Statement Discussion

[Kavpeny]

I had a look at this thread, and it seems to me like the primary underlying issue seems to be disagreement with some of our practices. To help members have a better understanding of them, me and Antvasima thought it would be better to issue a statement, on a separate page (like the disclaimer page) highlighting our position, and explaining the reasoning for certain policies (such as prohibition of certain topics for content revision posts).

I think Antvasima's posts on the thread summarized the matter aptly, but I believe they require some rewriting to be applicable as a general statement.

Antvasima's post #1

Look: The issue here is that plenty of people seem to have the perception that we claim to be an absolute authority regarding character ratings, and we most definitely do not. We have even written this within our wiki rules.

We have almost 11000 profiles to take care of. I have personally worked 63 hours a week for the last 2.5 years to make sure that our reliability is as good as possible (and that we have a friendly atmosphere for our members), and we take this issue very seriously, as you can clearly see in the fact that our content revision forum contains almost a 100000 posts.

However, the sheer number of entries makes our work practically impossible. Every day, I go up to monitor all of the edits, so there is no vandalism, and check that as many as possible of the content revision threads reach some form of conclusion. This takes 9 hours of work a day, including the weekends, all in order so that our visitors and members can have fun, and that our wiki is as good as possible.

However, we still have limited knowledge of many of the fictions listed within this wiki, and do not have endless time and resources to make sure that everything written here is reliable. I personally doubt that more than 50% of it is accurate, but we are always willing to listen to people who have new proof and arguments.

Regardless, the constant sheer ingratitude and negativity towards all of our efforts outside of the wiki is extremely overwhelming and exhausting. We constantly have to deal with drama, slander, stalking, harrassment, sockpuppets, and other forms of attacks, despite that the wiki would be far worse without any staff members to take care of it.

We are not trying to harm anybody, and we demand that everybody here treat other communities with respect according to our rules, but we are still just part of an entertainment wiki, and everything here is based on the opinions of whoever helped to write a particular entry.

Are we doing our very best? Yes, definitely. Is that good enough? Probably not, as perfection is impossible for such an overwhelming task. Do the vast majority of visitors seem to have fun/appreciate our efforts? Probably yes, as we had 156000 individual visitors every month the last time that I checked, and are constantly growing. Can we please everybody? Of course not. No matter what statistics our entries state, half of the diehard audience will disagree with them.

Basically, given just how taxing our work here is, and that we do it for free, without payment, what more do you all want from us really? Our blood?

Antvasima's post #2

To explain a bit further, the profile statistics recurrently depend on whoever had the best arguments and evidence in a content revision thread, regardless if it was a staff member or a regular member.

The banned topics are ones that we have grown sick and tired of dealing with, due to that we have talked about them so often, and have other issues that need to be dealt with.

I would appreciate suggestions regarding the rewrite, and for a possible title for the page as well.

P.S.: So as to not clog up the thread with lengthy posts, I recommend making your suggestions in a collapsible format.

 

[Reppuzan]

Well, it would probably be called something along the lines of Discussion Rulings given that we've ruled these out of discussion due to how annoying and repetitive they are.

If possible we should probably link to the threads we discussed these topics on or evidence as to why we don't accept things like Universal Kaguya.

 

[Sera_EX]

How about this?

"Banned topics are the result of overexplanation, redundancy, repeatitive threads of the same topic, and how disrespectful, unreasonable, and aggressive certain members have become over said topics in the past. To prevent this from happening, or at least decreasing the number of this unfortunate series of events, we have banned certain topics for revision threads and vs matches. This is not out of malice, supremacy, or arrogance, but to maintain and keep a stable and orderly community as most of our staff are overworked as it is."

I like Repp's title "Discussion Rulings".

 

[Antvasima]

Well, my posts took up more issues than just discussion rulings...

 

[Reppuzan]

@Antvasima

I suppose, but it's kind of hard to come up with an umbrella term for all of these issues.

Perhaps we can make multiple pages about this?

Either way, I think this thread warrants a highlight.

 

[Sera_EX]

You're right. So, wouldn't this be another site disclaimer? Perhaps it just needs another name. Or, could your posts be added to the already existing Site Disclaimer?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it would be supposed to address those who have a problem with us and our policies.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera We would make this into a separate page from the usual disclaimer.

@Reppuzan I think that a single page would be best.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

This seems like a great idea.

 

[Promestein]

This seems good to me; what Sera wrote looks fine to me, as well.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

So, any suggestions for what we should name the page?

