User talk:Mendel/Democratic wikis – a primer

Ariyen's experience with GW2w
While I like that. I was one of the few against their new way. I knew it'd fail, I kind of pushed to get the policies back to going, which caused Pling to write his processes n proceedures of which people were like great! without a second thought. Looking at that page, I clearly do not see a "boundary". I see sysops abusing their powers, banning people based on a suggestion and not really looking at another's contributes. For me, I was banned on what mostly Erasculio said. Most that jumped for it - I consider trolls. some were against it. I helped with the edit page, the helper's page, a few more pages, and pushed to get some things that I felt were needed to be done. It was like I was hated for that. However, they didn't bother looking at someone who was changing the categories or moving images around without consensus. I started things, I was after consensus to work with others. I saw this same one start in on discussions or object and not really give a reason, upload photos without a source and fuss on others who do the same demanding sources. This one isn't being handled as I feel it should have been. No one is going to look at that unjust year long ban, started by this one who is clearly disrupting far more than I could have and this one demanded sysop tools to "finish" things... Yea, uh huh... Sysop banned for clearly reasons that were discussions, not what was assumed. I'm still angered by it and I have many iming me, msging me on irc, emailing me, etc. telling me they wished I was still there and this guy gone. Several wants the sysops changed and I don't blame them. However, you have the trolls whom are already there. You have those in power that aren't "supposedly" planning on playing the game and to me abuse their tools without actually doing what I feel a real sysop should. To me, for a ban to be placed on someone on themselves and not just each incident, the pros and cons should have been weighed and discussed, not just based on one's feelings, especially when they're biased and have a "personal" negative history with said person getting the "axe" and not just based on certain events on the person to be banned. For that wiki, I would have loved for those who are planning to buy the game, play, etc. to be the ones to choose their own sysops, etc. Not to be "godfathered" from another wiki. To me, that would work much better than the way that it's gone so far. The flip side to the boundary is some editors editing and doing what they want while others get flack, because of the lack of "guides, etc. that I would have loved to have seen there. Including a page on consensus and that if there's going to be a lot of editing - to discuss it first, show an example, etc. in sandbox. I've seen many do this, but I could name a few that don't and that have abused the wiki and still abuses the without punishment and without really considering others, but causing a lot of disruption, drama, and problems without really solving anything or working as a team. I think this would work, but it's not going to, because of the problems that I currently have mentioned. If those get fixed, then I'd see this working.

As of this moment, I see a lack of "control" with sysops and a lack of team work from some, etc. Lackness in making that wiki better, more friendly, and an ability to work together w/out competition. More so, I see some negativity from the original wiki leaked into this one... I still help some via other means with that wiki, even in advice, coding, etc. So, my ban isn't really a ban, when I still have others getting me involved. Kind of sad in a way, but helps me feel good. I actually try to be more friendly and help, less hostile than some think. Though, I do have a few "pet peeves", but with good intentions. Ariyen 05:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Im interested in your line, "I think this would work, but it's not going to, because of the problems that I currently have mentioned." Do you feel that this text doesn't address those problems? Or does it, but you fear it wouldn't work because it wouldn't be enforced? --◄mendel► 06:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't address enough of the problems there. Because like on gww, where they(sysops) blatantly voted on banning someone - didn't apparently learn from the beginning of why pages like arbcom, etc. was truly set up for and what it was meant for. However, they didn't even "vote" or have real consensus (aka pros and cons, etc.) to ban someone. they just do it out of their "personal" judgement, which shows me that one doesn't seem to know how a community works. I have been on countless sites, social, wiki, etc. and seen that the way those people do things are different compared to that wiki. I have noticed that with some bans, it has personal judgement in on it. Not professional. One should not use tools for personal gain or vendetta. I have had to use "power" on sites and on other programs to solve issues that were actually out of hand, truly disruptive, name calling, etc. basically what was clearly ugly and use judgement. I think with that, I have been trusted on some sites with the tools and I don't believe in abusing that. I just feel that sysops can and some do abuse it, but no one is going to do anything, because they like whom all is there, they like it the way it is now. that's why I say there's really more trolls there than people who are making that wiki worth while. Any proposes would not help at all. hell they were like we don't need no stinkin' policies and I feel with this, they'd treat that the same way. According to Pling via irc. He doesn't want anything else but that. You would have Erasculio going against you as well as a few more that are imo well... People who tend to only think of the wiki as their own personal wiki and do what suited them, not the wiki it's self. I see more of those type than I do of the other. Hence, I'd doubt you'd get much support there if you tried to post it there, unless you can get some of those people to voice on it here or give their opinion. If you can guarantee yourself more voices towards this, then I'd say that it might succeed and it might work. Just I'd hope that they'd enforce it or have the people get after the sysops to get them to enforce it. I'd like though to see something that's more "controlled" than what I see. I don't like the A sysop has final say deal and that if anyone has to object - I don't like the bullshit hard ass, think I'm better than you, know it all, type personality from someone who has tools. I feel that would be one of the MANY problems that would cause this to not work. More so, problems with those who would think a policy, or guideline, or any page would get in the way of how they do things or what they can do, want to do, etc. Ariyen 22:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the policy does address the problems you mention, and because it does, you say it wouldn't get support. Or am I misunderstanding you? --◄mendel► 06:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the problems yes, but with the trolls there - I doubt it'd get support, even though I feel it'd work towards some problems that have happened (even what I call recently). Ariyen 08:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Looking at that page, I clearly do not see a "boundary". I see sysops abusing their powers, banning people based on a suggestion and not really looking at another's contributes."


