Forum:CT:Fanon - Zero Tolerance

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Fanon - Zero Tolerance


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was screwed up by a bunch of people who hate consensus. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


(Links for reference: Here, here, more importantly here, and most importantly here and here.)

Okay, we've tried many times to get this fanon thing under control. And we still have a problem. So let's take care of this once and for all. I'm not gonna waste time giving the same arguments all over again; just look at the other threads (specifically the last one). Do we allow people to do nothing but work on fanon here when there's an entire wiki dedicated specifically to that? The answer seems obvious to me, and I know others feel the same. I've also heard many other people say that their opinions have swayed in this direction since the last time the issue was brought up, especially given the failure of the "edit number cap" thing.

So, should we disallow any and all fanon on Wookieepedia and instead encourage interested parties to use the Fanon Wiki? -- Ozzel 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Yes (+20)

  1. Ozzel 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. You betcha. - Lord Hydronium 03:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Most certainly. Thefourdotelipsis 03:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Braces for the tidal wave of opposition. Cull Tremayne 03:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Duh. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yep. - JMAS 03:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Greyman(Paratus) 03:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm removing my vote from this because it really rubs me the wrong way when certain self-styled Wiki-lawyers make long and drawn out arguments based on something that I said—something which was, and still is, very straight forward in my own mind. I'm just going to take a page out of Sentry's book and not get involved with this type of policy making. That being said, I'll get involved in the future if the other administrators request it of me, especially for important policy decisions; however, Wiki-lawyering really gets tiresome and shows me that these minor policy creations are best left to the other admins. Greyman(Paratus) 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Clever way to remove the evidence, but Ozzels wording at the top makes no room for interpretation or improvement of existing policy nevertheless. DarthMRN 23:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Excuse me? Removal of what "evidence"? I didn't delete anything off of this page. This is what I'm talking about. Greyman(Paratus) 23:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Now then, now then, now then, then now. Now then. I'll have none of this baiting tripe. DarthMRN, this isn't a smear campaign, Grey-man is not trying to remove any "evidence", since A) That would imply some kind of crime, and as far as I'm concerned, those voting "No" aren't imbued with the Divine Right of Kings, and B) He didn't remove anything, he retracted his vote. Any fanon-loving individual who happens to stray across this archive will still be able to gnash his teeth at Grey-man's opinions, even if they were retracted. Please, heed this: Only post when you have something that's semi-useful, or constructive to the arguement. If you bait like this, dire consequences will ensue. And if you try to feed me a line about "this isn't baiting", I'd strongly advise that you don't. Thefourdotelipsis 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
            • You honor your new Admin status, Fourdot. I am officially impressed. Not baiting, but I didn't assume good faith. Plus, I was wrong in my assumption that he had removed his confirmation that Zero Tolerance meant ZERO tolerance. That was another post entirely. My apologies, Greyman. DarthMRN 13:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. HOORJ! -- Darth Culator (Talk) 03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Serves no purpose whatsoever. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. I hate fanon with all the hate in my cold, black heart. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. I've yet to see an argument mustered for fanon except "You shouldn't care . . . fanon wiki -- what's that? Oh, well, it's still, uh, vital that we, uh, have it here. If people can't have it, they'll, like, die. Totally die. Wanting people to use the wiki for it's intended purpose? That's . . . that's not a good reason. You're a bastard. Stop caring. We should all be completely apathetic and just let Wookieepedia become MyWookieeSpace. Because caring is for jackasses." Yeah, sorry, but that's just not convincing. Havac 18:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Yes. This ain't a public-view scratchpad.--Goodwood 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Purpilia 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Ve haff vays of makingk yu schtop de fanon. Enochf 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. As Ozzel quoted me below, "If it turns out they don't, we can revisit this later;" well, it's later, and after a lot of thought, I'm revisiting. Having had to engage in edit count lawyering myself recently, I see that the old system is both a pain in the arse to implement and not terribly effective. Fighting the symptoms of userpage over-editing would be a lot easier if we cured the primary cause. jSarek 10:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Definitely. URoRRoR'R'R 2:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This coming from someone who doesn't even have a userpage... Just want to point out to the above a few changes that will need to be made to your userpages if this passes: Cull Tremayne - You'll need to get rid of your infobox. You are not an Ewok from Endor who was born thousands of years ago (If you are though send me an e-mail so we can party RotJ style ^_^). Darth Culator - You will need to change