Warriors Wiki:Community Portal/Reporting Center/Other Issues

[STAFF OUTREACH] A Chat Suggestion
So recently a few of the staff members, myself included, have noticed an epidemic of "new users" joining the chat - and doing just about nothing else. They join the Wiki to go on chat. They don't want to edit, they don't want to improve pages. Heck, they don't even want to make pretty cat art. They could care less about the encyclopedia element of this website. They see it as their own personal social networking site. We - the staff - have tried to stress the importance of editing, but many new users could care less.

This is why I'm suggesting some kind of "limit" to be able to enter chat. I don't know quite what it is yet, but maybe 25-50 mainspace edits so these new users become aware of what this website is really about. If they continue to come back on chat after warnings, they will be issued a kick, and if they still don't get the message, a ban. The ban will be extended if no edits are made, etc. etc.

I don't know if this will work. But I'm hoping it will. It will encourage new users to get off the chat and make some contributive edits, and help them learn that this site isn't Facebook. 02:44, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I can see the flaws. While it encourages contribution, it can also lead to spam and/or vandalizm, etc. It would also drive away new users who come to this site which would be a major mistake since this wiki grows on new users contributing. Also, once said user reaches this certain amount of mainspace edits, it's quite plausible that said user will stop contributing completely. 02:50, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

I do think this is a good thought, but as 'Teldy said, it will have it's issues. Some users just come into the chat and could just ask a question about the wiki. They could just be reading the policies while we think they are doing nothing and just sitting there. I'm sitting on the fence of this, but I do think that there should be some way to get new users to start editing more and not just chatting. Not quite sure what to do about it though, but I don't think a limit is the best idea. :/ 10:39, 24, 07, 2012

I know I'm not a staff member, or anyone who really matters much, but I have an idea of what might help. This is a good idea, and I do think we should encourage others to contribute, but it does have its problems. But I want to say... when I first joined, I wanted a lot of respect from the other users. I wanted to be friends with them, I wanted them to think of me as a good person. And I found out that one of the ways you can earn respect is by editing and contributing. I think most new users want to fit in and be accepted, so if there was a way to show them that... you won't be... respected as much if you just stayed in chat all day rather than edit. The outline of this idea is good, and I'm glad you've brought the issue to life so we could discuss it, I'm just not sure if a kick is the right solution. Now, if new users have been on for a few hours, 2-3 at least, and they don't contribute to the wiki at all (I mean, mainspace and stuff, not just user) they should get a kick. (This is just my opinion, so hear me out). Limits... not the best thing though. You'd be right to give them warnings first, tell them to go contribute, and if they ignore you after a few hours, kick them from the room. I understand your frustration, but there's got to be some other thing that'll work well. I can agree with what DJ and Teldy said... 04:24, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated some time ago, I like the idea of having a limit to be in the chat. Having a limit defines the meaning of being able to chat on the wikia - the chat is a privilidge, not a right. 20-25 seems like a reasonable limit.


 * Also, Storm, editing is not meant only to get respect. Editing is for contributing to the wiki and learning... I believe that respect is earned by who you are, I guess. 20:08, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I know this is super late but... I noticed on Sonic Wiki that they edited a Media Wiki page that sets a limit on how many edits one should have before entering chat. When I clicked "Join the Chat" a messaged popped up saying I need a certain number of edits and mainspace edits before being allowed to chat. I think we can really use this. 13:45, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

I still think we could use this. It would crack down on the multiple chat invasions that we seem to have, since the trolls that usually do that have no edits at all. It would also crack down on the dupes we see in the chat room from those users who've been previously banned. I really do think we could use something like an edit limit, and with some work, this could be extremely useful, and I think it would help crack down on the problems we seem to have.

[ADMIN OUTREACH] File Naming Conventions
Ahem. Erm.... gah I'm so horrible at these things.... basically, I'd like to suggest an edit to the MediaWiki:Uploadtext page to list naming conventions, so they can be more thoroughly enforced. And I'd also like to suggest that all personal images must be named Usernamehere.personal.png. It will not only make it easier to see what are personal images and what are just random ones uploaded by new users who don't understand this isn't a file hosting site, but it will also help enforce the one personal image rule, as only one image can be named Username.personal.png. I've made a short draft (though it's unfinished, since some of the naming conventions have to be decided on) here.

