? Erasculio 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would still like to see policy proposals & co being moved to somewhere else, as a big "rejected policy" won't stop people from quoting things of it (in the same way a "(inactive) policy proposal" didn't stop them)... poke | talk 07:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea. Move the policy to "Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Rejected" Make note (as big of a note as possible) on it and subpolicies - including talk - that these policies are rejected and any edits or comments will not be noticed (like archive perhaps?). Just a thought. If someone comments - make note that these policies are not in progress, active, and are deemed unworthy to the wiki. Ariyen 08:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@poke: where would you like to move the policies to? Are you thinking about just changing their category, adding some kind of big notice, or just moving all of them to something like "Failed policies/Adminship draftblabla"? Erasculio 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We still have an accepted policy: Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Copyrighted content, which probably should be listed on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy. Also, I would rather see that page explain how this article is superseding policy - a redirect doesn't get across the fact that this is conceptually different and not policy by another name. pling 09:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It feels a bit weird to have a single policy. Couldn't we just change Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Copyrighted content to a "Practices and processes" category or something along those lines? Erasculio 10:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically it's not a policy, it's just a extended explanation of the rulings every contributor automatically accepts when pressing "save". Plus it describes the practices of labelling such content correctly.

Also about the move; as I have explained above, I would rather see those pages moved completely (not category only) to free up the Project namespace. poke | talk 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing the category name is kind of a given, then. Besides that, it's in the GW2W namespace already, and it's linked from this page, so that's about all we'd need to do with it. --Kyoshi (Talk) 13:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As you guys are ignoring me... I am suggesting [[Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Rejected]] For the current policy page and the proposals (inactive and active). Removing the copyright link to the policy page. Removing the Templates and deleting them. Making a code that goes at the top of each page as to why they are rejected and that this Practices and Processes replaced all of that. Thoughts? Ariyen 19:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Ariyen, didn't mean to ignore you. Do you mean GW2W:Rejected as the name for a page compiling links to all the policy proposals? GW2W:Rejected is kind of a nondescript name, though adding a new template was (I thought) a given. Beyond that, as long as the proposals are stored somewhere, I don't care too much about the method. --Kyoshi (Talk) 20:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I mean and I hope to try to be as clear as I can be. Move the current Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy to Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Rejected. Have a note on that page stating (in so many words) this is no longer in use and closed - that we use Practices and Processes (with a link to this one). Move each subpage to it's proper name like say Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Rejected/No Personal Attacks. Have a note on each proposal page (inactive and currently active) that (in so many words) these are not considered and are closed (like you would, when an rfa closes) and that we use Practicies and Processes. Have a similar note on the talk pages and I'd say also a consideration in the note is something that's also similar to {{archived}} that we use on the archives. Rejected or something like that, doesn't have to be that word, but something that'd show these policies are archived (and other reasons). Ariyen 22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's about what I figured. The word "rejected" isn't entirely accurate and isn't a place anyone is going to end up. We could rename it GW2W:Policy archive, or something like that. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. We could, of course, just change the policy template to suit the "rejected" or "archived" policy and link to GW2W:PnP. (I also support the shorthand I just used, by the way.) --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I spoke to various contributors

We have lines on PA's and the likes and they're clear and efficient. What we miss and is important within a community is a defence against trolling/baiting and equally so warning the wrong users based on miscommunications or, in fact, favouring users. Obviously we want less bureaucracy, but to cut out a short, detailed, encompassing line/paragraph on what to do against trolling (again, no specific examples) will help us in the long run and will push back hostility that is uncalled for and does not contribute. (When I say hostility I mean users as Aliceansven and the likes.) GWW is no longer a community to document a game, but more or less a group of elitist wiki users who shove things around as they please. Not including the outer ring of fair, unbiased sysops and bureaucrats. GW2W should not make the same mistake and have a clear line/paragraph in the PP to counter trolling and baiting. I feel very strongly towards this issue.

Why do I write but not propose within the article? I have no idea how to phrase a line that encompasses the essence of the message and I hope another user can hit the nail on the head instead.