your userbox from "is on the Darkside" to "supports the Darkside" as "on" denotes being able to use it. Graestan - You will need to get rid of your Jedi Guardian, Consular, and Sentinel userboxes that you made, as well as your lightsaber user boxes, as being able to wield, practice, or use a lightsaber form means that you must first have actually held an ignited lightsaber and have used the force to augment your techniques. Jack Nebulax - You do not have your own Empire and even if you do, I seriously doubt you have a powerful fleet to defend it, and more so that it can destroy anyone. Goodwood - Same to you with the lightsaber userboxes. That's 5 people who have fanon on their userpages, yet are voting against it. It may be only small but it does say in bold "disallow any and all fanon on Wookieepedia," and that would most certainly include the examples I pointed out above. I am usually against such broad tyrannical dictates on principle alone for the very reason I have just pointed out. If you say absolutely none you are killing the many for the faults of a few. There is always a middle ground to achieve, and when you skip that because it's easier, no justice can come from that. The reason the current system isn't working is because it gives an insane amount of leeway. "500 user page edits to less than 100 useful main space edits" is ridiculous. I made tons of edits to my userpage when I first started here and was getting used to the styles and templates. My userpage contributes are at 52%, I think that is excessive, but it comes no where near hitting the mark that is questionable. My ratio will soon shift the other way as I only had so many userpage edits because I was just starting off and thus wanted to get my userpage set up first. But I really think that the limit on userpage edits compared to main page edits would be much better if it were based on ratio rather than page edits. Set the limit at 15-25% userpage edits, make a rule as I described below, disallowing fanon stories (more than 3-4 short paragraphs and no dialogue) and I think most people would be happy with that. The admins should be capable enough of determining what is and isn't too long, and if someone argues it, let the admins have a vote, if more than half say it's too long, then it's too long. Nuff said. Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 08:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Livingston, we are well aware that if this forum goes through, then Zero Tolerance actually means Zero Tolerance. The users you singled out, to make a point, have absolutely no reason to remove the content you pointed out unless the forum is actually passed, at which point I'm sure they will comply. Greyman(Paratus) 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I say "Here, here" to Livingston. No fanon means no fanon- at all. That means that The person who started this miserable thread will have to remove his affiliations to Bright Tree Village and Firefly-class transport. We could go on and on ad nauseum, I'm sure. Suffice to say that this forum would create more work for the admins than if we allowed a small, reasonable amount of the stuff. Not to mention it's occasionally humorous intentions. And everyone who voted for this option will be paid a visit from me if we pass it to make sure they don't continue violating what will be Wookieepedia policy. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Never said they had any reason to remove the content until it is passed, just pointing out that they would have to if it does, as I wasn't sure if every single one of them were aware of it or not. It is good to see that you are keeping tabs on all of them and know that they are all indeed aware of it. Cheers. Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
            • So apparently "nuff" was not said, then. Anyway, Ataru: you big meanie! I had to remove something from my userpage!?!? What ever shall I do? Maybe I should change my vote now that I see this applies to me as well. -- Ozzel 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
              • So, when did "userpage fanon" get defined as "goofy userboxes"? I'm sorry, I must have missed that note. Or maybe it's just a specious argument in which extra restrictions are heaped upon the actual, proposed ones in order to scare people away from voting for the actual restrictions being proposed? "Hey, guys, I heard that if this vote goes through, they'll ban FUN!" Come on. No one has ever defined goofy userboxes as userpage fanon. While one could make an obnoxious, legalistic argument that specific userbox wordings could be interpreted as fanon, anyone who isn't trying to use scare tactics to blow this way out of proportion can see that that's not what's intended and not what will happen. Havac 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Actually if you read the above you will see that that is exactly what will happen. Any and all doesn't mean, oh expect for that. Greyman even confirmed it. If you think differently, then you guys need to get together and make sure you are on the same page, as you are voting on banable policy. Once it's passed, oh but I didn't realize that meant THAT too, isnt't going to cut it. And as far as i'm concerned this whole issue is already blowing things way out of proportion. And to Oz, any true believer knows that "nuff said" is only nuff at which time nuff is said. At anytime in the future that nuff said is no longer nuff said, then nuff said is revoked until the time in which nuff is said once again. Nuff said. :P Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px(The Force will be with you. Always.) 