Implementing this system would involve quite a bit of work changing all old personal images and project images other than PCA's, but I believe in the long run, it will be helpful. Thoughts? gah I'm so horrible at writing these kind of things... 02:20, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

It would definitely enforce the policies of the wiki, and I think it's a good idea. For clarification though, how will we keep track of files named incorrectly? 20:36, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't be much different than keeping track of people with multiple personal images. It'll just have to be something monitored by the staff and users. 20:55, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. 23:10, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

-coughs and prods someone- 19:09, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

(oops, sorry for not seeing this) I really don't think that this is just an admin outreach, since it would pretty much affect everyone on the wiki. It's a good idea, and since a lot of people just upload random files out the wazoo (points for who gets the ref), it would crack down on the number of useless files that are just taking up space on the wiki. I'd say it should be up to everyone to make sure this rule is enforced. What would we do with files that aren't following the conversions that are already on the wiki? Report them for renaming? Tag them for deletion, or use that move tag we have? o.o

For the inactive users, those images should be tagged for deletion anyways (and gradually are being), so those'll just be deleted. No need to bother renaming files that need to be deleted anyways. For the active users' files, just use the move tag. I got the reference 8D 19:52, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

[COMMUNITY OUTREACH] Wikia's Halloween Costume Contest
Wikia's Halloween Costume Contest. Do we plan on participating or not? It'll just be temporary and it should be fun. Comment, agree or disagree, suggest actual decorations that are possible, etc. 22:37, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yes~ It sounds like fun, amico! -bounces- Why not? Pad foot Mischief Managed 22:40, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm all for it. 22:43, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

I'm for it as well. This looks like a fun idea~ Perhaps we could do a Dark Forest-related theme? Since that /is/ kinda creepy- like Halloween.

I'm for it. It sounds like fun 83. /is totally not designing the background now. 22:49, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

It sounds awesome. Like everyone above me, I'm all for it. 8D 22:54, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

I love this idea, and I agree with Skye's idea, with the Dark Forest-y theme. I think this'll be great. 22:59, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea too. 00:34, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe some zombie cats too. Those are fun owo 00:40, 16, 10, 2012

I'm all for it! I agree with Tawny and Skye on the Dark Forest theme, and we should put Tigerstar and Brokenstar on it. 01:19, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea! And I also like the idea of the DF cats theme. 8D 05:21 Tue Oct 16

'Kay, well, I've signed us up though if anyone is against it, it's not too late to speak up. We have until 8 a.m. EST on the 31st to decorate our wiki. So, we'll need a temporary wiki skin, so if you'd like to suggest one, go for it, just please use your personal image file name to do so. The 22nd, we can vote and then the voting will close on the 27th. Or sooner if anyone feels like we need more time to decorate. =) 22:09, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

[COMPLETED] Blog to delete
This blog violates the essay policy. 00:40, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. 17:53, October 21, 2012 (UTC)

Moderaters
I have a problem with some of the Chat Moderaters. I seem to wonder whats behindthe scenes in them, when I am in other websites with moderaters. I find out its just a really mean person behind that screen. I was in one of the chat rooms and I just said the word "HOLA" then Appledash came out and said "No caps please" Then I said. "Whats wrong with caps?" she said "Its immature." Imature? Really. Then someone names Justy came and was talking about warriors and was saying "I LOVE WARRIOR do u like warriors bc its really awesome books." Then everyone was saying "Chatspeak." I didn't know what it was so I said "Whats Chatspeak?" then everyone was liek saying "-headdesk-" "omfg" So then Appledash said "It means talking like dis" I was like "What the heck is wrong with that?" she said "Immature spelling." I got pissed off how they were treating Justy and acting like there SOOO mature. I didn't like how the rules were played and they were being imature by doing faces like this. > e-e o.e :D <33 That's imature. None of them were talkinga bout THE PLOT of the site and one of them said "We don't talk about Warriors all day." "We talk about random stuff sometimes." then Appledash said "Yeah, sometimes we talk about really really random stuff." which through me off because.... That sounds wrong and creepy. Then they said that were all over the age of 13 which I said that I was 10 and they kicked me out which was TOTALLY racist. Whats wrong with being 10? Even though i think this site is for older people but this is a childrens book! Why can't smart children enjoy things in this website. These moderaters shouldn't be THAT harsh with the rules and they kicked out Justy for spelling incorrectly!