(As this can be implemented on a longer time span, I will accept the article even without this part in it as it stands.) -

EDIT: The events that occured between Venom20 and myself are NOT a case of trolling and/or baiting, and I already reflected and apologized for having things running out of hand with the PA's. - Infinite - talk 23:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what exactly you mean. You would like a paragraph describing what trolling is, or describing what the admins do to people who troll? Erasculio 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just describe the actions against trolling and when not to take action (false trolling). - Infinite - talk 23:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is covered in the disruptive users line, since trolls fall into that category. It's probably impossible to make a clear 1 sentence line about trolling since the definition of a troll in many cases is fluid and difficult to describe. This way it's up to sysop discretion for dealing with disruptive/troll users --Lania 03:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not covered at all. Trolling is different than just disruptive users. Trolls can cause other users to be disruptive by baiting them. The problem is partly due to users who like to take a talk page of an article or user page and respond quite frankly in a way that's not related to that talk page or user page. More so, I have seen enough off topic discussions in areas such as an article page and some of these talk pages are treated like a social community/website. The wiki is to document, not to be a community gathering. This what I have been trying to say and have been poor at it. So, I think we need this to be addressed. This isn't an issue to go under user pages or user talk as it falls under the whole wiki and it happens not just in the two areas I mentioned, but in article talk, etc. Ariyen 03:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"by baiting them" That, basically. Just cover baiting and general course of action for users and it's all good. :) - Infinite - talk 03:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Baiting users is still being disruptive. Indirectly making users to be disruptive is a way to disrupt the wiki, so this article already deals with that.

Keep in mind that it would be very counter productive to try to define what "trolling" (or "baiting" or whatever) is. No matter which definition we used, trolls would try to wikilaywer they way through said definition to at least stall, if not completely avoid, any kind of punishment. Which is the point of replacing policies with this article - by keeping it vague, we leave room for sysops to use their judgment in any given case. By stating only "do not disrupt the wiki, or you will be dealt with", we are covering everything (since any kind of trolling or baiting or etc is disruptive to the wiki) while allowing sysops to deal with the problems as they deem necessary. Erasculio 09:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio is right. Defining "trolling" is way beyond the scope of this wiki. You basically need an essasy to a book sized article to accurately describe trolling behavior, its consequences, types, and ways to counter it. Attempts were already made at GW1W, and GWiki to make a policy that defines trolls and ways of dealing with them and they failed mainly because like Eras said, a strict definition will allow trolls to skirt around the definition of a troll and wikilawer around it. Of course we can also have more links to the wikipedia and media wiki sites that describe what trolling is [1] [2], but they are subjective at best. wiki policies like this describe disruptive behavior is general [3] but then again with a small wiki like this, sysop discretion is generally more than good enough. --Lania 15:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done said in simple form what Trolling is. Having have been involved in games, even managing games, etc. and dealing with trolls for a long time. I have a definite clear idea of what it is. So, I have said in my previous statement in the simplest terms of what it is that is not clearly covered. The two of you can argue all you want, but this game site is no different from any other Mmo game site, play by email (in their our of character form), irc, mush, website, and sms type games that have trolls. By the way Erasculio "do not disrupt the wiki, or you will be dealt with" does not cover baiting. You all would ban the wrong people, when they are disruptive - If you don't look close enough as "Trolls can cause other users to be disruptive by baiting them." The only way to keep from this? Have a line that basically states users should keep to the content and not the person. So that if it's away from the Topic/Subject/Article and fits the other that's already described in said paragraph. You'd have a better time of punishing real trolls. Not by going Oh, there's no way to tell what a real troll is. The two of you should know enough from gww and it's trolling *cough* that is simple enough to know how these people would troll. I've seen it happen here. For example talking out of context on any article talk page by talking about something totally different than from the page at hand (what's on the page). For user space, talking about another user on that user talk or talking about anyone on any talk (other than their user talk) should be unacceptable. To talk negatively to a user on their talk that does not deal with their user space or how poor their user contributes are - is trolling. A wiki is to respect the contributes of users, no matter how poor it is. What is not covered very well at all in this article is the facts of how trolls "bait" (negative commenting and/or off topic commenting) other users into disruption. I am hoping to try to make clear of what that paragraph is missing. I can suggestion this - cover baiting, cover the negative comment/off topic commenting, etc.. People can ask others for im, etc. If they wish to treat this like a social site. There's options available, such as using email captcha and email this user on here. Ariyen 17:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't define trolling/baiting, but ensure that either is not falsely judged by sysops/bureaucrats. Read a troll in context if need be, it might not be an actual troll. Vice versa might also be the case. - Infinite - talk 17:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, that's more a matter of sysops doing their jobs than anything else. One of the reasons why sysops are chosen to be sysops is the community's faith in their ability to deal with trolls (and people baiting others and etc); and while they are not perfect, do make mistakes once in a while and may need help to get all information available about any given incident, I don't think it's something we could change by modifying the text here. Erasculio 18:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A good message like what I feel is being suggested here, would help the sysops. I honestly feel we could modify the text to cover such things as baiting. Ariyen 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) For the records, I also agree with Lana's point above: while we could link to Wikipedia's definition of "trolling" and etc, I think it would be best to not do so, or we would have a similar problem to what I stated above: trolls would wikilaywer on the definitions found at wikipedia and try to evade taking the blame for whatever it is they do (in fact, I would be happy to remove the current wikipedia links from the article).
IMO, the less specific we are here, the better. Sysops ought to know well enough that baiting users is a way to cause disruption, or they wouldn't have been chosen as sysops in the first place. Erasculio 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