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Greyman didn't confirm it. His statement effectively says, "What's the big deal?" It's possible some might interpret the statement as being that all-encompassing, but I see no evidence that it actually would be. All statements have made it clear that this is targeted against userpage fanon, not "This user is on the dark side!" userboxes. Havac 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • I don't know what you are reading, but I am referring to the following: "Livingston, we are well aware that if this forum goes through, then Zero Tolerance actually means Zero Tolerance. The users you singled out, to make a point, have absolutely no reason to remove the content you pointed out unless the forum is actually passed, at which point I'm sure they will comply. Greyman(Paratus) 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)" You do know what Zero Tolerance means right? Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • Basically Livingston editconflicted with me to say what I was going to re Greyman's comment: That's not how I read it, that's not how it could be read, and that's not how it can be interpreted once it was formed. It could easily be a ban-worthy offense to have a "goofy userbox". "No evidence that it actually would be" my foot. Greyman did confirm that and the header at the top says ZERO tolerance. Not exceptions for userboxes. You want zero tolerance, then get this passed and there will be. As for Ozzel, I thought it was an irony worth pointing out :-P Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • I also read "Zero Tolerance" as ZERO TOLERANCE, and, should this go through, intend to enforce it as such. I believe userboxes of the sort "This user supports" wouldn't be fanon, since it's possible for a real person to support a fictional entity; but other than that, if this passes, a number of userboxes are likely to have to go. jSarek 22:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                          • Endor? It's Atzerri mate. Atzerri! I'll remove the "fanon" and replace it with canon...but I'm keeping the Ewok. :-P Cull Tremayne 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. If there's a fanon wiki, why post it here? DarthPraxus 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Reasons are as follows: 1) We have a well established fanon wiki now for them to post at. 2) We need to move on to other more important issues. 3) Disallowing fanon really shows how many people are dedicated to the cause of actual canon contributions here. Note: We shouldn't force a person to remove every little bit of fanon, but please for the love of the Force, no 100 kb biographies! -- Riffsyphon1024 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, this is a zero-tolerance vote. By voting yes, you ARE saying we should "force a person to remove every little bit of fanon." jSarek 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Which was exactly what I was trying to point out in my first argument, but was then accused of Wiki-lawyering. Go figure... I don't know how "Zero Tolerance" could be taken any other way.Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. No fanon should be allowed in any form on Wookieepedia. - TopAce (Talk) 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No (+11)

  1. Allow me to be first. Unit 8311 11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. If they do nothing but fanon, kick them. If they work besides, no matter the fanon/canon ratio, keep them. This issue has been met with a no in the past, and I see no reason why this would be different. Find some sort of middle ground. DarthMRN 12:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. BAH!!! Instruction creep go boom. Same arguments as last time- fanon is at the most annoying, but certainly not something that we should re-discuss every few months in yet another attempt to game the CT system. At any rate, giving people freedom to play around a little in their user namespace is not necessarily a bad thing- some people take a more casual approach to wikis than others. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The only reason this vote has not been removed to reflect that I wish for more limitations within reason is to prevent this thread from having consensus declared. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Ironically enough, by not removing your vote, you are gaming the system yourself. I would remove it myself, but the inevitable cries of "INSTRUCTION CREEP" and "POWAH ABUSE" would deafen me. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Vote removed. No major effect was had anyway, either by removing the vote, or by leaving it there. I do think we could use a less lawyerish fanon policy, but I strongly oppose anything as draconian as proposed above. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Imperialles 14:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    (Vote removed 13:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)): :I admit, I am still of the opinion that nearly all fanfiction on user pages is uninteresting and unoriginal even by fanfiction standards, and wastes the user's time and energy on something which no one will read. We could even write an essay on the subject to point people at. However, I also completely agree with Ataru's assessment. —Silly Dan (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    You just gave me an idea. :) Gonk (Gonk!) 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    First it's take all fanon to the SW Fanon wiki, next it's take all jokes to Darthipedia, then it's take all non-Star Wars related stuff to Wikipedia. -- I need a name (Complain here) 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Ataru, but minus the "BAH!!!". Chack Jadson Talk 18:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Too... fascist. Just change the "Welcome, New User" message to include "Thou Shalt Not Overly Fanonize Thy Userpage". Karohalva of Koenigsberg National Fez and Beret Interrogation Institute Karohalva 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, rules are so facist. We should just be an anarchy. Havac 18:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • S'funny. That line being signed with the name "Havac". S'funny. Karohalva
      • Why isn't that put on the welcome page? That's the policy at this very moment. Cull Tremayne 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • So it is already there? In that case short-term bans of violators is quite within the rules. Singe a few hindquarters if needed but don't outlaw userpage fanon. Too much falls under that category. Where would it end? Karohalva
