Forum:Common sense

Forums: Village pump → Common sense

I am becoming increasingly troubled by the fact that several actions that I feel need to be done around WoWWiki in order to keep the peace, promote organization, and maintain sanity have no basis in policy. I want to add some kind of "common sense" rule to WoWWiki policy. WP:DNP is not catch-all.

I recognize that common sense does not exist, at least it does not exist objectively, or commonly, for that matter, but it would help promote wikiquette and stop disruption. I also understand that something so intangible can easily be exploited, but I trust the current administration.

I think Fandyllic seems to have felt that or recognized that the actions I am referring to have no basis in policy, but saw them being done and disagreed that such actions needed to be done at all. Whether he felt this way or not, it is always good for any action taken or enforced to be in policy.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to make the concept of a common sense policy work?--SWM2448 22:44, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if admins are enforcing an unwritten rule anyway, then it would be better to codify it - "grandfather" it as I did WP:UN - so at least if someone has an objection there is a more central place to protest. But I am not entirely sure what you have in mind. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:53, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more of this this... what you call it... comman cents? But in seriousness I'd actually like to hear more of what you have in mind as well. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:17, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

To say what the "several actions" I had in mind specifically are would insult, perhaps needlessly, the users who would currently violate this common sense policy. At the risk of sounding extremely petty and vague, I would want it to be geared towards banning content that is stupid, annoying, disruptive, and unnecessary for the purposes of this wiki. It would be something between WP:DNP#Defamatory_or_false_content, WP:DNP#Nonsense, and WP:DNP#Off-topic_content, but not quite insulting, readable, and sort of related, while still being useless and strange. It may be said that I want to add Wowpedia:Wikiquette into WP:DNP, so arbitrary removals of things that are being arbitrarily removed (and not just by me) can be backed by policy, with the intent of not thrashing the wiki with nonsense.--SWM2448 23:29, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Really, I would say if it is "strange", then it is probably not sourced from Blizzard. With that said, it is probably an entire article and can be moved to the user's namespace (and out of the way) by WP:PA. Otherwise, if it is just part of an article that is strange, it is probably speculation and can be removed by WP:DNP. We may need some forum and/or talk page rules though. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 23:54, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to "stretch" WP:DNP too much, but it may work. I agree that talk, user talk, and forum pages need more regulation.--SWM2448 00:03, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

I want a fallback, if one is ever needed, where it is stated in policy that rational consensus can overcome a lack of policy. It would help avoid controversial things. Perhaps the 'common sense' policy could be thought of as a 'code of conduct', which makes the things I said before mandatory, without being too strict. It could mention avoiding rudeness, stating irrelevant things, and re-opening talk page or forum discussions that are long dead (or, as I recently read that it is called, necro-posting), among other things. I want it to be geared towards getting rid of 'general disruption', with or without a 'mass' in there. However, as I bemoaned before, it is not possible to objectively prove whether someone is 'disruptive'. Being annoying is not a policy violation, and awful people either can improve the wiki, or not improve the wiki, but how does one judge that? I do not want to scare people off. I also want there to be rules about the things said on Forum:What should the forums be for?. I do not think we should just include everything because there is no rule. I think this ties into the inclusionist versus exclusionist thing, but I am not sure. I would grandfather it, but I am not quite sure what I would be grandfathering.--SWM2448 04:51, November 13, 2009 (UTC)