+1. Sysop discretion is the best way to counter trolls on such a small (comparatively) wiki. Last thing we need is wikilawyering opportunities. ShadowRunner 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen, you seem to be in favor of a total lack of responsibility for people who react poorly to provocation. If you murder someone that calls you fat, you won't get out of jail free because he started it. 18:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think like others here that the current vagaries are the best way forward at the moment. In any situation i find it best to just apply the rule of common sense which should lead to those who troll being punished. On the subject of those baited I have to say they are not completely innocent, sometime you just have to take a deep breath and take one one the chin and if you go off in a fit of anger you have to take some responsibility. --RaGingIMP 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is true. I do think though that not only should the bait be punished if they aren't "completely" innocent, (which I disagree with, but that'd only depend on some situations) but that the troll/trolls responsible should be punished as well @felix, that had me to laugh, but you made little sense to me and you are quite wrong of what I seem to be in favor of. My thing is that I want to help make sure that the disruption, etc. is clear enough on things and that neither would be falsely judged by sysops/bureaucrats. I'd like something that would keep from false and unfair judgement. Sure we're to trust Sysops, but I'd like something to help them keep an eye out for - such as baiting, etc. and to judge fairly looking at the situation, by reading the context. Ariyen 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Ariyen The way you write that last post its written in a way that suggests that you don't think the sysops look for things like baiting already (I don't think that's your actual opinion but that's how it sounds). I think the sysops are wise enough to look out for this kind of thing and asses a problem from all angles. The best evidence of this is that currently it works, but if that ceases to be the case we can start to discuss guideline at that point for now they seem unnecessary.--RaGingIMP 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest? I don't. Sysops should step in when they see potential baiting. I shouldn't have had to go to the an board, when I had trolling on my talk (baiting too). They could have stopped it without me doing such. Proactive is better than waiting for things to start to escalate and then doing something about it. I do like the fact that sometimes they do stop some things before escalating, but situations like Alice was not handled sooner as it could have been. Users tried to take care of that, until a sysop finally stepped in. I think if you see a situation start to become disruptive or trolling/baiting. Stop it then, before problems become to where you'd have to step in. That's what I hope out of sysops and that's what I have done in my past on websites, etc. So, I don't see the paragraph being enough to discourage users from wanting to troll or bait. Ariyen 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I exaggerated a bit. 20:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll echo my point in different phrasing: Users must not use the admin board when something is not a troll and thus read potential trolling/baiting in context. This also goes for actions taken by sysops/bureaucrats, albeit that is more common sense than anything. - Infinite - talk 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Ariyen I find it interesting that you think that this or any other guide/policy could actually stop trollers, its a fact of life that if someone wants to troll they will whatever you write. People who are nice will be nice and people who want to be disruptive will be (whether its intended or not) its almost that clear cut. Just putting the words be nice will be as effective as any long paragraph. On the subject of potential trolling (i.e. something that may develop that way but hasn't yet) I think we should be careful on how early sysops step. I fear we could get to a stage where we're treated like kids. Finally I think who those rise to bait always have some culpability, people should be adult and mature enough not to rise to it and doing otherwise warrants some reprimand.