Thread:Sannse/@comment-33762881-20170706223419/@comment-8-20170707165914

This is going to be another looong reply. I hate that, but don't see an alternative with so much going on

Some of the links given above weren't exact (click on a date on any thread to get an exact link), but I think I've read enough to get a general idea of the topic.

I had hoped that the addition of new admins would help to calm some of the drama and get this wiki on a better track. I'm disappointed to see that the drama still remains.

I will try to answer some of the points I've seen.

Admins have the right to ban for disruption, but I don't see this as a case of that at the moment, even if the topic has been raised multiple times. My general solution to that situation would be for the admins to carry on doing what they have done on some threads - just repeat that the subject is closed for now and move on.

I agree there is a point when repeatedly starting discussions on the same topic becomes something you need to ban for, but I would not say things are at that stage now.

Admins you may consider a compromise by saying that you will review the menu in X months. Maybe in 6 months? It's good to get input from the community on the topic, but a postponement to a better time is a valid admin decision.

I'm not really clear on what articles admins are asking people not to edit, or why. If it's a lot of articles and just to control editing, then that sounds like it's just another way to protect articles.

Articles can be protected if there is a real problem, like repeated vandalism, or because the page is a very important one where vandalism would be particularly problematic. For example the main page is usually protected along with templates used on the main page or on many other pages.

But outside of those situations people should be able to edit. Asking them to stick to a specific format is fine, but if the edits are generally good, then this is a time to "assume good faith".

If someone keeps editing in the wrong way then again that might be a reason for a block - especially if the community as a whole agrees on the format of articles. The should ideally be given advice/help and have had a warning before being blocked though.

Don't be afraid of a bit of messiness though. The first article on apples on the French version of Wikipedia just said "An apple is a fruit". But with time it grew into a good article - just from allowing each editor to add to and improve the article 🙂

The line between admin areas and those that should be taken to the community is a difficult one. Different wikis have different lines, and it seems this wiki needs to find its own. In general, routine decisions like blocking, protecting pages that need it, removing personal information when asked, and so on, can be done without community discussion. They also usually take a lead in community discussions, and assess the result of those discussions. Some wikis leave more to the admin, and some less. It depends on the wiki in question.

On the general tone of the wiki: I am currently in the middle of creating a Fandom University video about conflict. I wish it were ready to show you all!

One of the main points is that you can't read tone in text. What you hear is colored by what you think the person is feeling. If you think they are angry they will "sound" angry, whatever they write. If you feel harassed, then you will read any post as harassment. I think that is happening here a lot, although I am also seeing a lot posts that do seem aggressive.

I know there are real conflicts and clashes of personality here, but unless you start to give each other the benefit doubt you aren't going to get over that.

You need to work together, talk to each other with respect and goodwill, and compromise wherever you can.

If I have missed any important points, please let me know. Mainframebabe I'll answer the question about profile images on your wall so we don't get off track into another topic.

If there are more questions or points to go over, please can you give as little commentary as possible. Ideally just a few short paragraphs or questions. And please be sure to give a link to the specific discussion and give a short summary of what exactly you see as problematic in the message. Thanks 🙂