Forum:Behavioral and leniency issues

Forums: Index > Help desk > Behavioral and leniency issues

Wikia's forums are a place for the community to discuss subjects with other members. Remember sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~
Click here to edit page

---Notice: My intent was not to start a war, only to fix a significant problem. Also, I never said I wanted to "Outlaw all the blogs and disable comments and destroy the wiki." Be wary of lies and rumors.---

I have been observing this wiki for the past month and have noticed several issues, mainly dealing with blogs and bloggers, and the extreme leniency in dealing with issues. The main people that are problems even stated themselves that admins give them a myriad of warnings but never actually act upon the warnings. They also state that they can do whatever they want because they won't get punished. The Recent Wiki Activity page is often spammed with blog comments containing massive amounts of swearing and improper/useless images (some even reference illegal drug use). I'm pretty much baffled that this has been going on for so long and nobody has attempted to rectify it. Because nobody else is stepping up to the plate, I'm taking the first pitch (Oh, the clichè!). I'm not quite sure how this problem became so deeply rooted in the wiki. I just want sensible people's opinions. Do you think there is a problem? If yes, why is it not being dealt with? Why hasn't it been dealt with the past few months... years (I don't know how long it's been a problem)?

I would also like to point out that many of the users that regularly contribute to blogs have nigh negligent relative mainspace edits. This suggests that blogs do not have the betterment of the wiki; rather, it suggests that it is just another form of social media that usually doesn't have much to do with improving the wiki. SaberSworn 16:09, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, please do look into this matter. Quite frankly, the past couple of months have been increasing in the amount of spam, and trolling that I have seen even prior to making this current account. When I log on and check the recent activity page, all I see are pages of blog posts and comments with content/topics completely unrelated to Adventure Time (Most Wikis I'm on disabled blogs and they function way better). Most of the users on them are people who don't contribute to diddly. It is getting hard not to see one of the many children going on and trying to place all their personal and emotional problems into this wiki. They are warping this wiki into a social networking site, when this is a wiki. We are here to put up the best darn encyclopedia... not our personal issues. If they want to be personal go on to facespace or livejournal to blog their problems. True Sephiroth 16:14, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

You have just opened Pandora's box. Do you have any idea what you are getting yourself into here? On the other hand, you are the first person to ever take this so seriously. In months, nobody else seemed to bother. What makes you think the others will care? If anything you'll end up making the wiki a less fun place to hang around. It is gonna cost the wiki a lot of visitors. Is that what you want? Marcaline 16:18, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

If those users tend to be disruptive and do not tend to contribute to the wiki's wellbeing, then why would they be here? This isn't FB. This is the Adventure Time Wiki. This place isn't meant to deal with people's emotional and social problems and other stuff, that's what FaceBook and those other sites are for (which I don't even have accounts for). This place is meant for Adventure Time. SaberSworn 16:33, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

This site was started with that purpose, you are right in that. But his changed, evolved, into the place it now is. Changing it would not do the site any good and would make a lot of awesome people abandon the site. Then it would just be another geek-convention again where there is no place for interaction, communication or humour. You are destroying the site that so many people love and the only reason you are doing that is because you yourself do not like it. Marcaline 16:36, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

People that YOU think are awesome are NOT people who I think are awesome, I can almost assure you. And if it changed from AT --> what it is now, then why can't it change back? If change is a bad thing, then why did it happen in the first place? That's a double standard. And when many blog users break the rules with impunity, you know there's something wrong... or at least you SHOULD. SaberSworn 16:44, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's not like the world ends when you break a rule. Or two. Or three... because it doesn't, take my word for it. People might smile. They might laugh. Or get pissed. But it's no disaster. Why fix something that isn't broken? What you see as fixing, I see as destroying something that works perfectly fine. You can oil an old bike and make it ride again, you don't have to throw it in the river. Where's the logic in that? Marcaline 16:51, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

The old bike has been oiled for months and months now. I think people might start to realize that a brand new, shiny, clean bike is better than an old, rusted, beat up one. SaberSworn 16:53, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, SS, Marcaline has been here WAY longer then you so I assure you that she's pretty awesome :3 "That's the Way...U MAD?

I'm personally tired of this wiki being a heaven for trolls and spam. No wonder the AT crew looks down upon it, if it isn't the speculation running in the articles, it is the users believing their behavior is justifiable. -- Bunai82 ^(talk) 20:16, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Same here. When I first created my account, almost a year ago, this Wiki was a troll-free community all about Adventure Time, with awesome users and admins, but unfortunately, that Wiki is long gone. Nowadays, this place is just a troll-heaven where trolls fill up the Recent Wiki Activity, and these people need to learn this is a site about Adventure Time, not some place for "awesome" trolls to hang out. I personally think this Code of Conduct is a great idea, these trolls need to be punished for their behavior, and their behavior DOES NOT make this Wiki "fun." What ever happened to the friendly AT community that existed a few months ago? No wonder the AT crew hates us.