          • It would end with us being an online encyclopedia, not MySpace or somewhere where people can post their (in most cases utterly terrible) fanon. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, and utterly devoid of any humor at all. Under the "Zero tolerance" policy, Darth Culator's fictitional bio will be deleted, as will his crazy theories. Also, the Star Wars dreams will vanish, etc. ad nauseum. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Jokes are one thing. Inane fanon bios are something else entirely. There's an entire wiki for that. If the writing of vast joke pages becomes widespread enough that it becomes the focus of people's contributions rather than the wiki itself, we will deal with that then. That has not yet happened. With fanon, it has. Yes, this is a community. But you know what it is, primarily? It is a project. It is an encyclopedia. It is a group of people coming together to create and improve articles on Star Wars. It is not a social network except insofar as such things develop within a group project. If you're coming here to network or to work on your fanon, you don't belong here. Not because we hate you or are exclusivist bastards, but because that is not the purpose of this site. The moment we start putting the community first and the project second, we cease to be Wookieepedia and we become TFN with a slightly larger CUSWE in the back somewhere that you can maybe edit if you feel like it. Now, I'm sure some folks will come and say, "But that's mean! I love hanging out on User:BuddyPal's talk page!" To which I reply, if that's the only thing keeping you here, if the only thing that gets you to contribute to this wiki is chatting it up with the guy whose MySpace you could just as easily post on, what the hell are you doing here? Why do you need us? Why do we need you? And if you'll still be here regardless of whether you can write fanon or not, then you'll stay here and your fanon will go to the fanon wiki and no one will have a problem. If you're not here to contribute, then you can get the hell off the boat. This is a collaborative project to edit and improve entires on Star Wars topics. This isn't MySpace, it isn't a news site, it isn't a social site, it isn't a replacement for every other damn web site you want to surf all rolled into one, and the delusion that it is, that it's not an encyclopedia, that it's TFN 2.0 Now With Improved CUSWE -- that's the biggest thing currently threatening to screw the entire project over. Does that upset some people? Good. I hope it does. And then I hope they actually take a good long look at just why they're here. Havac 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
                • When it comes to those textbook examples who do nothing but edit their fanon, you are right or course, Havac. But what about the ones in between fanon artist and editors? As you say, the project comes first. Why then not permit fanwank which nobody ever notices unless they actively search for it in return for real edits, no matter how small? This is where your argument fails, man. We've discussed this before, and you (you as in the no-side) have made it painfully clear that it is a matter of principle (Wookieepedia isn't MySpace) rather than any concerns for "the project" which fuels your anti-fanon campaign. And that is fine, BTW. Everyone has opinions. But don't pretend you (again plural) care more about the project than those principles so you can harvest votes. It makes you look Wiki-laywerish. As an aside to that, if the project really held more importance than the community, we would have given rules violators leeway based on contribs. We don't. DarthMRN 09:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'll give you a pass because it's clear you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Havac 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • I shouldn't have to give a civility warning to a fellow admin, Havac. Tone it down. jSarek 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • I'm rather tired of MRN continually telling me how he can somehow see inside my head and expose my eeeeevil ulterior motives. He's going to tell me what I do or don't care about? Unless he's in my head, he can shut the hell up. I'm sick of it. Havac 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • That doesn't sound like a denial to me. Anyway, you get your wish, because we both exhausted all arguments the last time around, which everyone are free to read in the Fanon go Boom CT. Except this new one you tried to pull, which I have now drawn into question. Thus I am back to zero and will shut up until something new pops up. DarthMRN 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per I need a name. Adamwankenobi 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. I just don't see the "problem" that fanon inherently causes. Why should Gonk get a giant "rant" subpage when another user can't have a short fanon bio? Are we going to ban all fanon, but let Riffsyphon have 17 subpages? Do we really want to delete User:Sikon/Mozilla Firefox|Sikon's page? How is a page about the dreams we have about Star Wars any more productive than fanon? --LtNOWIS 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • LtNOWIS's points are quite valid. Also, a more precise approach, such as refining the non-Main edit policies and stressing WP:NOT would be much more effective. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Identify which of Riff's subpages are unrelated to the recording and/or analysis of canon and mark them for deletion. I plan to delete my one fanon subpage if this goes through. Hell, I'll delete it now. But my other subpages are all related to the project, which, in case you've all forgotten, is an encyclopedia of canon. I have no opposition to subpages which help us organize our personal strategies for chronicling canon. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, as I said, activities are dealt with as they reach the point at which they need dealing with. We're attempting to curtail users who devote more effort to their userpages than they do to the wiki. When guestbooks became emblematic of this kind of user, we banned them. Fanon is emblematic of this kind of user and fairly widespread; we're saying now it's time to ban that too. Jokes, rant pages, whatever -- I've yet to see any of those where it looks as if the user spends any significant proportion of his Wookieepedia time working on that. If we get to the point where large, frequently edited, meticulously argued rant pages become a common problem, then I say we start a vote on those. But as it stands, there is an entire wiki, featuring much the same community of fanoneers, in existence for exactly this purpose. If we had users who tried to make a Transformers wiki out of user subpages, wouldn't we say to them, "Hey, that's not what we're for, take it to the existing Transformers wiki?" Havac 18:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. i like my User page the way it is all colourfull and welcoming including the rather short fanon section IT WONT CHANGE Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 10:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • One) You're userpage will change if this goes through. Two) That is hardly a good reason. Your current fanon subpage is a mirror of your fanon wiki userpage, 'cept it only has a couple of "chapters" and then links to swfanon. Why can't you link to swfanon on your userpage instead of linking to your subpage? -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I am for having a tiny fanon profile, but against having fanon stories on it. If I want to read fanon stories, I'd go to the fanon wiki. However, I do think it is interesting to see a small user fanon character profile, as it gives a peak into what a users true interests are in SW. This is something that should basically be wrote early on in 1-2 edits, and then rarely ever touched again. If there's enough to warrant a label proclaiming it as fanon, then it's too much. Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC) You know what? Screw it. After witnessing the childish behavior of the some of the admins on this board and receiving threats about it, I find that I really couldn't care less what happens here policy wise anymore. I was under the mistaken belief that you guys would try to represent a fair and impartial system here, but I clearly see now that this place has been as trashed by shifty politics and power mongering admins as most other places are. That's too bad. I don't really have enough of an invested interest in this place to really care anymore. Make your totalitarian policies and ban the hell out of all the innocent contributors that you wish. You are only hurting yourselves by doing so. If by some miracle this vote doesn't pass in favor I might stick around. Otherwise I'm gone. I've only been here for a little over a month and all I've had is bad experiences one after the other since I've been here. So whatever. Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well. That's a whiny, annoying flounce if I ever seen one. Don't let the door hit you on your way out. Honestly. If this vote goes through that we ban all fanon, do we really want people like...this...contributing to this wiki anyway? --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly my point. Couldn't have asked for better proof. And btw ever here the saying pot calling the kettle black. If you can't show more respect for your fellow board members then you are making a mockery of yourself and the system you are representing as an admin.Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 04:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • That's the thing. I'm not an admin. I don't represent Wookieepedia. And if my fellow board members act the way you do, then they don't deserve any respect from me. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 04:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Not only is he not an admin, but he's just gotten a week of bannination for calling someone a "whiny, annoying flounce." jSarek 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per Ataru. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. No! Because most of the prats you send over to SWF end up getting banned a few days later. All they do is spoil SWF and that does little for SWF's image. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 16:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As if SWF has a good image to begin with...--RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • And what the heck does that have to do with anything, anyway? Then they get banned. "Let them crap up this wiki instead of the one where they belong, but which I like more," just doesn't seem very compelling. Havac 18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It's better than your image Redemption. And Havac, they don't belong on SWF. SWF is for writers who imagination expands the Star Wars universe, not prats like those you send over, who believe in vandalising a wiki. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I for one prefer Redemption to Star Wars Fanon, though that's neither here or there. You're reason still "doesn't seem very compelling" as Havac put it, and mouthing off at Redemption hasn't rectified that. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