~Pinkerz


 * We're glad that you've voice a concern about our staff, but, all of the kicking that was done was justified and within the rules. It says in the chat room rules that chatspeak, excessive caps, and spamming is against the rules. You, and the other user, Justy, were doing just that, and we have screenshots that show this. The usage of chatspeak on an encyclopedia-like website, like this, does make you seem immature, and since we are an encyclopedia on Warriors, we should use proper grammar and spelling, since that's what they do in actual books. As for the matter of your age, it says in Wikia's ToU that you must be 13 to join Wikia, as anything below that violates COPPA, meaning you will be banned from the website. We were not racist against you based upon your age; in fact, that's the incorrect usage of the term anyways.


 * As for the "we talk about random stuff" thing... yes, we do. Nowhere does it say that Warriors must be the topic of discussion at all times. It does say, however, that if the topic is requested, we must abide by that request and shift the topic to that of Warriors. We're allowed to discuss other things. All in all, we kicked you from the chat room for failing to follow the rules, and being extremely disrespectful. Regards,

[STAFF OUTREACH] - Kicking Users for No Reason
This is being written in response to the report made against HiddenVale, primarily over the actions staff of this wiki took during the incident.

During the incident, it appears that some of the chatmods and rollbackers present in the chat were kicking a user for no reason and HiddenVale asked the staff to stop doing so. The staff refused and afterwards punished HiddenVale for using excessive caps. Which is good, that's the job of those trusted to moderate the chatroom.

Except here's the thing: how can you expect any user to follow the rules and listen to warnings if the staff warning the user cannot do so? It's downright hypocritical.

I know I've taken part in this game as much as anyone, but I'm saying now that this needs to stop permanently. It's a clear abuse of powers, and we cannot expect users to respect the rules if we cannot do so ourselves.

Please also bear in mind that the option to kick can be disabled for chatmods if it needs to be.

Best wishes, 03:48, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of having chat mods if you can disable their ability to kick? That would be totally stupid and kinda counter-productive, imho. Aaaanyways, back to the topic at hand. Yes, I totally agree that the kicking randomly /does/ need to stop. Hypocritical of me, since I'm always booting a certain user, but still. As for my "lolno" comment, it was seriously /only/ towards kicking Evrett, which everyone knows I do (because of reasons that pretty much everyone knows). I don't do it as often, because I know that it gives the wrong impression. Stopping this would be a good idea...

Removing the power to kick would only revert us back to the old system of written warnings only before banning. So no, not counter-productive or stupid. 04:21, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

And the "lolno" comment was still uncalled for. It doesn't matter if it's widely known that you kick Everett. When asked to obey the rules, as a staff member you should have complied. 04:24, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it was uncalled for. No need to reprimand me for something that I'm already fully aware of. This isn't just on me, you know. There are other staffers that are just as guilty of this, and not just the rollbacks and chat mods.

I've kicked a few users because they asked, but in all reality, I don't really understand the point, and I would like to see it come to an end. I know you guys have had your fun, but if it bothers and/or confuses new users as to why you are doing so, then we probably shouldn't be doing it. 16:07, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Though I've done a fair share of kicking, and will miss doing it on friends, I do agree that it's time to stop doing it randomly. there shouldn't be anymore kicking without reason. However, like with banning, I think asking to be kicked would be a good reason. However, no, we can't just comply when users ask us to stop kicking if we implement a rule of no unnecessary kicking. That'd be like asking to stop banning people. It'd be just plain silly to comply to something like that if we have a rule of no kicking without reason. 02:44, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

[COMPLETED] Unneeded Blog
This blog violates the essay policy. This is my first time filing a report, so I'm hoping I did it right. Thank you, L  i  l  y     d  u  s  t~


 * Handled. 23:15, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

[COMPLETED] Blog to kill
this blog violates to essay policy. 03:02 Sun Nov 4


 * Done. 23:15, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

[COMPLETED] Blogs to Kill
This blog also violates the essay policy, along with this onemade by the same user. Hopefully I did this right. xD -- 22:02, November 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleted. 23:15, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

[COMPLETED] Blog To Kill
I believe this one is self-explanatory in the reason for deletion: Link -- 09:07, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. 17:11, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

