Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20170415164119/@comment-112155-20170416112223

Mrkermit wrote: As an admin, I don't intend to play any favorites and if you ever see me doing it, please tell it directly because it's unintentional and should be get rid of.

And one last question, you also told that you have felt that you have to defend more of yourself instead of your argument. Can you elaborate a little because that kind of discussion should be improved and that is the main point in this thread. AS it happens with many instances in life, the people who are less "guilty" are the ones who try to figure out the problem I didn't want to get involved in that latest Suits discussions because it's more of the same, another "let's get rid of something I don't like just because I don't like it". Not talking especifically about you despite you started the thread, but you all have to admit that there have been a lot of discussions that can be simplified as such.

And I know that I sound like a broken record, but without proper guidelines, discussions are "won" by the people more willing to engage into arguments. Is that how you all want to build this wiki? Because that is what is happening as of late...

I've seen people applying the card of, and I'm going to speak in first person though I'm not the only one who has been subject to it, "Shabook is edit-warring" (when it takes two to tango just to begin with...), or "Shabook is imposing his personal preference", especially in this second case, while simply applying consistency to a subject that I came across but I couldn't care less about. How can somebody even know my "personal preference" when I have never stated it?

And those cases are personal attacks whose only purpose is to make others perceive one opinion regarding a subject as bad, by seemingly associating it with a wrong behaviour, therefore rallying people to the opposite opinion, that turns out to be the "attacker"'s opinion...

That is the kind of behaviour that I'm truly and honestly tired of seeing around here, and seemingly I'm not, by far, the only one who feels like that.

Mrkermit wrote: It was done just to lessen the feeling you expressed at first sentence. That was not the example I had in mind when writing it. I'm going to be extremely honest. How long took anyone to tell Nausiated that he couldn't do whatever he want regarding parenthesis and his hierarchical order in the appearances section?

Yes, there was a post discussing it after he published that "guideline", but do anyone told him: "Hey, that's not what we agreed"? Anyone? It was Annabell, some time later, who stated it in another thread to clarify the consensus. And once it was discussed, clarified, agreed upon, and everything else; he kept doing it for a while. And then a few days later, somebody else (I don't remember who it was, sorry...), had to tell him that community consensus had to be respected even if he didn't agree with it.

I'm sure that if his username had been blue instead of green, a totally different approach would have taken place. That is, IMHO, an example of the double-standard that Annabell is talking about.

Mrkermit wrote: I don't think that updating policies is only admins's task, I think that those should be decided amongst every contributor and also responsibility for having good policies is shared amongst every user. I will elaborate further. Deciding which things need a policy, the actual content, choosing between different options, etc. is something that the community has to do. And who represents that community (just the admins, admins and mods, regular editors, all current editors, everybody...) depends on the size and nature of each wiki.

However, the actual redaction and maintenance of the policy pages needs to be an admin task. What's the purpose of being an admin? Just having a green username to say "I'm an admin and you're not"? I've always that becoming a staff member in a wiki community is more about gaining duties and responsibilities than gaining rights. If somebody can't keep up with them, what would be the point of him being a staff member?

As I became an admin at the MCU Wiki, I spent many hours researching and redacting policies, in many cases for the unwritten rules that were already being applied. I did it willingly, despite of course I would have prefered to use those hours to watch a good movie, read a comic or simply edit and improve the wiki. But by investing that time, I saved a lot more as only a few totally new and unpredictable circunstances spark discussions. And even when they do, they are solved in two weeks, one for the discussion and if there is no agreement, another one for a vote. Wasting three months of wiki work in waiting for people to decide between "Mister" or "Mr." is not the greatest example of decission-making, but it is a great example of what happens here...

Mrkermit wrote: So I'm still waiting for suggestions how to fix our problems. I'm kinda tired of saying the same in every thread, there is need for a policy regarding discussion, decission-making and voting. I even offered to adapt the MCU wiki's policy for voting to this wiki.

Honestly, there was a time when I was willing to write drafts for different policies for this wiki, but this whole situation made me change my mind. Perhaps if it is solved it will change again, but for now I'm not, in true honesty, willing to devote so many hours of my currently little spare time in a project that, the people who should care the most about, doesn't even bother (My apologies for generalizing, but I needed to get it off my chest...)