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. jSarek 05:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
LtNOWIS and I have been noticing several instances in which users of a younger generation are continuing to slip through the cracks of our watchful eyes. Certain users that treat this site like Myspace rather than being helpful are again increasing in numbers or making themselves known again. Per Forum:CT:Excessive useless edits, after 500 user page edits and having less than 100 article/mainspace edits, they should be warned. Some are also openly violating COPPA. Others are just becoming downright annoying.
Additionally, there have been entire sections of talk pages devoted to off-topic subjects such as Maria Sharapova. Plus users are now apparently awarding other users Wookiee-Cookies simply for being friends or some other thing that relates nothing to Wookieepedia or helping the wiki in any form. LtNOWIS is currently making a list of users that violate these and other policies on Wookiee, at least to be warned and if not effective for further action to be taken.
The forecoming list only includes users that have consistently violated policy on this site, not those that may have in the past but have since stopped. Though Lt's list may be short, other users are encouraged to come forward with complaints about users they may have had. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, Kitfistorulz (talk, edit count, contributons) Starkiller1996 (t, e, c), Clonetroop125 (t, e, c), and General Grham (t, e, c) all have main namespace edits as less than 6% of their total edits. -LtNOWIS 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- 1) COPPA may not be something we should be worrying about after all; see Forum:Issues of age and identity. 2) Are these users meeting at least the letter of our policies? If not, strike with great vengeance. If so, let them be, but if it seems the rules are lacking, raise the issue in a fresh CT (so Ataru can vote against it on grounds of instruction creep :-p). jSarek 06:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, someone's got to oppose instruction creep. :-P I think that we should be reminded of Forum:CT:Single issue voters and the mess that became. I also think that basically anyone with less than 500 edits is pretty much "flying under the radar"- they're not really worth the time and effort to track down, kind of like the idea of having police officers hunt down and arrest every single traffic violator. And I agree with JSarek's two points. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- As a fairly regular traffic violator, that actually makes sense to me. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, someone's got to oppose instruction creep. :-P I think that we should be reminded of Forum:CT:Single issue voters and the mess that became. I also think that basically anyone with less than 500 edits is pretty much "flying under the radar"- they're not really worth the time and effort to track down, kind of like the idea of having police officers hunt down and arrest every single traffic violator. And I agree with JSarek's two points. Atarumaster88
- All of those users have less than 500 edits total so are not going against policy as it stands, even if they are clearly against the spirit of that policy. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Alright guys, so it's not a big issue then. I do get bugged by certain things on here though and thought something could be done. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's simple. We need to reduce the ridiculously high 500-edit prerequisite. 100 or 200 edits is enough for a user to establish a clear pattern. We might also consider a time limit -- they're open for discipline after 200 edits or three months, whichever comes first. Something like that. Currently, though, watching clear violators skate by on a technicality with 97% of their 300 edits being to their userpage is just ridiculous. Havac 00:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I like the limiting of the number from 500 to 200. With some people, you just know that they are only interested in one thing. -- SFH 01:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- So, what's the exact proposal (so we can get a consensus going)? Lowering the edit count from 500 to 200 and establishing a time limit? --Redemption
Talk 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would say an edit count, as some might not manage the time limit for whatever reason. Unit 8311 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- How about for ratio? Just keep it at 100? --RedemptionTalk 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's suppose we put the edit count at 100 edits minimum. A 50% userpage edit percentage would place it at 50 edits for userpage against 50 elsewhere (Wookieepedia namespace, Forum namespace, all talk pages, and mainspace). That is probably higher than it should be, because of how much edits are specifically pointed at one category (User). As for a vote, I say go for it, but keep the ratios strict and low. Jorrel
