WoWWiki talk:Stub

From WoWWiki

Stubs

Aftermath of changing WoWWiki:Stub to a redirect to WoWWiki:Policy/Stub from this and integrating some of what was in WoWWiki:Stub into the policy page. Moved from User talk:Fandyllic.

Honestly, the page should be a guideline, which would make the case you make moot. But... as it's not...

The information needed to be put together. No matter how well intentioned the reversion was, 3 pages < 1 when I'm chopping the amount down from 10k to 4k. Further, I do have WW:BOLD on my side, which means I can do anything I want, though when questioned, I should appropriately answer. I was quite careful in what I did; all information was preserved (I might even have maintained duplicative information!).

In as much as being required that I say something on talk page, there is no requirement if I can get around it by "Decreeing" it. That said, it was a change which ignored the rules in favor of making a less crap page, which I take to mean it was a net positive. You should only be straight reverting changes if you think the change was wrong for the sake of wrongness, rather than for the sake of bureaucracy. --Sky (t · c · w) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Your excuses are kind of weak. WW:BOLD doesn't apply to changing policy. If you had read the policy, you would have decreed it instead of what you did. You really should apologize, but apparently you're not up to that yet.

Your arrogance is a little surprising, but I've noticed that many folks get kind of arrogant when they aren't reminded that the wiki is not their personal playground. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:20 PM PST 8 Apr 2009

I see it as interesting that you interpret what I said to be arrogance, where I would label it as confidence or eloquence in what I was saying. I similarly don't feel I need to apologize; I made no personal wrong here, only a procedural one. Especially, saying sorry, when you don't mean it, is a falsity that needs to end in the world. The change wasn't a mistake, either; I was quite deliberate in what I did.

WW:BOLD does apply here; you arbitrarily saying it doesn't makes you sound the arrogant one. And if even the words say, or rather, don't say that something applies or it does apply to articles, it is the spirit that matters. I fully feel I acted within my bounds as an editor. It is bureaucracy when you're working to restrict the kind of change you made. And when you asked about why, I gave reasoning. That is also part of the BOLD cycle.

Also, if you're going to respond to an argument, leading with "Your excuse are kind of weak" isn't going to gain you credit, as it is ad hominem should you choose not to substantiate your side against all points I made. Which, from what I can tell, you did not respond to everything. /shrug. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I substantiated my position. Here is what WW:BOLD says:

We encourage you to read the policy articles and the help contents before making your edits! Dare to know. That's the WoWWiki motto (well not really, but it's a good one!).

It doesn't say ignore the policy articles when being bold, but somehow you took it that way. As I said to Pcj, we have a process, so unless you have a good reason not to use it or can't take the time to propose changing it, I think most people expect you (especially as an admin, who's supposed to set an example) to follow it. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:24 PM PST 8 Apr 2009

If you think it would change your position or you mind, if I refuted each of your points individually, then I will. Would it? --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:24 PM PST 8 Apr 2009

Unlikely, but it aids the both of us in coming to a position of agreement, or a position of agreement to disagree.

That is a cherry-picked quote. I held simply to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter.

The process was unnecessary in this case though! The changes I made especially didn't apply to the policy (you'll note that if you check the diff, I didn't touch the policy). They were made to enhance the policy so that a person didn't have to explore the other two pages to understand what we were referring to when we were talking about stub policy. Changing anything to be more readable/legible is a good reason to not adhere to rules, especially when the rules in that case block one from doing so. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You make it sound as if following the rules were some kind of unbearable burden in this case. If you had spent half as much effort just trying to follow the rules as you have trying to defend your actions avoiding them, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. As you suggested, I agree to disagree. The rules blocked you from nothing, you just decided not to follow them. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:10 AM PST 9 Apr 2009