--RaGingIMP 20:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sysops are not active 24/7 (this goes for individual sysops and the group as a whole), and they do not visit every page. It is thus inevitable that sysops will miss some trolling, baiting, attacks, or whatever. Luckily, we have an admin noticeboard to notify sysops about stuff they miss. Also, RagingImp is right; whether trolling is mentioned or not, trolls will troll, but admins are still capable of blocking. pling 20:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why I was ignored there, mind you. It's stand-alone to any issue countered so far. (It does not target trolling/baiting but rather the users targetted and the actions which they will likely take.) - Infinite - talk 20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Still a bit confused about what you want... Do you mean to add something about instances where someone thinks someone else is trolling but in reality they are not? Isn't that more of a matter of perspective? I can recall various instances where one user claimed that another is trolling while the other user denied trolling all together. Sometimes the community sides with the accused, while other times, they side with the accuser. Recent ones included the drama that occured on GWW between scythe and auron. I think it's even more difficult to describe how something that can be seen as trolling from one perspective while from another perspective, something completely different. --Lania 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Very bluntly put: don't start whining about things that aren't intended as trolling in context of a discussion. - Infinite - talk 21:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be ideal, but different people have very different ideas about what constitutes trolling. I would say when in doubt, ask a sysop. The worst that can happen is we take 30 seconds to determine it's a misunderstanding. 21:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence I stressed the point of a line or paragraph on how to take action if you suspect trolling/baiting. I'm glad my point is across now. - Infinite - talk 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am not thinking that things will stop trolling, etc,. or whatever is being assumed now. Please stop reaching and listen. I will repeat what I said in bold. "I don't see the paragraph being enough to discourage users from wanting to troll or bait". Discourage is not the same as trying to stop trolling/baiting. It is, however, an indication to users that if they do such, that there are consequences. Like this "Disruptive users are typically warned to refocus on improving the wiki, and persistent disruption has led to blocks on editing". That is not very discouraging to say the least. In fact, I'd change "persistent disruption has led to blocks" to "persistent disruption would lead to blocks". Meaning that if it's persistent, they'd be blocked, where as has led is past tense. Ariyen 21:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I understood what you said, I just put in the word stop but I am also happy to say I think it would do little to discourage them either. People know that trolling will bring consequences, you don't need to state this, again we're not kids. Also people who troll willingly know the consequences anyway, and those who don't realise they're doing it well don't realise, either way the consequences mean nothing to them so there is no point stating them. --RaGingIMP 21:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to direct this at Ariyen's previous comment, and not her most recent one, as I've managed to join this conversation 20 days late and this topic we're currently on seems to be getting a bit heated, so I'm going to avoid it. Anyways, "Sysops should step in when they see potential baiting. I shouldn't have had to go to the an board, when I had trolling on my talk (baiting too). They could have stopped it without me doing such" What you stated "you shouldn't have to do" is exactly what the admin noticeboard is for. It's your job to do your best at ignoring the aggression and notifying the admins when you think the situation has gotten out of control. It is not a sysop/admins job to keep a constant vigil over every user's and page's talk page to look for trolling and baiting. I'm fairly sure we'd have to get quite a few more of them if we wanted to accomplish something like that... About adding a bit to address "trolling," most people who "troll" are not active members of the wiki, they will most likely never view this policy or even if they somehow do, they will not pay any serious attention to it. So I think it would be a bit pointless to make something just to try and threaten them into behaving. Now, something to address baiting and PAs is something that I can agree with, as someone who would frequent this wiki enough to know members and be able to bait them would most likely require some familiarity to this wiki, and thus this policy might have been read. Although of course, most people already know what they're getting themselves into when they begin baiting someone, so any "temporary banning" or "warning" threat would probably get ignored. The consequences for such actions would have to be severe and very clearly stated if it was meant to discourage anyone from doing anything.