Chat Issues
I am very disheartened to say that I had a rather unenjoyable time in chat today. A few of my fellow colleaugues from a separate wiki came into your chat today. In my opinion, we were rudely handelled by the chat moderators and other users. They claimed that we were breaking wiki chat rules, however, I have proof of instances in the form of screenshots that present a member of your wiki testifying that you do not normally enforce these rules on a common basis. It was disrespectful and unnecessary to be so strict about rules that are not commonly enforced. I will upload screenshots if it is necessary as soon as I get a chance to be on a PC. I am on an iPad, and am currently unable to upload them. I would suggest either taking time to look at and rewrite some of your chat rules, or having a training session for chat moderators to better understand the difference between merely enforcing rules and being derugatory in enforcing them. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope it gets to the proper authorities of the wiki. Have a nice day! :)

04:54, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're unhappy with the wiki. I'm not a chat mod. I'm sorry if I'm not doing what I'm supposed to and letting more senior members handle this. But can I just say that every wiki functions differently? We (the wikis, and the wiki members) all have different rules people are expected to follow. And I think that when you talk like this about our wiki's rules, you're being disrespectful to us because you say our chat rules are unnecessary and stupid and et cetra stuff like that. So, maybe this chat is different from the one you're used to? Maybe read the chat rules and get farmiliar with our policies instead of coming here and writing what you did. It would help. Our chat runs perfectly fine, if you follow the rules, which a lot of users here do. I don't think we need to rewrite our chat rules just because they aren't your preference. Other peoples' opinions matter too. My opinion is, the rules don't need to be changed, people juts need to understand and follow them. The chat mods of this wiki are a really great group of users. They are mature, they can handle things well, they're responsible, they have really good qualities which makes them really good staff. Sure, they can be funny, or joke around, and not be serious at times, but they're allowed to be that way. They don't have to be strict all the time. The screenshots might help us understand a little more about what exactly you're talking about. But you should always read the rules before entering a chatroom, so I don't really know what you're complaining about here. Stormy I'm messing with you ♥ 18:00, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

[STAFF OUTREACH] ~ Day of Editing?
Okay, this is something that I've been considering for quite a while now, and I've brought it up before to 'teldy and the others, but I've gone on deaf ears. Now that we have the reporting center, we can /use/ it for things like this.

So, I propose that one of these days, on one decided by the admins/staff/ect, that we shut off the chat for one whole day to promote editing on the wiki. I know this might come across as a little harsh, since so many of us use the chat for means of communication, but I honestly think there are some who take this chat for granted, and they do not realize that it can very easily be shut off with the click of a switch on the Admin Dashboard.

So, I propose that we shut off the chat, perhaps on a day during the weekend, for an entire 24 hours. After all, we're an encyclopedia-like wiki, so, that doesn't mean we need a chat system. It would be nice to go back to the older days, where people willingly edited, instead of being threatened with chat bans if they don't.

Comments, everyone? Not just staff can comment, I'd think, since there are a lot of users who aren't staff whose opinions would be greatly appreciated.

I heavily support this idea. It might clear up all the issues with other users being forced to edit- they'll either learn to edit or they'll leave, realizing that this Wiki is not a social website. Not many people realize how lucky they are to have chat, I am sometimes guilty about that, I'll admit. Also, the weekend editing day idea would indeed be a wise idea, since as far as I know, people don't do much except chat. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is how I imagine everybody on this Wiki on a weekend. It may seem harsh, yes, but it will be beneficial for the Wiki itself. -- 20:34, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I must say that this is a very good idea. I don't edit nearly as much as I should, and the same goes for other users as well. If we all had a day where the distraction of chat didn't exist, it would be good for everyone. --&#123;&#123;SUBST:Nosubst&#124;User:EmmatheFoxwing/sig&#125;&#125; (talk) 20:36, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Skye. Chat is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, it isn't compulsory. As you said, we're an encyclopedia and the chat is just something for users to socialize with others. Now, I wasn't here in the older days, but I bet that it was a lot easier to get users to edit, since the chat didn't exist. Shutting down chat seems harsh, but I feel like it's needed to get the message to newer users.