Fraajic 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have an idea. For users who keep editing their userpage and violting these rules, instead of simply banning them and putting them off editing, why not simply lock their userpage from them? Unit 8311 12:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, let's suppose we put the edit count at 100 edits minimum. A 50% userpage edit percentage would place it at 50 edits for userpage against 50 elsewhere (Wookieepedia namespace, Forum namespace, all talk pages, and mainspace). That is probably higher than it should be, because of how much edits are specifically pointed at one category (User). As for a vote, I say go for it, but keep the ratios strict and low. Jorrel
- How about for ratio? Just keep it at 100? --Redemption
- I would say an edit count, as some might not manage the time limit for whatever reason. Unit 8311 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's already been done, implemented, and all that stuff months ago. I don't really support lowering the "minimum number to attract the attention of sharp-eyed mods" below 300, because frankly, admin time is better spent improving articles than being the "Brute Squad" (Yes, that's a reference to The Princess Bride.) I will now throw out another shameless plug for all of you to go improve our articles, maybe write a GA or FA, instead of caring so much about something that we specifically state we care so little about: userpage edits. I mean, until it gets obscenely overdone and they're flagrantly violating the rules, who really cares? Hide userpage edits in RC, turn up the music in your head, and never click on their userpage link, and you will be perfectly isolated from the stuff that's placed there. I don't go around looking at other people's userpages and I don't expect people to go around looking at mine. Unless they're bored, in which case, my userpage won't help them very much in solving that problem. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ataru's got a point... Chack Jadson 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody ever said it was a good one though. Truth is, why should we offer a place for these morons to hang out if they aren't contributing anything? It's more of a dignity thing. This isn't MySpace. By not enforcing that to the best of your ability, your encouraging it. And truth is, when people upload idiotic images for their userpages, I still have to see them and I'd prefer not to. --RedemptionTalk 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ataru, you know I write plenty of FAs. For me, it's a matter of principle and of the type of user we want to attract and have active in the community. If you come here just to write fanfic and ask inappropriate questions in the Senate, you're not contributing, just taking up space. You're a leech. And while you may not actively, visibly be "hurting" anything, is that any call to tolerate the MySpacification of Wookieepedia? It distracts massively from the purpose of this enterprise, and that's reason enough. Should the police refuse to enforce traffic laws when they see a car doing 75 in a 55 simply because there might be a thief out there somewhere they could maybe be doing something about? Having the ability to turn a blind eye (and whether one truly can ignore it is very arguable) does not mean one must exercise that ability. Wookieepedia is not MySpace. It's in the rules. What's so mean and evil about actually enforcing the rules we have? God forbid someone's feelings might be hurt. Havac 02:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody ever said it was a good one though. Truth is, why should we offer a place for these morons to hang out if they aren't contributing anything? It's more of a dignity thing. This isn't MySpace. By not enforcing that to the best of your ability, your encouraging it. And truth is, when people upload idiotic images for their userpages, I still have to see them and I'd prefer not to. --Redemption
- Ataru's got a point... Chack Jadson 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that we should want the "MySpacification" of Wookieepedia in any way, shape, or form. I'm not saying we should toss out our WP:NOT and our pointing budding fanonists to SWFanon. I'm not trying to say that our admins don't do work-they do loads, that's why they're admins. My point is that there's no need to make the admins into Big Brothers (insert 1984 reference here) and Sisters, in Star's and Breathes's case. Here's what I see: User comes up and asks pointless questions on talk pages and in the SH. User writes big long hammy fanon on his userpage. User is ignored completely except by other people of similarly low cranial content and main namespace edit percentages. That's the way to deal with people who don't want to make the Wookiee better. Banning is reserved for vandals/trolls. Locking, sure, but banning is harsh. Then, when this pointless user hits a reasonable bench-mark of pointless edits, they are dealt with appropriately. That's how it should be, IMHO. We've already had CTs multiple times on banning fanon. The result was always the same- a little bit is tolerable. It's getting to the point where I'm beginning to wonder if a certain few users are trying to game the system and get CTs passed to get around other CTs. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I just don't see the point in saying, "Don't do this," and then saying, "If you do this, whatever, we don't really care." Either you're here to contribute or you're not. And if you're not here to contribute . . . I'm sorry, but we have no use for you and I don't see why we should be supporting your personal MyWookieeSpace network with a bunch of similarly-minded doofuses. Saying, "We're a Star Wars encyclopedia, but if you want to come use our space to write fanon and network with other people," seems pretty stupid to me. I don't see why saying, "Contribute or leave," is such a horrible ultimatum. Would we look past people who register and make userpages solely to coordinate their school science project with each other online? Sure, I suppose it's not ripping out my vital organs or anything, but it's total abuse of the system, and I the only argument against telling people not to abuse the system so far seems to be either "ZOMG controversy feelings hurt OMG I don't want to get involved and be mean telling the kids to get off my lawn," or "Ah, I don't care enough about it to stand up on the principle, let's just ignore it," neither of which I find at all compelling. Havac 06:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, yes, this is the Internet and people's self esteem should not be tied to whatever happens online, but I think you are downplaying WP:NPA, which is designed to prevent edit/flame wars by advocating people not hurting each others feelings, however childish that may sound. Second, you practically admit that you are gaming the system to stop people from gaming the system. Oh, the irony. ;) Third, I've never advocated supporting "MyWookieeSpace" and I suspect it's something we'll battle as long as we exist and there are morons that have access to the Internet. You may recall that I started the original CT to place a limit on useless edits. Fourth, I don't want this to scare off potential users.
- Well, I just don't see the point in saying, "Don't do this," and then saying, "If you do this, whatever, we don't really care." Either you're here to contribute or you're not. And if you're not here to contribute . . . I'm sorry, but we have no use for you and I don't see why we should be supporting your personal MyWookieeSpace network with a bunch of similarly-minded doofuses. Saying, "We're a Star Wars encyclopedia, but if you want to come use our space to write fanon and network with other people," seems pretty stupid to me. I don't see why saying, "Contribute or leave," is such a horrible ultimatum. Would we look past people who register and make userpages solely to coordinate their school science project with each other online? Sure, I suppose it's not ripping out my vital organs or anything, but it's total abuse of the system, and I the only argument against telling people not to abuse the system so far seems to be either "ZOMG controversy feelings hurt OMG I don't want to get involved and be mean telling the kids to get off my lawn," or "Ah, I don't care enough about it to stand up on the principle, let's just ignore it," neither of which I find at all compelling. Havac 06:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me ask a question to those opposed to my view: Which is more important to you: Welcoming users or restricting users? We've seen how users (you know who you are) can be hostile and intimidate and bully anons, so how much more so would a hostile community atmosphere? I would never say that we have enough active users, and it's important, IMEHO, for the community to welcome new members and offer them a bit of leeway. Let's just keep what we've got and if we need to tweak the rules to lower the minimum number of edits, so be it, but let's not start a whole new round of deleting user pages by saying "You are only here to contribute to our articles and don't you dare do anything else."
Finally, I still maintain that the primary purpose of an admin is not to enforce userpage restrictions. If someone wanted to have an RFA with his/her primary reason for wanting to be an admin to "enforce stronger user page restrictions", I would be a little skeptical. Maybe it's a difference between my servant view of administration as opposed to the authority view some others have. (See a certain Wikimedia essay) Btw, the site is in no danger of "running out of space," so while the kiddies and social bugs are wasting space, it's still not a big deal. Atarumaster88 
(Talk page) 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything?..... -- Riffsyphon1024 05:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Something like this would come up eventually as long as there are people wasting time MyWookieeSpacing and there are users/admins who use the CT system to overrule previous threads. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's kind of the nature of a dynamic system where rules are always up for debate. I agree that it's bad form to try the same thing over and over again constantly, but there's nothing wrong with coming along a few months after something is implemented and saying, "I don't think it's working like it should," or, "I think we can see this never should have been done in the first place now that we've seen it in action." Or with modifying your proposal and trying again. We're still in our first years. It's to be expected that we'll go back and forth on issues until we get them right. Havac 05:40, 24 June 2007