Warriors Wiki:Community Portal/Reporting Center/Other Issues

[STAFF COMMUNICATION] Implementing an awards system
Before this goes out to the entire wiki, I'd like to see what the staff thinks. A popular, fun activity that many other wikis have is an awards system and I think it's a good way to encourage and motivate contributors. Such award systems I'm thinking about are like the Fairy Tail awards or the Hawky Awards by the Avatar Wiki. So, comments? 00:16, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Like I already told you, I'm all for the implementation of such a system. We jsut have to think of names for the awards. Like the Lionheart Award for vandalism fighter. But, since we only have three admins, could we instead have an award for best staff member, not just best admin? 00:19, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I'm for it as well. As I've already expressed, it seems like a good idea (and the Lionheart Award thing makes perfect sense). As for the admin one, I think changing that to overall staff member would be a better idea.

I like this idea. But, yeah. For the admin one, changing it to overall staff member would be in the best interest for us all^^ 00:32, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I made a list of names I thought of... :3 Best User (The Sandstorm Award), Best Administrator (The Bramblestar Award), Most Likely to Receive Rollback or Administrative rights (The Tawnypelt Award), Vandalism Fighter (The Lionheart Award), Coolest User (The Hawkfrost Award), Best Blogger (The Smallear Award), Most Informative User (The Hollyleaf Award), Toughest User (The Tigerstar Award), Funniest User (The Graystripe Award), Most Imaginative/Creative User (The Mothflight Award), Most Opinionated or Fiercest User (The Cloudtail Award), Nicest User (The Ferncloud Award), Most Versatile (The Firepaw Award), and Chaperone (The Swiftpaw Award). 00:41, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

How often is this occurring? Maybe for the months we could make it like (User awards for Greenleaf moon 1) or something like that. Just an idea :3 00:51 Tue Jun 19

I'd personally prefer either yearly or bi-yearly... but that's just me. 00:55, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

When Atelda suggested this earlier, I thought four times a year would be, like, the minimum. Bi-yearly or only once a year would work fine. 00:56, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, to sift through every user every month would be a bit much. 00:59, June 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, I'm against any popularity-contest style award (which is what your proposing, Atelda). Though I would be in favor of something more like Wikipedia's Barnstars, where they're less a voted on process and more just a nice way to pat someone on the back for being awesome. I'd rather see something that doesn't pit user-against-user as they try to get them. 19:10, June 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Barnstar system is something I've seen before, and always wanted to try. I'd be up for that. From what I understand from reading that article, multiple people can get them at once, compared to doing this, where only one would get it at a time...


 * Any number of people can give or get the same barnstar. I can just see the fights that can potentially erupt if people were to decide to take a "pick one off this list to get the prize" style went into effect. I have a disturbing premonition of it being just as competitive (if not more so) than the way PCA gets when a new book is about to drop. 19:43, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I'm proposing an awards system of which my examples were as such as a "popularity-contest style", but I have no intentions of limiting this proposed awards system to my examples. I have no problem doing Barnstars, but I have yet to come across a website that uses those in a "successful" way. By no means do I think we shouldn't do it, though, I'd rather not see the barnstars lose their meaning or stopped being given out. Many questions arise about the barnstar awards system but that could be because I've haven't seen this awards system in place. 20:34, June 19, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has successfully used barnstars well for years. They're exciting when they're received, and I think that sort of a system embraces the open and "everyone can" sort of vibe a wiki is supposed to have. I like the idea of an awards system, I've just never been a fan of anything that involves a vote. I've used them in the past at other sites, and never been happy with the results (good people always seem to get passed over to reward popular people). Basicly, Barnstars are badges that any user can give to any other user if they do well (but I think we would want to put a "no anons" rule in). Though I am interested in seeing what direction other people prefer. 68.191.162.116 12:11, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the barnstars sounds pretty good, and I'd like to try it. We could give it our "Warriors Wiki style". :3 09:21, 20, 06, 2012

Wow, this idea ss really good! The barnstars would be a nice way of commending people for their hard work and dedication to a certain "subject". Honestly, it's a nice idea that I'd be willing to try. 15:23 Mon Jul 16

Since barnstars seem to be popular for awards, I've made some quick drafts. So with the staff seeming in agreement, shall we open it up to the entire wiki? 20:21, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no need why we can't let the rest of the wiki post their opinion. After all, it's going to be them that have the final say in the end. I'm still up for it, and the drafts look pretty good to me.

