Forums: Index WoWWiki policy WW:DE and Forum:Regarding Policies

The original forum post discussed in this post has been deleted. See Forum:Tightening Penalties: Proposal instead. --Gengar orange 22x22.pngBeware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:17 PM PST 10 Dec 2010

The Forum:Regarding Policies section on WW:DE appears to contain an error. It states that "attempts to get editors to leave the site" on user talk pages is a violation of WW:DE and describes this as a permanently bannable offence after one warning and a two-week ban (skipped for those presumed to be aware of the rule), but that does not appear to exist in the actual policy.

The current WW:DE has a section on blocking and sanctions:

  • Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours.
  • Accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely.
  • If a pattern of disruption is subtle or long term, and informal discussions are ineffective, a request for comment may be used to document the problem and establish a consensus for a ban.

Meanwhile Forum:Regarding Policies says the following:

  • For those that already know about this policy as it pertains to User Talk Pages:
    • Permanent ban
  • For new/current users who may be unfamiliar with the policy:
    • Warning
    • 2-Week Ban
    • Permanent Ban

It would seem these two policy documents are in conflict, and I would thus put out a call to the community to reconsile it. Should WW:DE be changed to reflect the new policy, or should the new policy be changed to reflect WW:DE, or should both be changed to somewhere in the middle?

--ddcorkum (talk) 03:29, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Very perceptive. See my note at the top of Forum:Regarding Policies. --Gengar orange 22x22.pngBeware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:49 PM PST 8 Dec 2010
I should first clarify that these penalty changes are meant to be short-term. I should also point out that the 'caveats' section actually brings these penalties closer in line with what is already in place - i.e. a record of positive contributions made by the user will be taken into consideration. If a person has a posting history that shows quality content as opposed to just edits on user pages and the forum, then those posts should and will be taken into consideration. Conversely, if a person's posting history only shows posts that do not attempt to improve the site or attempt to detract from the rebuilding effort - especially if those people have explicitly stated they have no intention of assisting the wiki - then that, too, must be taken into consideration.
The focus right now is on rebuilding the wiki. Successful arguments can be made about the probably of such success, as it is a very steep climb right now. WoWWiki should live or die by its merits alone, and this means efforts to improve things, whether it be by improvements to the 'skeleton' of the site itself or by making certain content is up-to-date. That should determine whether this wiki survives.
What shouldn't be a determining factor is how successful people are at advertising other sites, be they wowpedia or something else. What shouldn't be a factor is how successful people are at vandalizing and keeping their disruptive behavior under the radar. If people have truly decided to move from this wiki and not contribute, and have made it perfectly clear they have no intention of contributing, then they have removed themselves from this community at this site.
This is why the penalty changes were put into place. Right now the wiki and whatever remains of its community have to focus on rebuilding. Anything outside of that rebuilding process is a distraction and detracts from overall efforts, and until the community is a bit larger and rebuilt, should be dealt with sooner rather than later.
That being said, I've mentioned the policies in the sticky aren't new, so what remains is to discuss the listed penalties. In the end, when people post, what must be asked is "Does this benefit the wiki and the community that has chosen to stay?" People will successfully argue that not everyone who uses the wiki knows about the fork. That is true, but by the same token not everyone who uses <x> site knew about wowwiki before the fork. As there was no effort made to post about the existence of the site in an effort to remove users from one community to join here back then, the same should hold true now. Besides which, wowpedia has links on the official warcraft site. If wowpedia is to be (or continue to be) more successful than this wiki, it should do so by its own merits and not because people (wowpedia-affiliated or not) were successful at disrupting the building process over here.
So the question is: If we are focused on rebuilding the wiki and updating it, how much leeway should be given to those that violate policies and disrupt that rebuilding process? If the rebuilding process should be done quickly, then it tends to follow that penalties should be more stringent during this time to accelerate that process. Raylan13 (talk) 18:36, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
"As there was no effort made to post about the existence of the site in an effort to remove users from one community to join here back then, the same should hold true now." - I really have no idea what you're saying here. --PcjGamepedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!