Plus, I really need to work on my own horrible editcount...x.x --  Sh   oo   n  Gutt ered

20:43, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps on a holiday when no one wants to edit or work? Ca na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 21:07, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is a wonderful idea, quite often I see users in chat that haven't edited in a week or so and they show no effort to edit, I support this idea 100% 23:49, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think the thought and intention of this is good, but I really don't think it'd make a difference honestly. For those who don't want to edit, do you really think chat being off for just one day would make them suddenly want to edit? It's not like this is the only place online for those people to go, so they have to edit if chat's not there. If we take it down, they'll just go somewhere else, no edit, unless they already want to. In which case they should be already and taking down chat won't change anything. I honestly don't think this would make very much difference at all, despite the good intentions. 00:07, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. People hang around chat when they're bored and lazy because chat is an effortless way to waste time. Editting the wiki is work, and I highly doubt they'll want to do that. If they really wanted to do something that took effort, they'd go outside or something, not edit the wiki. And that's saying people will actually want to do something that takes effort. I'm not saying that editting the wiki isn't productive, just that if the rare chance that people actually wanted to do something that takes effort, especially if it was the people who hang around chat all day doing nothing, it probably wouldn't be editting the wiki. 01:17, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this could be a great concept. But I'm not sure if it could work. People could just say, "Oh, I can just blow off this day. They don't KNOW that I'm not there." But I guess if people are willing, it could be a great thing. So if we can get it to work, that would just be awesome. But I'm not sure myself. 19:15 Saturday November 24 2012

I agree with Paleh. Disabling the chat for a day will just be that: disabling the chat for a day. The users on there that don't edit just won't be on for that day, and then when it's reopened they'll be right back on. It won't change a thing. 03:35, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

It might work if we put up a message as well informing people that it's editing day and that that's why the chat is locked up. I dunno. As Paleclaw said, the intention is good, but I don't know if it'll be very effective. The wiki is pretty much hibernating right now. Nothing's getting done. PB's big chapter pages project has fizzled out with little to show for the effort. Many articles are no longer up-to-date because no one can be arsed to fill out the Yellowfang's Secret section. The only project that seems to still be running at full speed right now is PCA, and that project isn't even integral to the point of the wiki.

It's been bugging me, but I haven't complained because I figure we'll just work at a sporadic rate and hibernate until DotC starts up.

But my point is this: everyone is slacking these days. About a year ago, PB's chapters thing would have been done within a month, tops, and the book sections on character pages would have been filled out completely within a week of the release of the book. Right now, not so much. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing or a bad thing. It's just a thing. (meandering statement over) 06:04, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. I agree with Shelly, that some users aren't doing as much as they should, or as much as they used to, but everyone needs a break. There's no need to single out PB, all the projects aren't getting as much attention as they should. I'm not saying we should put off the projects, and I'm not saying the project leaders and members aren't doing a good job. I'm just saying that everyone knows this wiki isn't what it was like back in... even early 2012. You know it's not summer anymore for some of us, and we're all back to working. Sometimes life gets in the way of doing what you want, and there's really nothing you can do.

Anyway, I support this idea. I really like the concept and I think it's a really good... just, a good way to make the wiki more... I don't know. Just make it better. When should we have a one day of editing? Every year? Every month? Every two months? We should announce how we're doing it and when. The idea needs a little work, but Cloudskye did a great job explaining it and bringing it to life. I also agree with Paleh. Some users come here just for the chat. And some users might proceed to vandalize pages, and do other crap if chat gets shut off. We need a way to "get around" all the user complaints if we're going to make this happen. We can't make them want to edit. We can't. So... we need to do some more thinking on this, if it's really going to happen. All I can say is, this is just my opinion, and I think I'm done here. Stormy I'm messing with you ♥ 18:08, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Blog to kill
blog  here it is. Kill it with fire. Stormy I'm messing with you ♥ 04:06, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Blog to Kill
Shelly posted a comment on it suggesting it for deletion, but it wasn't reported. Saying that it is random doesn't really help, either.  13:09 Sunday December 9 2012

Blog to Kill
This blog violates essay policy. 22:58, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Blog to Kill
There's the blog. Like I said on my previous one, Shelly put a Suggested for Deletion tag on but was never reported.  01:32 Tuesday December 11 2012

Blogs to Kill
There they are. They violate the essay policy, and the first one could actually be on their talk page.  23:12 Monday December 17 2012