 * When did this happen? What sysops abused their powers? What people were banned based on a suggestion with no evidence or homework done on the matter?
 * "For me, I was banned on what mostly Erasculio said."


 * No, you were banned mostly for disrupting the wiki and not backing off in cases where you were wrong. Telling the linguistics major that he was wrong about the English language, in particular, was one of the last straws for me. Not only were you completely wrong, you refused to admit to it until after the situation blew up into a dramafest, after which you offered a meek apology and hoped it would all go away. This happened for months on both wikis, and you had been banned for it for increasing lengths of times on both wikis. Your year-long ban on GW2W had very little to do with Erasculio's comments and mostly to do with your behavior.
 * "I helped with the edit page, the helper's page, a few more pages, and pushed to get some things that I felt were needed to be done."


 * Your positive contributions were taken into consideration. Compare your block logs to that of raptors. Raptors was not a benefit to the wiki, and thus his blocks increased sharply culminating in a year-long ban only a few months after his first. Your bans were far more spread out, shorter in duration, and the year-long bans did not come until after you created a sockpuppet account to evade bans and after many, many non-block warnings (from admins and users alike) on your talk page. Your help to the wiki was appreciated, but the sysop team (the entire team, including the ones that had nothing to do with the case) agreed that your edits harmed the wiki far more than it aided, and thus the year-long ban was placed.
 * "No one is going to look at that unjust year long ban, started by this one who is clearly disrupting far more than I could have and this one demanded sysop tools to "finish" things..."


 * Again, Erasculio had nothing to do with your block. You were blocked because of your poor behavior and failure to improve. In fact, that's sort of in your block reason on GW2W.
 * "I'm still angered by it and I have many iming me, msging me on irc, emailing me, etc. telling me they wished I was still there and this guy gone."


 * lol. Also, Erasculio is well on his way to some nice-length blocks - his behavior has been just as deplorable as yours was, and he's flat-out refused to improve it on multiple occasions. Just like you, however, the community is making an effort to get through to him on his talk page - if he blows off the community like you did, he will be blocked in a similar fashion.
 * "Several wants the sysops changed and I don't blame them."


 * Several anonymous people that haven't commented on the matter and won't do so, no doubt. They do exist, right?
 * "However, you have the trolls whom are already there."


 * What on earth are the trolls doing on a wiki about a video game that isn't even released? There's nobody to troll, and most people who try it get banned in short order. But assuming that you are correct (and that's a big assumption), what can the trolls actually do to affect the outcome of anything? Trolls don't form consensus, they don't participate in long-winded discussions about content, and the most they do in policy discussions is laugh at the stupid ideas and get ignored by everyone who matters. Please tell me how the trolls who might or might not exist have anything to do with anything, and definitely if any of them are directly impeding progress on the wiki (with that whole sysop discretion thing, we ban them a hell of a lot faster than on GWW).
 * "You have those in power that aren't "supposedly" planning on playing the game and to me abuse their tools without actually doing what I feel a real sysop should."


 * Name a single sysop that isn't planning to play GW2. Possibly Tanaric? The rest we all hope to see back before things pick up - people like Anja, Bexor, Lemming64, Salome.
 * "To me, for a ban to be placed on someone on themselves and not just each incident,"


 * Run this through the english translator and tell me what comes out.
 * "the pros and cons should have been weighed and discussed, not just based on one's feelings, especially when they're biased and have a "personal" negative history with said person getting the "axe" and not just based on certain events on the person to be banned."