Again I've join this quite late so the things I brought up may have been discussed already, and if so then I sincerely apologize. Eive 21:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Truly appreciate that and that's the type thing I was looking for. May I have your thoughts on the very last comment I made? Ariyen 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Organizing the change

New section so it's clearer to people what we are talking about. Things to be dealt with:

1. The Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Policy article. I have rewritten it in order to state how there are no policies and to list the old proposals in what I hope is a more organized way. I used "refuted" instead of "rejected" in order to let people know that it wasn't just a matter of rejecting a policy (which in other wikis means just that the wording of a policy was rejected, but often people would try to make something similar to it), rather a stronger refutal of the policies as a whole. I have also grouped policies together by main subject, and sorted them within those by date. Feel free to change the wording, although I would like to keep more or less that structure.
2. The policies themselves. As mentioned above, most of them have interesting discussions at their talk pages, so keeping them could be useful. I suggest we move everything to a "Refuted policies" category and leave everything (including the main Policy article) there, without a main "Policies" category. I actually like Ariyen's idea above about renaming all policies to something like "Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Rejected/No Personal Attacks" (although to keep with my suggested theme, it would be "Refuted" instead of "Rejected").
3. Guidelines. I think those could just be deleted (in fact, I have tagged most of them for deletion already) since they are few in number (I have found only four) and three have no discussion at all. Only the signature guideline has any discussion, so that is one we could keep, although I think it would be a waste to keep an entire Guidelines category just for that. I suggest we actually move it to the refuted policies category.
4. The templates [[Template:Policy]] and [[Template:Guideline]]. IMO we don't need any of those two; the refuted policies should have some sort of note at the top of each article, but since it could be the same for all policies I don't think we would need a template for that.
5. The formatting articles. Since Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Formatting/Images was already under a practices and processes category, I have moved the other formatting articles to the same.

Opinions? Erasculio 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy page is instantly to the point and no confusement can arise. Followed with a list of refuted policies, again no confusion should arise. Retaining the articles and their talk pages for historical reference is also efficient and (to me) the proper decision to take. Guidelines are at most eased policies and the PnP takes both and shapes it anew, naturally they can be deleted (or at least the category). This is similar when it comes to the templates if you realize the change you committed yourself to. The formatting articles are in the PnP category.

If anything, we might want to merge the two stand-alone articles on formatting into the formatting portal instead.

I think this change is proper and required and thank you for the time and effort you put into realising it. :) - Infinite - talk 23:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were keeping the Guidelines as they are linked to Practices and Processes - vice versa. I wouldn't jump the gun on that. Ariyen 23:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines are mostly covered in PnP so I suppose we can at least ditch the category, then. - Infinite - talk 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I don't see why they can't be moved to the same areas as the policies... Ariyen 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose we can save the proposals but the talk pages are sort of missing, hence Eras proposed to delete them altogether. (Though I cannot see harm in archiving the proposals in the refuted section.) - Infinite - talk 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking - archiving in the refuted, combining all and not just one guideline proposal. It wouldn't be fair to the contributors who made these pages to archive one and delete the others. Ariyen 00:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I may look at that wording later, but the organization is great.
2. As I said above, I would prefer an "Archived policies" category and "GW2W:Archived policies" portal, but I'm not going to be picky about the naming.
3. Agreed.
4. If you just change the policy template to reflect whatever you want (a colorful box would also grab a passing user's attention more easily than an italic note), it'll be reflected on each page. Easy. Regardless of ease, I would prefer using some kind of box or template like what we have now, just to make it utterly obvious.
5. Looks fine. --Kyoshi (Talk) 16:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is what I would like to add to all refuted/archived policies, replacing the current policy template:

This page is a refuted policy. It has been superseded by a list of common wiki practices. The Guild Wars 2 Wiki has no policies. All former proposals were kept only for historical preservation.

Which word we will use (refuted, archived, rejected, etc) is still up to discussion, but I would like to use that box in order to explain people how each policy has become void. Erasculio 13:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I don't care too much about the word used here, just the category chosen. And even there I'm not too concerned, I would just prefer the word "archived". But do as you want, I've got no problem with what you've listed. --Kyoshi (Talk) 14:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with this. 18:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have added the box above to all old policy proposals, moved everything to a single category ("Refuted policies" for now, although "Archived policies" could work too), tagged the old policy and guideline templates for deletion (since nothing is using them anymore) and made sure that there are one thousand links to this article.

I have been thinking about renaming some policies. The adminship policies, for example, go from Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship (which is just a proposal, unlike in GW1W in which it would be the accepted policy) to Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship 2007-12-27 and Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship/Proposal 2 and Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship/Draft16-08-2010. I'm wondering if there's a more organized way of naming those proposals, without the illusion that the "root" proposal (in this case Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship) is more important than the others. Any ideas? Erasculio 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

They're not going to be used anyway, so I don't find it that important as long as the box is put in all of them. If you really want to then I would suggest making GW2W:Adminship a directory of the drafts, and moving the current GW2W:Adminship page to another draft number. --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about not making it a tree, so instead of using Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship/blabla, using something like "Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship 2010-01-30" in order to sort the proposals about the same thing by date. I'm not very happy with that way of showing the date, though; I'm not fond of using hyphens in article titles. Using slashes is not possible... Erasculio 23:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

