Old conversations and dead threads can be found on /Archives. If you want to dredge something up, bring the whole thread back here.
I really meant it when I said the discussion was closed over there. However, as you've stated and I have absolutely no problem supporting, you've been around damned near forever, and I have no problem having a discussion with you on this. If anyone's earned it, you have. I'd really love it to be real-time; IRC or IM (I've only googleTalk setup at the moment) would be awesome if this doesn't answer what you need.
First, I want to make a distinction on all this "ownership" stuff. There's hard and fast site ownership. Someone has that. That's the domain name, the actual hard drive with data.. all that stuff. Then there's content ownership which is what I think you've been driving at, and no, of course nobody owns that! That's the whole point of the wiki. But I think the people with site ownership still get to call what shots they want. Is that where we were tripping up? Physical vs Content? If so, that's awesome, cos pretty sure we're in agreement there.
Also, the conflict started because the way the issue was brought to us was unbelievably rude and hostile. I can't read it any other way, no matter who says it was benign and, "Oh, you're just assuming." Not saying anyone has but that's a usual fallback, and I'm coming clean and saying boy do I not care what was intended. =p
- I, (Nunix and/or Gravewit), accept that I have the ability to do anything I wish to the GuildWiki, but choose to do only those things either 1. necessary for the maintenance of the GuildWiki, including its server and database, or 2. put through some sort of community process before implementation.
Absolutely. And aside from the splash page, this is how things have been going, innit? So you see how I get a little tetchy when the response is not, "Hey, this is a new thing you've done, why?" but, "We're voting to somehow limit what you can do." However!
- "We maintain that we have the right to stuff like this in the future."
Which is true! But man, is it unlikely. No, I don't like conflict. And I've been trying so hard this week to figure out what the actual problem here is and sort it out without resorting to simply wiping the discussion away and banning people who annoy me, because of course that'd be the poor way to handle it. So if for no other reason than this has kept me up nights all week, while we certainly maintan that right - AS THE SITE OWNERS - it's probably not going to happen. So, would IM or something be needed? Wanted? Is there even a problem at all? And don't say you're gonna bail for a few days and be unable to respond, that's bad form, man. =p --Nunix 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that as of now The Guildwikians have a sister-guild over here in Europe, called "Guildwikians Of Europe" [Wiki] :) I hope you don't have any objections about me copying your idea (if so, tell me). At least I certainly will never copy your cape ;). --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 20:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :) —Tanaric 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'd be interested in joining any formal GuildWiki Guild in game, as this remains my favorite GW site, even if my time and ability to contribute has decreased. In game name is "Yang Earth". --JoDiamonds 11:31, 24 February 2006 (CST)
- What he said :p, and my ingame is "The Fire Fox" --FireFox 20:14, 24 February 2006 (CST)
How big are the 2 guilds? — Skuld 20:53, 24 February 2006 (CST)
- Mine has exactly two people right now (potentially four once JoDiamonds and FireFox accept their invitations), both of which do not play the game seriously anymore. Hence the non-advertisement. —Tanaric 13:55, 25 February 2006 (CST)
- Mine's a one man show currently. I just wanted the [Wiki] tag and have no intentions to create a serious guild. But if someone wants to join anyway, just gimme a call. :) --84-175 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2006 (CST)
Requesting User Ban
Hi, Tanaric. I would like to request a user ban on Wes Richard (User:Wesrichards). Please see Talk:Leaver. Aside from the childish mocking, check the e-mail link he placed. Thanks. --Karlos 15:28, 2 March 2006 (CST)
- Thanks for looking into it. I will let you chart the path here. You are charting the path for future incidents so me and Wes are not the only ones observing this or affected by it. --Karlos 13:04, 7 March 2006 (CST)
Could you write up a document detailing the criteria/practices for banning on GuildWiki? I dislike having to make such a request of work from another, but IMO this has become important to have and I feel the system has generally restricted me from making any more effective progress by myself. --Rezyk 15:56, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Request for arbitration
This is a formal request for arbitration. For unrelated parties, please be sure that you wish to be involved before commenting.
Previously I have tried to assume good faith and not press it, as it is understandable that heated things are said in tense discussions (and a little forgiveness can go a long way) and I personally have a long and ugly history with him. However, from these and other edits, I am now losing the ability to maintain that faith of non-maliciousness. To be frank, I found many of the offensive statements in all 3 edits as gratuitous and out of line (and this is besides the provable inaccuracies), despite being technically related in some way to the issue at hand. Combined with other less blatant elements of our history, I tend to perceive an emerging pattern of harrassment.
- avoiding areas where I cannot see how to deal with his practices (such as main article namespace)
- restricting myself to my personal top priority issues (such as policy and how new users are treated) and strictly uncontroversial stuff like pointing out info
- refraining from or greatly minimizing participation in many discussions just because he is involved
- keeping any responses to him relatively short, simple and diffusive, even when it meant not defending myself from what I felt were baseless insults
These steps have proven insufficient, as I still repeatedly find myself at severe odds with him. At this point, I feel that to go any further in this direction necessitates my simply leaving the wiki entirely.
I respectfully request specific answers/direction from arbitration:
- Should I or should I not respond in kind to defend myself? On the one hand, I feel that various comments and implications about my character demand it. On the other hand, I think it's also obvious that the discussion would quickly degenerate into yet another inane fight.
- Are users expected to continually put up with comments from normal users that label them as childish, on a pride trip (second time I ask about this, btw), manipulative, insincere, or intent on stirring up arguments? Are they expected to put up with such from admins?
- Is the comment in question considered polite? If I am perhaps grossly misreading things just because of some language barrier issue, in what way?
- What could generally be expected if Karlos makes a similar comment in the future (about any user, not necessarily myself) and a similar request for arbitration is submitted?
Please note that I am not specifically asking for judgement about anybody's intentions, but rather about whether certain behavior is acceptable (a frequent point of confusion).
I'd also like to note these statements of possible relevance:
- "I'm going to ban the next of [Karlos and some other user] to say anything to anyone in any tone I consider less than polite." —Tanaric 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Name calling, personal attacks and turning differences of opinion over Golems into an analysis of why this other person is evil are, to me, not only unhealthy ways of debating, but more seriously, they will leave the wiki with poorer content. Because instead of following a scientific system of determining how to classify undead, one guy scared the other with accusations of being a troublemaker and we ended up with one person's personal opinion of what undead are. I cannot believe how so many fail to see the danger in throwing around the label "troublemaker" at a contributor for questioning but readily accept another contributor's name-calling and harrassment as "normal behavior." I am trying to think of the long term consequences of open-debate and questioning vs the long-term consequences of allowing users to be harrassed and stereotyped and assaulted. Doesn't even seem comparable to me." --Karlos 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- "The issue here is when contributors decide to stray off-topic into attacks on others' character. Regardless of how stubborn Karlos is, I have yet to see him do that. If he does, I'll come down on him harder than my level 20 warrior comes down on the Charr." —Tanaric 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, --Rezyk 04:07, 3 April 2006 (CDT)