            • WEll to be honest, I couldn't care less what you prefer AdmirableAckbar. And I wasn't trying to rectifie anything by mouthing off Redemption, I just wanted felt like doing it. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't want to drag this out and waste more space with useless comments, but SWfanon really mustn't have too great an image if one of their admins can come out with comments like that. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Well if you understood why I'm not particularly keen on Redemption, you wouldn't blame me. And as Redmeption and other Wookieepedians always say, a users views don't represent those of the wiki. So don't take my comments as meaning SWF has a bad image. Jasca Ducato Sith Council 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I can understand entirely why you aren't particularly keen on Redemeption, and although a user's views don't represent the wiki, admins pretty much do. I'm assuming you were elected as an admin at SWfanon, so you do represent the community, unlike Redemption. Anyway, this is completely off topic. If you want to discuss it further, please leave me a message on my talk page. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • ...Except that SWF does have a bad image...and I say this as a (non-active) admin of the site. I admit that they are trying to rectify that, but the actions that community has made in the past (especially in regard to vandals) have left a big black mark on them. As for the "prats" we send over...well, we can stop referring people to SWF, and that community will stagnate. Your call. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "Because most of the prats you send over to SWF end up getting banned a few days later. All they do is spoil SWF..." Wow, generalize much? Really, Jasca, that argument holds about as must water as a Tatooinian rain gauge with a hole in the bottom. -- Ozzel 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Find something constructive to make policy about (consider this a neutral vote) (+3)

  1. "...failure of the 'edit number cap' thing" ??? If they are under that cap, it shouldn't bother you. And if you don't want to see it, don't look at it. I hate fanon with a passion but I ignore it. As long as it's in the user space, it's not hurting anybody. I'd like to vote "Yes" just to not have to hear about it again. But I think a better way would be to add talking about fanon in the CT to the bannable offenses because we've rehashed this so many times. Just leave it alone for goodness sake. We've wasted more time coming up with policies than anybody has spent enforcing them. And they've probably caused the people enforcing them to spend more time worrying about fanon than and less time making constructive edits to the main namespace than if everyone who didn't want to see fanon just ignored it. (end rant). Wildyoda 15:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    Good point. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Userpage fanon is like masturbation. There's nothing inherently wrong with it (provided you don't do it all the time) and I'm not going to prohibit somebody from doing it. But I don't wanna see it. That said, I think our current policy is effective, but I vote here to signal my support for ending CTs like this one. The next one should just be deleted. Gonk (Gonk!) 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't that just about the same thing as an "oppose" opinion? Should that side win, we stick with our current policy AFAIK. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • If I may quote our newest bureaucrat jSarek (hopefully within his intention) from the last thread: "I think the limits on userpage edits meet our goals sufficiently at this time. If it turns out they don't, we can revisit this later." That is exactly what I have done. The number limit idea didn't work out because the numbers we ended up with were way too high, and all that aside, the whole idea of counting and whatnot is just a waste of admins' time. In fact, this is just what Wildyoda was saying, except that it's our current policies (or lack thereof) that are the problem. Zero tolerance of fanon would mean far less trouble for the admins; you can see this in the number admins supporting this idea. -- Ozzel 02:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Bah! While we're at it, let's just have plain sigs and a generic userpage template for everyone. That would mean "far less trouble for the admins"- we'd know instantly which users were violating sig and userpage policy. Heck, if we want to take it really far, let's not have images on the Wookiee either. Then we don't have to worry about unsourced images. BAH! Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
          • You had me until the images thing. -- Ozzel 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Ozzel, if this CT was raised as an answer to the last solution not working properly, you should have said so at the top, and more importantly, provided a new compromise to vote for. The Zero Tolerance solution obviosuly isn't what the community wants, so then it remains to find a new solution that works and which everyone can agree upon. DarthMRN 11:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Fourteen to Seven (so far) says not so obvious. Thefourdotelipsis 12:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
                • No, but 1 + 1 to 0 (so far) does. DarthMRN 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I love it when this type of thing devolves into childish attempts to be obvious about something. Greyman(Paratus) 16:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • Ataru, I'll take your point about planning to "revisit later", but I also agree with MRN that that wasn't how this was presented. If somebody wants to lower the count, then that (a fix to the smaller policy problem) should have been brought up rather than this (a "fix" to the lager fanon problem). And I'll also agree that voting "No" is the same since policy would stay the same, but this is my way of saying we shouldn't be voting on total fanon elimination again at all, obnoxious as that may make me sound. Wildyoda 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. I've just discovered how much I really love Gonk ;-) Oh, and I don't care about fanon on user pages. KEJ 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Refine current policies (another neutral vote) (+12)

I value Wookieepedia as a place where I can produce valuable work as a writer as well as provide accurate information to Star Wars fans who want to know more about anything related to Star Wars. I value professionalism on the site as well as cooperation between users to improve the articles.