How about 01032010 Month Day and then year? or just combine the Year, Month and Day together? Ariyen 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Refuted"

Since this is again coming to light, I'd propose a wording change to "Suspended". It implies that they are in no way active, and aren't intended to be active until specifically called for by the community. --JonTheMon 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's like you read my mind. 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Suspended" or "Archived" are fine. pling 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspended is a world better than refuted (and I also slightly prefer it to archived). It conveyes that we decided not to discuss individual policies and go with one general processes page for now. --Xeeron 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go with archived. It gives the sense that the ideas may be outdated. In truth, the new system of practices still has fundamental truths, just different style of presenting it. Venom20 18:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Venom had suggested "rescinded", which is currently my favourite word for this. "Suspended" works too, IMO; archived could give the impression that the policies still had some use, and were waiting to be replaced by new policies (as opposed to having been replaced by a new system).

Speaking about this, does someone object if I undo Xeeron's latest edits, the ones moving all current policies from a specific category to a "Proposals" category? Since the change was done without any discussion, and having all those policies on "Proposals" give the impression that we are actually considering them, I think it would be better to move them away to something clearly noted as a non active category. Erasculio 03:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescind would be just as incorrect as refute; something can only be rescinded if it was already in practice, and these policies were not. I would say just leave Xeeron's changes until we're done discussing. It saves some busy work and the potential harm is really virtually nil. 03:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No idea if that's the daily use of the word "rescinded", but the definiton I found fits here: under the meaning of "to invalidate (an act, measure, etc.) by a later action or a higher authority", we can say that the policy proposals were made invalid by a later action (the creation of this article).

The problem with Xeeron's policy category is that it gives the impression that the policy proposals are still valid, and still under discussion regarding their status as accepted or not. It may mislead an user into making an edit there trying to change one of the proposals to fully accepted policies, which would require some work to fix properly (which means, not just undoing edits without other explanations, but rather explaining to the user why the policy proposals are not really policy proposals right now). Erasculio 03:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine that his wording will last more than a few days. And yes, that is the typical use of rescind- even the page you linked has the first definition as "abrogate, annul, revoke, repeal." 04:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I still like suspended (and would be ok with rescinded as well), but the more I read about this, the more I am drifting towards something non-fancy such as "old wiki stuff". --Xeeron 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't read any opposition to "suspended" above, so I'll change the category to "suspended policy proposals" soon (proposal to signify that they never had been policies). --Xeeron 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it; see also Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy#So.... Not that there's much to see. 18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of specifics

Once again we are seeing that a lack in specifics can cause problems. "Since there is no 1RR policy here, my replacing the tag was not in any violation" was said by 75.72.248.57 when discussing a revert war of such. I'll say it again, but this common practice format that has currently been implemented has a wait and see attitude that can only cause problems. It looks good in theory, but I can foresee problems in the future like this. Venom20 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already explains why revert wars are bad and what happens when they occur. Technically speaking, the user was right, in that he can't violate a non-existent 1RR policy. However, something doesn't need to be in policy to be bad, and someone should explain that to him. pling 21:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I more or less already did. 21:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this user is the example for my point of view, and I apologize if I am singling him/her out. Like I said, the article merely says that edit warring is bad. There is no distinction on what is and isn't an edit war. I feel this was an edit war with two faulty people, Felix (again, sorry for being part of my example) feels this was not an edit war but faulty decision making by one party. For the majority of us wikiers, we know what is and what isn't appropriate. But a newcomer may not. Or in this example, an IP who is familiar with old policies may choose to disregard them because they aren't explicitly stated anywhere, even though it is common wiki behaviour here. Venom20 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-etiquette [4] covers revert wars and others. Basically accepted as common on all wikis. Though 1RR is not set in stone, revert wars aren't very sensible and thus we warn participating users. The second you break 1RR and break the count of 3, it's an edit war. - Infinite - talk 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I kinda have to agree that certain parts like edit warring is a bit confusing to a wiki noob who has never touched the edit functions of any wiki. I think maybe simply linking to the etiquette page (just like with the terms like pejorative) might be helpful for new users that want to learn beyond what is available just on this wiki. --Lania 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That page is very different to a definition article like pejorative. By the way, PP does briefly describe an edit war: "edits might be constantly reversed or otherwise changed (usually in a short amount of time)". pling 23:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pling. Describing how new users don't have an intrinsic knowledge about wiki-etiquette is not really an argument for the use of policies; those same users won't have an intrinsic knowledge about how policies are (or were) the "laws" of a wiki, and of what the content of the policies is. I'm somewhat happier with people going to a new user's talk page and trying to explain how an edit war is not helpful to the wiki than with people going to a new user's talk page and accusing him of violating something like GW2W:1RR or other acronym that would not mean anything to anyone who's not a regular contributor here.

