GuildWiki talk:Don't shout at each other!

Why?
Like any good policy, this one explains how things work on the wiki, and how they ought to work. :) -- ◄mendel► 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't support the "Policy" section. The advice is mostly fine. PanSola's idea of making some "policy" into "guidelines" instead comes to mind. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't have to and can use admin discretion instead. My thought is that having a stated policy (and keeping to it) can serve to "objectify" editors in emotional upheaval who are quick to see intervening admins as opponents. By using a "canned" warning message and a clearly defined procedure, an intervening admin can act as "impersonally" as possible and thus try to avoid attracting undeserved rage. -- ◄mendel► 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the "policy" proper is only the section in the box. But you knew that. -- ◄mendel► 11:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ShoutBot? Detects when edits were made in quick succession and tells you to use Show Preview and/or take a break? Anyway, I don't believe that having this policy around would have helped for any of the so-called "shouting matches" thus far. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We never had the advice to point to in the early stages, nor consensus to issue "cooldown" blocks in the early stages. If we have that now (and I would certainly exercise my discretion to that effect), things may change. Would you rather wait for a test case? Seeing as you don't have any objections to the actual advice and procedures I suggest, why wait? -- ◄mendel► 02:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this really needed to be a separate policy ? Is this a recurring problem or do you have examples ? I'm not a big follower of user talk pages, so I maybe I missed a big chunk of wiki drama. But still, I do think that "No Personal Attacks" would be enough. It is still up to other users to ask other users to stop for a moment with "shouting" at each other. Eventually, any discussion will die and results in a long talk page section nobody cares for. I agree with the guidelines, but still...why ?-- [[Image:merty_sign.gif]]-- ( talk ) 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I want it to be somewhere, and there's no better place; and yes, it is recurring, and asking other users to stop for a moment doesn't always work. Do you need links? -- ◄mendel► 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That already qualifies as disruption, which is blockable anyway. I don't think this needs to be a policy, because we already do it. --  Shadowcrest  14:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Disruption" is one of the worst block reasons ever, because that comes down to complete admin discretion and really ought to be explained (and possibly discussed) every time. Is it written somewhere that we block for disruption, and what it is? -- ◄mendel► 15:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All blocks are entirely at our discretion anyway, so I missed what you're saying. Yeah, we have a NPA policy, and we cite it as a block reason a lot. But what determines a personal attack? Do we always block for personal attacks? If this is an attempt to codify block behavior then I would expect it is going to fail. Is it written anywhere that we block for trolling? No. But we do it anyway. Disruption is the same way. --  Shadowcrest  18:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think people are objected to this because, historically, policies have been written after they were needed for the first time. This means we know exactly what they need to say in order to make sure whatever the incident was doesn't happen again. This also means that we don't go policy-crazy like GWW and make policies for every circumstance even if they never happen. Usually people only like having new rules placed upon them if there is a visible need, i.e., it's happened before. Perhaps this needs a good example where this policy could have prevented some wikidrama? --Macros 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at User talk:Suicidal Tendencie. There've been incidents before, and other users I would now block for this, and some that have self-blocked, as far back as last year. -- ◄mendel► 20:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't block for trolling. I believe that has happened only once, and the sysop who blocked is no longer with us. Feel free to prove me wrong. And I agree that "disruption is the same way", and that's why we don't. -- ◄mendel► 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kindly refrain from speaking in my stead with an all-encompassing "we". [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Block log links or the "we" stands. :) -- ◄mendel► 10:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! I can answer this one because I was just browsing though my past contributions. [ Remember this skill troll?] --Macros 11:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could find more if you want. Most of them are probably from me. :) I block for trolling/disruption if I think it's merited... and anyone else is free to do the same. There do often happen to be convenient policies like NPA to veil these behind, though. E.g. people who become confrontational and need a "cool off" ban, probably broke NPA somewhere... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SC writes: "I don't think this needs to be a policy, because we already do it." I think that's what good policies do: they document "what we already do" for people who don't know that yet. A perfect policy is so much inside consensus that it seems like common sense to everyone (but those who are new). A good policy fills the need for explaining what we do. -- ◄mendel► 12:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See, that's the rub: at what point does something stop being "common sense" for the common people? The same line goes for NPA... it's pretty damn obvious that personally attacking other users is stupid, or at the least not condoned. That policy exists not so much because it codifies common sense/explains what we do, but so when someone can't get through their head that personal attacks are baed on the interwebs, we have a policy to point to. Now, policies like AGF or such that are a fundamental aspect of who we are, that define wikis... that's more along the lines of a serious policy.
 * I can understand how a "conflict resolution" policy is different enough that it doesn't really make sense to work it into existing policies. But still... as it stands I still have trouble seeing it as more than guidelines. "Banning for GW:SHOUT" just would not sit well with me... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't support this policy
Because it supports self censorship. Things must be said. Wiki drama can be devastating, but it has to happen. Wiki drama doesn't decide anything, but it does resolve conflict between users. People can be caught up in the cross fire, but wars have to happen, tension builds, and needs to be released. Without Wiki Drama, the tension will build up to exploding points. Instead of wiki drama rages and convos, you will end up with no drama, for about 2 weeks. Then the wiki will alight in an explosion of raw emotion that will devour everything in its path. No matter how much you hate wiki drama, it is necessary for a healthy wiki.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 07:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Drama has to happen." Agreed. However, we're trying here to channel it: away from discussions about content, onto user talk pages, off the wiki, or moderating it. There is no reason why conflicts have to be resolved explosively and tensions released by abandoning critical thought. This policy does not demand you to censor your emotions, but it demands that you think twice about the form and the place that you exhibit them on the wiki. There are ways to address and resolve conflicts that are more civilised than others, and those we strive for. -- ◄mendel► 10:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Gigathrash Random Time  11:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
 * -Niccolo Machiavelli
 * [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you ban someone for not addressing/resolving a conflict in a manner you find suitably civil? I'm anticipating a yes. If that is the case, would it be fair to summarize this policy proposal as a way to encourage "proper" behavior through enforcement/strong suggestion? ("don't encourage stupidity"?) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * GW:NPA is, in essence, banning "for not addressing/resolving a conflict in a manner you find suitably civil", so, yes. However, in the case of a shouting match, the proper behaviour is "shut up for a bit, cool down, and reflect", and after suggesting/encouraging it strongly by pointing the parties concerned to this policy, if that doesn't work, we "enforce" the "shut up". We can't enforce the "cool down and reflect", unfortunately, but having free time usually helps. -- ◄mendel► 11:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a section that explains what the block is supposed to achieve. -- ◄mendel► 12:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ✅ I don't agree that drama is necessary. I do agree that heated conversations are a necessary byproduct of an open wiki, just as hate speech is a necessary byproduct of free speech. So, I don't agree with the policy as currently outlined.

However, I would support empowering admins to be bolder in moving degenerating conversations off of mainspace talk. I think this could fall into a special case of assuming good faith, rather than need a completely new policy. If people AGF, it's hard to have a yes/no/yes/no conversation &mdash; AGF ppl will tend to agree-to-disagree and invite others to help resolve it. (And if it devolves, then why isn't NPA enough to resolve?)

Since I've been here, I haven't seen many completely useless conversations (outside the usual game update/skill balance discussions...and even those tend to have something valuable hidden the the WoT). Can supporters point to any specific threads that I have missed that this policy would address? &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)