User talk:Xeeron/status quo bias

Example

I believe this article would work better with some examples, so I would like to provide one. Take the situation in which the policy proposals were moved from an active category to an inactive category, which is a very big change in the status quo. We can see that...

• People who did the change were expected to know the details about the discussions on the subject, as mentioned here, yet those undoing the change back to the status quo were free to claim they had not even properly read the entire discussion (as mentioned here).
• People trying to change the status quo were told they should have waited in order to make any edit (as seen here) as well as waited for a long discussion (again as seen here), while those trying to reinforce the status quo are allowed to not even try to have discussions (as made clear here) and to not wait before making their own edits (see the time of the previously linked edit and of this edit).
• People trying to change the status quo are told that having the consent of all the participants of the discussion (even though those were few in number, since no one else bothered to comment) is not enough to implement a change (as seen here), yet those undoing edits to go back to the previous status quo are allowed to act without asking for or wanting the consent of any other user (as seen on most of the links above).
• People trying to change the status quo are expect to make an effort to keep the discussion going (as seen on most sections at the PnP talk page, beginning with this one), while those who just want to go back to the status quo are allowed to not try to keep the discussion active at all (this shows how the last edit at the discussion in question was more than two days ago).
• People trying to keep the current status quo feel themselves to be free to accuse others of "agenda setting" instead of trying to have a more civilized discussion.

And so on. IMO, it's rather clear how status quo bias is indeed something detrimental to the wiki. Erasculio 00:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And to think people claim sarcasm doesn't transfer well textually. - Infinite - talk 01:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really assume that Erasculio is being sarcastic here. He merely noticed (and is pointing out) that status quo bias always works against those wanting change, that is, currently is working against himself. If anything, it is ironic that I am the one pointing out this wiki's status quo bias, when I am currently on the other side of the discussion. However, I would prefer you to have the balls and say "Xeeron ..." instead of "People ..." when you are taking potshots at me. --Xeeron 12:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What really bothers me, Xeeron, is how your single argument for behaving the way you did (ignoring the discussion, not even bothering to discuss your changes before or after implementing them, not listening to anyone else's opinion and so on), which you stated on your talk page instead of stating it at the proper place, was to avoid creating a status quo bias - which, as described in detail above, is exactly what you were enforcing.

In other words, you have no excuse for your behavior. And since I'm extremely busy these days, and you never bothered with the discussion at all, the result is one more item of status quo bias you have forgotten to mention - the wiki's attention span is extremely short. If I had waited longer, as you demanded (regardless of how you didn't wait), the result would have been exactly what has happened now - people simply lost interested, and the discussion died.

I'm disappointed with you. Steam rolling over other people's opinions and discussions just because "you were right" is something I would have expected from Karlos, not from you. Erasculio 04:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are pressed for time, it would be beneficial if you took a little more time to be more precise in your posts. First, what you did was changing the pages. What I did was reverting them (back to the status before the changes, minus some subcats). Second, your statement that I ignored the discussion and didn't bother discussing them after implementing them is flat wrong, as can be seen on my talk page. Third, if you had carefully read that talk page, you'd know that I acted to prevent a new status quo, not a status quo bias, the two obviously being different things. Finally, the likely outcome will very likely not be what happened now, but a new and better wording. --Xeeron 16:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please try to avoid bringing up other people by name in such a negative context? Inappropriate, unfair to them, personal, etc etc. --Rezyk 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"it would be beneficial if you took a little more time to be more precise in your posts": you didn't take any time before reverting. Ironically, you also took only three days between your proposal and changing the policy links again, which isn't exactly far from the time I took between my proposal and implementing it.

"your statement that I ignored the discussion and didn't bother discussing them after implementing them is flat wrong, as can be seen on my talk page": replying to a question asked at your talk page is not participating in a discussion which was already happening and to which you never contributed. You completely ignored the discussion, steam rolled over the opinion of those who didn't agree with you and you even admitted that you didn't properly read the discussion (when you said "I read the page (well, skim read parts, read others) prior to moving").

"Third, if you had carefully read that talk page, you'd know that I acted to prevent a new status quo, not a status quo bias": as you mentioned in your talk page, "but preventing (via status quo) future editors from ever establishing policies is something entirely different" - in other words, you complained about how creating a new status quo would have long lasting implications due to "status quo bias". Your attempt to avoid a new "status quo" was due, as you stated yourself, to how it would be hard to change said status quo later thanks to the bias. Which is exactly the problem you are higlighing at this page, and exactly what you are doing.

"First, what you did was changing the pages. What I did was reverting them": I left this one for last, since it's the most important part and the reason why I'm even still bothering with this. I'm not fond of italics or bolding, but this demands it:

Xeeron, nothing in the wiki autorizes you to ignore a discussion and assume your opinion is better/more important/whatever than a discussion you have ignored. Nothing. You have absolutely no right to make a change that goes against something other people have discussed without even bothering with said discussion in the first place. You are not in a high pedestal to be allowed to assume that you opinion is better than of a group of users who you didn't even bother to talk with. Doesn't matter if you are making a change, reverting a change or whatever - the most basic principle of the wiki is that discussion is more important than a single user's opinion, and there is no excuse that allows you to ignore that. Erasculio 22:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You know, I have to say, most of what you have on here and the examples is complete an utter bullcrap. You need to prove anything new, anyone old was previously new and thus already proven. A majority over 50% means virtually nothing other than a small group trying to change a larger one. New things are no worse than old, but old things have already been established, and thus reverting without discussion (but there should be necessary discussion if the new and the old are contradictory, or if there is information to back up the new edit). Shadowed Ritualist 22:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio, I asked you in the post before to be more precise and you reply by a false statement again (the proposal was made by Jon, I'd propose a wording change to "Suspended", 17:09, 14 September 2010, 9 days before my edits). Sorry, I can't help the feeling that this is not about any point anymore, but that you are just trying to make me look bad by misrepresenting what happened. I don't feel any interest in participating in that. --Xeeron 11:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio, what are you trying to accomplish here? To make Xeeron look bad? That is never going to happen as long as you just keep giving half-baked examples that never tell the whole story, and hope that most people don't read everything, or at least skim the arguments presented previously. You should just end your crusade here, stop it, and be satisfied with it. --Lania 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

im going to say something here, borderline personal attacks can cause downward spirals in user behavior.

im not trying to troll bait, im not trying to troll, im stating a fact. If you "do to him what they did to me on gww" you'll just creating drama. No one wants that, so just gtfo him, k? lest you blow up the wiki. — Scythe 21:52, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)

oh and btw, im not defending anyone's opinion, im not taking sides. I just dont want the wiki to wtf explode like what happened on gww. explosive escalation is already starting here, so cut it out. People are flaming, people are making borderline PA's, honestly continue the discussion, don't make this "hey you cant do that cuz i dont like it!" vs. "stfu nigga and go away," please. — Scythe 21:56, 27 Sep 2010 (UTC)