Not everyone is going to follow the "Practices and processes" ideas. Not everyone follows policies, either. In both cases, it falls to other people of the community to explain to the user why his/her behavior is not benefitial to the wiki, and if that fails, an admin could always block the user in question. Just like the IP argumented that there is no 1RR rule here, he could have argued that the deletion policy states that copyright violations have to be deleted, so the deletion tag had to be placed on that image - in other words, if having a policy system would prevent him from using one excuse for this behavior, it would have given him a different one. The main difference is that a non policy system allows the spirit of policies to be more important than the exact wording of the policies. Erasculio 03:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, the IP brought up the 1RR , thus implying knowledge of the former rule. So intent was clearly shown to disregard it. Secondly, there cannot be a "spirit of policies" because there are no more written policies to imply a spirit about. The spirit of policies died with the policies. Right now with the new system, there is a wait and act way of thinking. There is no place for a user to check to inquire about rules and regulations. The user has to go forward with their actions and be corrected after the fact. Or the user can ask if he/she can do something if they are unsure. This leads to hesitation and poorly written articles because the user's ideas have gotten cold. Venom20 04:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, so you think the idea of "do not have edit wars" behind 1RR has not been expressed in "It is usually recommended to halt changes to the contested parts of articles until a consensus is reached"? Or that the idea behind NPA has not been expressed in "Users are encouraged to be civil in discussions to resolve disputes effectively. Ad hominem arguments and pejorative remarks (usually known as personal attacks) are disruptive, both towards the community of users and the documentation of Guild Wars 2"? Those are the spirit of the policies (in other words, the idea behind them) without the wording of the policies, which is a great thing - it's the wording which may often be too confusing, too prolix and with too many ways to be wikilaywered around.

In fact, when talking about the ideas behind policies, the statement "The user has to go forward with their actions and be corrected after the fact" is pretty much the idea behind "Be bold" - users are expected to discuss and act, not wonder if they are stepping in a mine field by making an edit. Which is one more reason why having just this article is better than a massive list of somewhat arcane policies: as I mentioned above, this system promotes explaining to people why their actions are not in the wiki's best interest instead of just throwing accusations about policy violation around. It also allows for more reasonable decisions, as it leaves room for dealing with situations without absolute truths. Erasculio 04:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Where on that page does it say you may only revert once? -Auron 03:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)" doesn't look like I'm the only one here who looks for specifics in structuring a practice or a procedure on this wiki. This article is about certain actions, practices and processes have become commonplace. How does a new user know what is commonplace if they're never been here. What is edit warring? Some feel that the latest bout was not edit warring and some do. "It is usually recommended to halt changes", but not always? When is it a good time to continue to make these disputed changes? Venom20 04:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Auron is right. Nowhere here it states that we may only revert once. Which is part of the idea - it doesn't matter if people revert once, or thrice, or no time at all, the idea is to avoid edit wars. Which means, sometimes one user making one revert may be proper behavior, other times making multiple reverts may be proper behavior (someone once accused me of violating 1RR with two different edits...Which were done with more than a month between them; when actually discussing the merit of the change itself, that user eventually accepted the change, despite how technically I had violated 1RR), and other times making a single revert would be making an edit war (as would have happened if, for example, I just reverted Ariyen's edit without trying to discuss the issue). This kind of reasoning, which is far more complete and far more reasonable than what could possibly be said in a policy trying to cover all possible scenarios, is one of the advantages of being able to discuss things in the wiki. If there's doubt in when it's a good time to continue to make disputed changes... Simply discuss it. The result will likely be better than just trying to mindlessly follow a policy. Erasculio 04:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Besides that, there are too many theories that relate with this. And sometimes you can better just ask what you do not understand, then to discuss something that is as big as the universe itself. Commonplace and 'obviousness' are perhaps the two words that we(or a lot) rely on currently, we are aware of these facts how minor or big they are. We discuss and 'talk' about these things that will go unnoticed to others on this wiki. These people aren't in particular waiting for these discussions to be about them (or what they did) and just wish to know what they can expect from the wiki. As to what the wiki can expect from them. Though what we can do, is understand one another and foresee the possible problems that might occur once in a while. We simply have to find a 'strike the golden mean', as in Dutch 'de gulden middenweg bewandelen'. We cannot make everyone happy, we cannot make everyone satisfied. Though surely, we do need some consistency and rules as to meet the wiki standards of being reliable (true information), easy/simple (understandable information), needed (fulfil the desire of the need of information) and informative (having the information that one seeks from previous mentioned standards). But that's just my idea... I had to say something after keeping track of some discussions around and related to the P&P. ge4ce 05:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands the context here, this is referring to the placement and removal of a copyvio deletion tag that was removed by one user and replaced by an administrator, only to be removed again by the user. This was not in regards to the addition or removal of factual information as part of a normal article. There is also a common wiki practice of following the instructions on things like deletion tags, and discussing your reasons for/against the deletion on the talk page once the tag has been placed. Yes, I replaced the tag a total of twice after the initial removal, and then took it to the noticeboard for further administrative review. --75.72.248.57 05:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Eras has pretty much covered what I wanted to say. To summarise - people are not using the PP effectively. I don't understand it 100%, but I know what it's there for: it's so that people who edit this wiki do it in good faith and "don't become dicks", and it is expected that people know the difference between an edit in good faith, and a complete dickhead. The issue in concern was simply handled poorly. People who revert without good reason or discussion = being dicks. I really have to be blunt about this and I'm sorry, but saying that the guy reverted because there was no revert rule is just a farce and should have been dealt with appropriately. (Xu Davella 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

