PathfinderWiki talk:Disruptive editing policy

Discussion

I can see the use in codifying this, but have 2 thoughts

I think the "dealing with a disruptive editor" should be labeled in the titles as guidelines. Sometimes the good faith step may have to be repeated more often than others.
"Their edits are largely confined to Discussion pages or Forum threads." This bullet points erks me and I'm not sure why. This might be because almost 40% of my edits are on talk pages or forum threads. In my case that is just because of lack of free time to sit with a book for more than 10 minutes at a time. We have had others with the same concerns. I think the sentences that follow clear it up, but as the topic sentence of the bullet point, I think it needs some clarification.

-- Cpt kirstov (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: point 1, that's a good idea. I'll also emphasize that this should be handled case-by-case, and I've added additional examples from the Wikipedia guideline.

Re: point 2, I can try to clarify that to make a better distinction between chroniclers who actively and constructively contribute in discussions, as opposed to those who comment for the sake of starting and engaging in debates at the expense of improving the project. -Oznogon (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

On the whole, this is sound and we need this policy. Excellent strawman and sensible to use the wisdom from other wiki communities. I have made a minor en rule edit directly in the text, which shouldn't be contentious. In addition, here are a couple of further minor comments, which I'll amend if no one comments when this is moved to active policy:

I had to look up 'sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry' so these need explaining on the page and/or pointer to a definition
we should probably explain 'diff' and place in quotation marks

Can we assume the points raised by User:Cpt kirstov above are resolved, as that conversation seems to have ended successfully?

As this proposal has been open for discussion for a month already, I shall set a timer now for a further fortnight's discussion, ending Saturday 23 February 2019 when we'll activate this policy. -Fleanetha (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Are we implementing this as a policy or guideline? - HTD (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a policy that contains a guideline within it. Whether or not those need to be two separate articles is probably something we can deal with after the policy is accepted. It can be as simple as making a redirect to the header where the guideline starts and categorizing that redirect as a guideline.—

Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts on this subject are long and tedious and I won't bore everyone with them here. The long and short of it is that I think:

we need this policy
it needs to be both strict enough that we can enforce it consistently and flexible enough that it can be implemented on a case-by-case basis
it should outline specifically what consequences one might face for being a disruptive editor
and it should give any accused disruptive editor both the time and forum to change their behavior or make a case for him- or herself.

The current proposal does that, though it's a little vague around the mediation topic. We don't have a policy or guideline of what that entails, and it could lead to inconsistent handling of disruptive editor cases.

In PathfinderWiki:Administrators, we state: "While Admins might spend a larger portion of their time making structural edits or step in to settle a dispute and get a stagnated debate back on the track of progress, it is important to remember that their role is defined by the community and policies are in place to ensure that decisions are made by consensus within the wiki and not be votes of Admin decree." I think this policy could be clearer on how to address concerns in a public and transparent manner to ensure that Admins are not operating as special members of the community. With as few chroniclers as we have to begin with, most of our activity comes from Admins, but that shouldn't mean that discussion regarding this policy and its enforcement be handled offline.

As a member of Paizo's editorial staff, I am also personally in a position where I feel I cannot serve as arbiter of conflicts arising from this policy. The wiki needs to remain a volunteer-run community project, and as such, disciplinary action policing its community is something I am proactively recusing myself from.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Promoting to policy

Thanks for all input and I shall make this a policy now. I'll add the definitions mentioned above, as they don't affect the policy itself. Yoda, re your points, I haven't got actual wording changes to handle them at this stage to overcome the 'vagueness' and clarity re admins that you mention and should not make up something unilaterally. Those specifics can now be, and probably should be, discussed via normal Policy change as needed. -Fleanetha (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Forum references (RESOLVED)

This extensively references the forums, which have been deleted. -Oznogon (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Replaced the links. -Oznogon (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)