I really do hate fanon with all the hate in my cold, black heart, and the fact that there are users on this wiki for reasons other than working on the improvement and creation of canonical or relevant articles offends me. I'd really like to see all of it go, but the absolute measures being called for seem heavy-handed. Previous attempts to resolve this issue have done little more than alienate a small number of users at the time, with very little in terms of preventative measures. Users who signed on (or became active, like myself) after these attempts can easily claim ignorance of the rules if an admin doesn't lay them out for them.

I'm not going to fight dirty like the Opposition Party on this CT, by pointing out examples of what else has to go on the pages of good users (such as Ozzel and User:Graestan/scratchpad|myself) if this policy is to be put into place. Instead, I propose an inquest to find more effective means of dealing with users who edit little more than their own userpages and the talk pages of other users. The official policies under Wookieepedia:What Wookieepedia is not really do capture the essence of my idea. I am of the opinion that these policies can be revised, as well as much more effectively enforced, to achieve the desired results.

  • Ouch. That actually hurt my feelings (seriously). I don't consider what I did fighting dirty at all. All I was doing was making sure that users understood the full implications of Zero Tolerance, as I know damn well that is how at least a few of the admins that voted for it would treat it, and they then confirmed my suspicions. I've been an admin on user boards for nearly 10 years now, so I know how moderators and admins think when it comes to board policy. Anytime a policy is implemented that allows the use of extreme measures, at least 2-3 will invariably take it to that extreme. And when they do, no one else can say a thing about it because it has become policy and they are well within their rights to do so. One board that I was helping to run was nearly destroyed by one such case. And I have a habit of learning from my past mistakes. I wasn't fighting dirty, I was trying to protect those in favor from casting a vote that could end up hurting them without them realizing said potential. If you don't allow the possibility of the extreme, then no one can take it there, and I would fully support a system that would do just that. I would be overjoyed to add my name to the bottom 'In support of finding a more efficient system,' as I said nearly the exact same thing in my opposition vote, only I fear that taking my name from the opposition may allow the Zero Tolerance policy to pass.Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 06:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, this is politics. Only reason I haven't made this vote option already, and put mine in it, is because that would bring the yes-side so much closer to victory. That is what happens when a CT is started on flawed premises. So here we are: I vote no, an no consensus will be reached. I re-vote for this one, and the yes-side wins. I try to make a new CT for this with an actual attempt to reach a compromise, and I will be shot down for trying to amend policy which has just been beaten to death. Ozzel has inadvertantly created a situation where Fanon is either completely eradicated, or the flawed policies in place remain that way. This vote option has come too late. DarthMRN 12:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you serious? You honestly think I didn't realize that if the "no" votes won, the current flawed policies would stay in place? You really need to quit accusing people of things they did not do and making assumptions about others' intentions. The only thing I didn't intend was this silly adding of more "options" after the fact that often manages to creep in and kill a vote. If you support it, vote yes. If you object, vote no. And if neither one of those is good for you, then you don't have to vote. How hard is that? If you want some sort of magic number that you think makes fanon here okay, then by all means, make your own CT, but don't crap all over this one. -- Ozzel 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please keep all expressions of opinions within the guidelines of Wookieepedia:Civility. And Ozzel, it's within common practice to add third or fourth options to CTs as compromises or alternate solutions. They are often more popular, realistic, and should not be discouraged nor accused of "killing a vote." Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, the practice is fairly common, and it is becoming increasingly frowned upon by a number of admins. But that's for another CT. The problem here is, this was a simple vote. It was yes or no, with the no being "not yes." If you don't want to ban fanon completely, then you vote no. If you think we should take some other course, then you're welcome to propose an alternate policy. But new numbers for admins to have to deal with is not what this about. It's about getting rid of fanon completely or not. With that in mind, then yes, the alternate options have indeed ruined this vote. This means the issue will continue to plague us until the day when fanon here is finally put to rest, something that the vocal minority will obviously continue to fight. -- Ozzel 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In support of finding a more efficient system

  1. Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Assuming it's OK to cast two neutral votes. I am all for altering the ratio of useful/not-useful edits to be more strict... if that is indeed what I'm voting for here :) Gonk (Gonk!) 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. What about instituting a word-count limit on fan fiction? 250 words seems to be more than enough to put forward your imaginary persona and provide a link to some fanfic or roleplaying site. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'd rather none at all, but seeing as though this is going nowhere, 250 words sounds good. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 13:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC) (changed my mind...again)