CSpecial:Editcount/Pcj contributions and counting) 18:40, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Me either. To my knowledge, there was no predecessor to WoWWiki. It was an independent site that moved under the control of Wikia. I do remember having to re-register my account under the name Deadlykris, since my original account was renamed WoWWiki-Deadlykris. There was no fork; there was no pre-WoWWiki site from which the community migrated. The community was built up around WoWWiki, and is the only fork. --Kris talk 20:53, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Saying "the policies in the sticky aren't new" is disingenuous (besides, it isn't a sticky anymore :-p). The names of the policies aren't new, but your heavy-handed extension and modification of their interpretation is definitely new. In the good old days, we used to try to get the administrators to at least be consulted on policy changes. Also, just because you ban someone doesn't mean they are silenced. They will talk about what happened to them, just not on WoWWiki. --Gengar orange 22x22.pngBeware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:10 PM PST 9 Dec 2010
I forgot to mention this: Discussing policy, after it has been announced with the general impression given that not much will change (otherwise you would have discussed it before announcing it), doesn't do much to encourage participation. If you were smart, you would delete the announcement, present it as a proposal, discuss the various points and either declare them policy by caveat (we do have this as part of the process) or adopt only the parts which the community accepts. Even if you're going to run a wiki like a police state, take some time to learn the history and traditions first. </rant> --Gengar orange 22x22.pngBeware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:22 PM PST 9 Dec 2010
Rant noted and appreciated. I'll take some time over the next few days and read through all the policies to make sure I'm staying within them--after all, it doesn't do much good trying to enforce them or be a valuable part of this community if I'm not willing to go through the accepted process. Your advice is sound, so tomorrow I will delete that particular thread and re-post it as a suggestion. I've been told that the stance on user talk pages was something handed down by Sannse a month or so ago, and to my knowledge nothing has changed regarding efforts in the thread were more an attempt to interpret and understand where that edict was coming from. So far as I know, it is out of my hands to change wikia's stance. Raylan13 (talk) 21:56, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Sannse's edict was handed to down to largely uncooperative admins (not counting Deadlykris). Also, at the time I wasn't aware I was still part of the administration.
Like you said the slope for WoWWiki's recovery is steep. Wikia is directly responsible for the current situation. Every act by Wikia will be scrutinized with a great deal of mistrust by any editors who have not migrated to Wowpedia, but have been monitoring the whole situation (aka lurking). Wikia made some attempts (probably too late) to try to repair the rift, but the efforts seemed half-hearted at best. If Wikia wants to keep WoWWiki as a viable option, it will need to make more than half-hearted efforts.
I've said in another post, that I plan to give Wikia about a month to make some good faith efforts to restore WoWWiki. Not communicating with me or responding to my questions on talk pages is not a good start (this does not include you Raylan13 who have been very polite and understanding). If JoePlay doesn't respond to my posts on his Community talk page, I consider that an act of bad faith. So far no one from Wikia has directly approached me about helping to restore WoWWiki. I am offering. They know I can be tendentious, but who else who has the history at WoWWiki that I have (or even close) has even offered to help? Kirkburn is either burnt out, has moved on, or is working on something of much higher value to Wikia than WoWWiki.
As you can see I'm quite capable of wild speculations that sound frighteningly realistic. You don't want me to do this. --Gengar orange 22x22.pngBeware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:09 PM PST 9 Dec 2010
I am pleased to hear that you are converting that post (at least these portions of it) into a suggestion for the community to decide on. I think that is an important step to rebuilding the WoWWiki community, by making it clear that the community still has a right to be involved. I understand the intended teporary nature of the rule -- and though I participate in Wowpedia, I honestly agree with the rule. If it came down to a vote to the whole community, I would vote in favour of banning talk-page advertising for anything, not just Wowpedia. My main concern is how the rule was brought out, rather than what the rule itself was. It is the difference between WoWWiki as a wiki community with corporate hosting vs WoWWiki as a corporate website that is displaying information contributed freely by its customers. In the former case, the community should be consulted on policy changes (even if, in the end, the host has to make a decision). In the latter case, the customers get what the service provider offers them, or they go elsewhere (which I do hope Wikia has finally realized is what happened here). Anyways, that you have taken Fandyllic's suggestion is a promising sign: it is honestly the first time someone on the staff actually listened. ddcorkum (talk) 22:59, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.