I love this idea and I think the drafts are perfect :3 I think this could be fun. 23:25 Wed Jul 25

Normally I would protest against an idea such as this, but the way it is formatted and wording seems good for an awards system, and I am supporting this idea. 00:46, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I was against the barnstars, but after some thought, it seemed like a good idea. I have high hopes that having barnstars would encourage users to reach the fullest heights when it comes to editing and helping the wiki along with helping others. And plus with a barnstar system, it would be a simply fun and enjoyable way to praise others for their hard work, as anyone can earn a barnstar, unlike a "popularity" kind of awards system. I'm completely open to trying this out, and I think that we can go ahead to open it up to the whole wiki. 06:33, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. The drafts look excellent and this would give a possitive impact on the wiki as well as congratulating other users. 08:37, 26, 07, 2012

[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)

[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)

[CLOSED] Blog to Kill
Here is the blog that violates the Essay Policy that Shelly mentioned in her blog. It does so by being poorly written, lacking proper capitalization and lacking the paragraph form required, as well. 19:12, August 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * While it does lack capitalization, it does voice the user's opinions and starts a discussion which is what the Essay policy requires. 23:10, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

[CLOSED] Blog to Kill
69 Violates the Essay Policy. 22:56, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. 23:10, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

[CLOSED] Here we go again, more blogs to kill
I'm not stopping until people get the point.

- Contains spoilers without warning, does little to no discussing on the topic of the blog.

- Does not really inspire discussion, it's mostly just a short rant about how Firestar isn't that old. I might be wrong about this one, please review.

- Leaves almost all discussion to comments, does not do much but ask questions in the blog itself.

- No discussion in actual blog, only questions.

- Again, only questions. It's a "leave your opinion of X in the comments" blog.

- No discussion in actual blog.

- Little to no discussion.

- Same.

- Same. Just a list and a question.

- Can't even tell with this one.

A very short list and a question. Woo.

- Not in essay format.

- Not an essay.

- It's basically a "what would x's name be if they didn't keep their old name" blog.

- Not really a discussion, just a wish list.

- Not... really... a discussion.

- =_=

... Imma continue later. This is depressing. 18:34, August 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * The second blog you stated seemed like it was just stating facts so I deleted it, but otherwise I've deleted them all. 18:46, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

[CLOSED] Another Blog to Kill
[86] Violates the Essay policy. 22:05, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. 23:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

[CLOSED] Blogs to Kill
This one Violates the essay policy. This one ^ This one ^^ 02:44, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the first one though the second one does start a discussion. 23:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

[CLOSED] Another Blog to Kill
[http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Rainsplash987/Welcome_to_Me! This] blog violates the Essay policy. Rain bow   Fli  ght  19:28, August 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleted. 23:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Blog to be Deleted
[http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Cookiestar/Nutkit! This blog] violates the Essay Policy. 14:20, August 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * Along with this one. 22:58, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Blogs to Kill
This blog does not open a discussion. This blog does not open a discussion, also. 14:22, August 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding in this one as well. 01:48, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Copied Info
Hi,

I didn't know how to deal with this, but I found a site that copied Warriors Wiki's articles word-for word. I'll give a link to one of the copied pages. One of the pages that were copied

Thanks, Silverfang    May StarClan Light Your Path   20:51, August 26, 2012 (UTC) I apologise deeply for this. I had no idea that editors on my wiki had been copying info from here. I told a user to stop, and they agreed, so I don't know if they've gone against that... ♪ ♫ Feat her ♪♫  16:56, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

That's not the only page. Firestar's had his information copied as well. I was looking around that wiki, and there are multiple pages like this. Please remove that information, as I don't think it's yours to use. We worked hard on the pages we have here, and you're not allowed to copy directly like that.