(Reset indent) I've been reading all this and thinking and while for myself Practises & Processes is enough because i'm not a dick (I think) some people will use the lack of policy to do what they want (They may believe they act in the wiki interest in doing so, i'm not ranting at just vandals and evil doers). I have to say I like the current situation and yes I know its very reactive and will be abused many times to my own dismay but I would still prefer it as it is now. But I would also like to keep ideas flowing to improve what we have, the P&P article I think should be made more informative while keeping the same goal. Maybe it is also necessary to create more articles that are guidelines for new and old, the only policy as such I think we might possibly need is one that give a mandate to sysops and bureaucrats to use their judgement to apply P&P but thats just my thoughts. --RaGingIMP 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I only ~half read the huge mass of characters above this comment but I think this discussion is also failing to be specific.

What is - to me - the issue at hand is if it is okay to ban people for behaviour that nowhere in the Wiki is declared to be unacceptable. What I see is above me - from a quick glance - is people discussing marginally different things.

In the end I feel we could end this discussion with "always warn first so that everyone has a fair chance, and if it is done again blocks may be appropriate depending on the case at hand". I don't feel entirely comfortable with there being a lack of certainty - as while that's bound to be abused, who is to say all resulting issues would be malicious? Common sense has to play it's part - link to a hacksite and you deserver zero warnings - but if there is no hard and fast "don't do _____" then it is rather brutal to turn around and ban someone who may only have the best of intentions.

tl;dr: A warning makes up for the lack of policies, extraordinary acts may not merit a warning. A F K When Needed 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erasculio that we don't need policies but rather people can just explain why an action is wrong. Fyi, while you argue back and forth over the usefulness of useless policies, about 95% of people do NOT read them until they make an account and truly participate. Roaming IPs that contribute as they come and go shouldn't be hindered be some policy that reiterates common sense. Also if deviant behavior continues then it becomes up to admin to sort out what to do. What else are they even there for? --Emmisary 00:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is far easier to wikilawyer with set-in-stone policies (since you can say "I didn't TECHNICALLY revert war/personal attack/etc") than it is with this system (because you are still violating the spirit of the policy). The only mentioned case above is one where Venom lacked understanding of PP and tried to apply it like a policy, which was wrong. The lack of specifics in policy gives the community room to defend their decisions based on different scenarios, while giving the sysops enough room to ban in defense of the spirit of policy. If that IP above was maliciously reverting on the image, the IP would have (most likely) been banned. But the IP was obviously not participating in a malicious revert war, and explained himself rather well, so no ban was placed. Thus, the situation benefited from the lack of specifics in policy (although TBH, even on GWW the IP probably would not have been banned). -Auron 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)