 * As mentioned above, the pros and cons were weighed and discussed. For months. On two wikis. Your block was most certainly not based on anyone's feelings, it was based on a long history of disruptive behavior, multiple warnings from sysops and non-sysops alike, and your refusal to admit to any wrongdoing and make a serious attempt to improve your attitude. Unfortunately for you, pretty much everyone is able to see why the block was placed, and thus nobody has contested it or removed it (which would happen if the block was abusive or out of place). You are still free, of course, to take your case to the bureaucrats on the wiki - they will all tell you the same thing. Are they all trolls, too? Aberrant, Tanetris, and Xeeron?
 * "For that wiki, I would have loved for those who are planning to buy the game, play, etc. to be the ones to choose their own sysops, etc. Not to be "godfathered" from another wiki. To me, that would work much better than the way that it's gone so far."


 * Yes and no? The biggest problem is that it's impossible to tell who is planning to buy the game, and thus using that as a metric to restrict voting is not feasible. The next big problem is starting a wiki with no sysops at all - that doesn't work, either. The godfathering of old sysops has stopped more than a year before the game will come out - when it actually does, the rush of new editors will bring with it a plethora of new sysop candidates, and hopefully the sysop team by then will be more new faces than old ones. In this process, the inactives like Tanaric and probably Pepe will be weeded out, leaving only active sysops with a fresh interest in the game. This is also part of my reasoning behind the shortness of your block - you will be able to post on sysop discussions before the game is even released, and your input will help form the wiki's consensus in regards to sysops.
 * "...because of the lack of "guides, etc. that I would have loved to have seen there. Including a page on consensus and that if there's going to be a lot of editing - to discuss it first, show an example, etc."


 * Consensus is a relatively simple concept. Multiple editors discuss and compromise in order to reach an end result which is acceptable to all parties, within reason. Does the wiki really need a page devoted to a general sociological concept?
 * "I've seen many do this, but I could name a few that don't and that have abused the wiki and still abuses the without punishment and without really considering others, but causing a lot of disruption, drama, and problems without really solving anything or working as a team."


 * Who abuses the wiki without punishment and without considering others? Erasculio has, again, received multiple sysop warnings punishing his poor behavior. He is pretty much the only one that posts with any degree of regularity. Is there someone I'm missing that is running rampant around the wiki, somehow abusing it whilst escaping the notice of everyone?
 * "As of this moment, I see a lack of "control" with sysops and a lack of team work from some, etc."


 * On the contrary, sysops are very much in control. Do you remember what happened with Vili and Raine? Vili abused her powers to promote Raine without discussion or consensus, and in order to prevent abuse from either of them, they were both demoted in short order. If you have evidence that suggests sysops are uncontrolled, please provide it, as all evidence so far suggests exactly the opposite.
 * "More so, I see some negativity from the original wiki leaked into this one... I still help some via other means with that wiki, even in advice, coding, etc."


 * The "original" wiki was this one, GuildWiki, and it wasn't negative in the least. GWW brought with it a new crowd, one more focused on rules and policies; they intended to rule GWW with an iron fist, and we all saw how well that worked out. With a fresh crowd that comes with the game's release, all we can do is hope that they aren't as short-sighted as the GWW crowd was.
 * "I actually try to be more friendly and help, less hostile than some think. Though, I do have a few "pet peeves", but with good intentions."


 * If you are friendlier and less hostile, you will most likely avoid future bans. Everyone has pet peeves, and everyone has users they disagree with or dislike - but it comes with the territory. If you chug along doing what you do, and the rest of the userbase chugs along, the wiki will be a much friendlier place. Unfortunately, tempers flare and disagreements happen - and your tempers and disagreements were more than most people were willing to handle. If those are indeed under control, the wiki would very much like to have you as a contributor.
 * I also apologize for a slightly off-topic post, Mendel - I simply saw a wall of fallacies and misconceptions and needed to address the more major ones. In order for the information to be useful to you, it must firstly be correct, and most of her post ranged from slightly wrong to completely disconnected from reality. -Auron 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your long and insightful comments on my proposal. You've focused on it even less than Ariyen did. Sigh. --◄mendel► 11:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, your post illustrates that one of the biggest challenges facing wiki participants is communicating clearly and effectively - which is why a policy focused on communicating well should be a good base to start from. ;) --◄mendel► 11:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Article 1
"All wiki editors are equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." --◄mendel► 09:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 *  Democratic? That sounds like communism! — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Search inside this book" &rArr; "0 results for dignity" ;-) --◄mendel► 06:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)