  5. I could see a different policy, but not this silly "zero tolerance" draconian stuff. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Vote. Thanks to jSarek for pointing out the errors of my ways.Bah, Ataru voted both for against and this one, so I will too. If one has to be voided though, make it this one. I would rather support this one, but not if it means the Zero Tolerance one goes through. Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 13:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Fanon goes against the entire point of Wookieepedia, and the less we can have of it, the better. But I'm also against the idea of people not being able to do what they want with their own userpage (otherwise why have them in the first place?). I'm all for limiting fanon as much as possible, but if people want a little just to make their userpages a little more unique, I'm fine with that. The 95 Headhunter (radio) (mission log) 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. I strongly object to a Zero Tolerance Policy, but it is obvious that the current system is not working as well as we want it to, so we need to find a more efficient system. I'd say we should come up with a one or more suggestions, the 250 word limit is a good start. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. I need a name (Complain here) 19:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Something better. -Fnlayson 04:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Revise the old system. Drop the limit on the number of edits and simply state, "No more than 25 % of edit total should be user page at any given time". If they're notified and then still don't comply, just ban them or protect their page or whatever. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Oh, not this again...Unit 8311 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Wait, so we have a "problem", yet the community has repeatedly stated in the past that it's not a problem in overwhelming terms?? 9_9 Now that makes sense. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Damn you Ataru, that's exactly what I was about to say...:) anyway, I agree with DarthMRN that we need some sort of middle compromise, to make it fair. Unit 8311 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I think "middle ground" is the policy we currently have. Wildyoda 15:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you Exhibit A: A user's Wookieepedia contributions vs. the same user's Fanon Wiki contributions. Someone, please, tell me why this is a good thing for Wookieepedia. -- Ozzel 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not. This guy should be booted. However, cases less severe than his do contribute to the wiki, and the list of reasons for why it is a bad thing for us is as short as the one with good things. This just isn't worth our attention. DarthMRN 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What about accidental fanon? What I mean to say is, when entering otherwise canon information, what if a user slips up and goes a bit too far, thus ending up with a touch of inaccurate information that may be considered fanon? I don't want to see otherwise useful contributors banned because they inadvertently assumed some minor detail was true if it is not backed by canon information. Does that make sense? ;o)--Goodwood 19:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think this refers to using one's user page to write long-form fanfic, not to accidentally putting inaccurate information in the main article space. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. In that case, I support. This ain't a MySpace.--Goodwood 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Let us remember that canon is just fanon which the Lucas gang paid for. On second thought... ignore that comment. Karohalva the Fur-jawed

As I mentioned above I have no problems with a small fanon user profile, but I think when someone starts writing stories on their user pages, that's when people have a problem. The extent of my personal fanon profile is a simple infobox (I don't care if anyone looks at it, I like to see it myself), but I see nothing wrong with having 3-4 short paragraphs summarizing a fanon background for the user. I think rather than having a complete no holds barred ban on all fanon, that a more solid limit should be determined. Give a specific amount of space that can be devoted to a user fanon profile and emphasize that it should not be a story. It should have no dialogue outside of a quote, and give an example of what it should look like. If someone starts turning their brief profile into a drawn out history, issue a warning, tell them to scale it back, make sure they understand what exactly you want from them, and then give them a temp ban if they don't cooperate. Yes we are all here for a project as Wookieepedians, but first and foremost we are Star Wars geeks. The name of our game is emersion. We are not happy to sit back and simply watch the movies or read the books, we want more, we want to be a part of the universe. Thus a little fanon profile helps to fulfill that ultimate fantasy. Personally I couldn't give a dogs leg (don't ask) where you are really from, what you look like, or how many pizzas you can put away in a single sitting. If you work on this site constantly, chances are your outside life is probably pretty boring. If it weren't you wouldn't have time to be here, nor would you want to be here. Thus I don't care about your real life, as it has nothing to do with Star Wars, which is why we are here. If however you have on your user profile that you are a Bith force user raised in a secret temple on Hoth, that interests me as it gives me a little look into what you enjoy about Star Wars. It tells me why you are really here and what you can bring to Wookiepedia. *Steps down* Livingston File:Jedi Order2.jpg|25px (The Force will be with you. Always.) 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)