 

[Promestein]

Well, if we just add it to the end of the Disclaimer a name isn't really necessary, is it?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It seems fine from my perspective, though I also like Sera's suggestion.

Edit:

Also, everyone of the staff here. Please forgive me for my notable lack of activity as of late. I am currently going through finals at College, and this is taking a heavy toll on my time and energy, so I've been unable to dedicate as much of my time efficiently as I used to.

 

[Antvasima]

@Promestein I do not think that it seems appropriate to put it in the same page as the disclaimer,

@Matthew No problem.

 

[Promestein]

Maybe something like "Staff Workload" then?

 

[Antvasima]

"Response to our critics", or something similar, perhaps?

 

[Kavpeny]

Hmm...to clarify, I listed Site Disclaimer as an example to highlight that this page would be stand-alone like it, and not that it would be related to the site disclaimer in any manner.

And I believe I have already informed you Antvasima, "Response to our critics" will not be the title, since it goes against the theme of the page. The page is intended to explain the site's current practices to everyone, not merely address the critics.

My personal title preference at present is, "Explanation for critical Wiki practices", though I am open to better phrasing.

Also, it seems there has been some misunderstanding. The page will not be limited to explaining ruling with respect to discussion rules. Admittedly, content revision rule reasoning will probably be the primary focus. However, the page will justify/provide reasoning for all critical Wiki practices so that members can understand why they're in practice in the first place, along with their importance.

Lastly, I also like Sera's suggested addition. Will be adding it to the page as well.

 

[Promestein]

That sounds good to me. We could shorten the title to just "Critical Wiki Practices"?

 

[Antvasima]

@Kavpeny Okay. No problem.

 

[Antvasima]

Perhaps just "Wiki Practices" instead? The word "critical" is kind of confusing.

 

[Sera_EX]

Does "Explanation for Critical Practices" sound good then?

 

[Kavpeny]

Hmm...

"Critical Wiki Practices"

^ it sounds like a listing of the critical wiki practices, but is, a page for their reasoning. I feel that the title kind of detracts from the page.

"Wiki Practices"

^ see above. Also, I included critical so as to clarify that the page is not an exhaustive list of every wiki practice and its reasoning (since there are far too many subtle ones to cover), so "critical" is used to signify that only reasoning for the important practices are listed.

My apologies, I don't wish to sound like I'm nitpicking. I'm simply being a little more cautious.

"Explanation for Critical Practices"

^ yes, sounds fine to me.

Also, @Matthew (off-topic): Take it easy, man. As a student myself, I am well aware of the severity of academic pressure. Hope you do well in your examinations, and my belated best of luck for them.

 

[Antvasima]

"Explanation for important wiki practices" then? Critical is not a word that people will generally understand the meaning of in this context.

 

[Kavpeny]

Good point. I'm fine with important, though salient is a better term.

"Explanation for Salient Practices" sounds fine? I'm neutral about whether we should list as "Wiki Practices" instead of simply "Practices", seeing as how the all practices are implemented on a wiki-wide scale anyways.

 

[Sera_EX]

"Certain" can also work. Since it isn't referring to every wiki policy just certain ones. "Explanation" can also be replaced with "Reasons/Reasoning".

"Reason for Certain Wiki Policies" is an excellent title in this case because:

1. Allows new members and recurring visitors to easily understand what the page is about.

2. Is simple and to-the-point for new members to understand.

3. Is easy to link in case we are in an argument with someone regarding these policies. We simply link them the page which details the reasons for why these policies exist in the first place.

 

[Reppuzan]

@Sera

I would go for "Reasoning" rather than "Reason" in that case. but otherwise I think that's a fine title.

 

[VenomElite]

I love Sera's "Reason for Certain Wiki Policies" title. It tells the message simple for all to understand.

 

[Antvasima]

"Reasons for Certain Wiki Policies" seems fine to me.

Salient is likely an even more confusing word for visitors.

 

[Sera_EX]

What Kav and Repp said makes sense. So "Reasoning for Certain Polcies" seems like a fine choice.

 

[Antvasima]

"Reasoning for Certain Policies" is probably fine as well.

 

[Antvasima]

So, who prefer "Reasons for Certain Wiki Policies" and who prefer "Reasoning for Certain Policies"?

Also, is anybody interested in helping to rewrite the contents of my posts into a more appropriate format? I would usually try to do it myself, but I am very tired and overworked already.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I prefer the later.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.