The Fire Rises 22:27, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I started suggesting this. I'm not sure how it got that bad, but it can be cleaned up with enough effort if there is the will to do it. SaberSworn 22:42, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing, I hope it will help this Wiki regain its former self.

The Fire Rises 22:45, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if we are still referring to this file I don't know how everyone is so thoroughly convinced the staff doesn't like us. To me it seems clear she is being sarcastic - the person asked her a really stupid question and she is making fun of that. Maybe I'm not seeing all the evidence, but I really think we're going to need more than that file to assume we're being viewed as a bad group of editors.

That said, I do agree trolls do not belong here. What I think we should be discussing is what exactly cleaning up means in terms of content. Flame Prince Finn

There's another time a staff member said they didn't like our wiki... I can't seem to find where though. Still, it seems reasonable that they would think so by just looking at our Activity page and seeing what goes on. SaberSworn 02:51, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Natasha (Natazilla on Formspring) said she wasn't a big fan of this wiki but that was months ago and it was because she edited an article and her edits were reverted. She never mentioned the blogs. And if you're gonna "clean up" users, I'm kinda curious how that will go down. Are you guys gonna clean me up too? Marcaline 08:24, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

We're just talking about actually enforcing a few now-existent rules. Do you really need "trolling," "spam," and "excessive adult language" that much? Granted my wording was a bit odd, but I'm just saying certain people are regularly more excessive in the aforementioned things than others. I'm going to go ahead and fix that because it is silly. Flame Prince Finn 08:53, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a super bad idea to get rid of some of the rotten apples, no. But I'll hope you will go easy when it comes to deleting blogs, files & comments from the past. Usually, when a new law is passed, stuff that happened before that do not fall under it. Ya dig? Marcaline 08:59, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

You say that, but you are unaware of ex post facto laws :P

I'm personally fine with not deleting blogstuffs from the past, I guess. I would say that the file is "unused" in principle, but if it is on a page still and isn't profane I can't really say a good reason it should be removed. Flame Prince Finn 05:39, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

http://www.formspring.me/ColeSanchez/q/319673263795997646

Thankfully Cole actually likes us still, everyone go ask him questions about the episodes he voice acted in since he seemed to like that lol ƒelinoel. 18:46, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Some agreement

I definitely think there is way too much leniency in dealing with blog posts, and up until very recently the chat as well. It seems that when a user is angry nobody wants to take action because they know it would make them angrier. I believe this was partially due to the lack of a clear code of conduct, so I would like to think that there will be a bit more control over those things now. I guess all I'm saying is if we're claiming to be PG we shouldn't be okay with users cussing more than what could be considered "scarcely." I can't agree fully with that second paragraph, because the fan related AT content goes into blogs while it doesn't belong in the mainspace. I think it would be acceptable if all blog topics had to be at least somewhat AT themed. Flame Prince Finn 16:15, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

The blogs have always been a place for people to talk about things and discuss things about not just the show but a lot of different things. Don't take this away from us. Sure there have been some incidents but overall, it has always been fun. The blogs on this site have been more fun then the blogs on any other site I have ever been on. Marcaline 16:20, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that maybe they're more "fun" than any other sites because you can do whatever you want here, and not elsewhere? A LOT of different places actually moderate their sites/wikis greatly so significant problems don't arise like they did here. SaberSworn 16:24, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marcaline "That's the Way...U MAD?

Awesome Alice! I do too! :P Marcaline 16:37, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure most have heard about Natasha calling the wiki stupid and I believe another staff member did too, but I can't quite remember who did so... Anyway, do you think it is because they look at our articles and say that they're terrible? I don't, because I think that they're relatively decent. But the second you click that Recent Activity page... one probably loses a lot of the respect they probably had. Just the other day, somebody in chat posted a link to the MLP wiki and stated "INVADE!" (which I took screenshots of). They did, and nearly every single one of them got banned. The only one that I can remember that didn't get banned was me, who tried to stop them. I'm not asking for applause or a pat on the back because I don't want it. My point is that users get away with so much around here. I would have liked to have banned the particular invasion-starter but the decision was apparently not up to me... After apologizing to the 4 admins and 5 chat mods who were in the wiki at the time, I could tell that they didn't respect us anymore. They even forbade the talk of AT (during the time I was there, at least) because of people's stupid actions. SaberSworn 16:22, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

You are very personally involved in this aren't you, SS? I sense of lot of personal issues here. Do you feel like people don't respect you or take you seriously enough? Marcaline 16:24, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

o OMG! THIS IS MADNESS! blogs should stay forever!"Fear the Demon " 17:07, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

YEAH! Every other wiki has blogs! Y CANT WE??!?!!? "That's the Way...U MAD?

This is madness! Madness? THIS. IS. ADVENTURE TIIIIIIMMEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! Marcaline 17:09, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Getting rid of blogs and comments will kill this wiki. It would pretty much become the Internet equivalent of a third world country. 67.224.248.125 17:11, April 28, 2012 (UTC):

Regular Show wiki has blogs :#\3 "That's the Way...U MAD?

Oh man. Please. Who gave this guy that much power. He was only here for less than a month and now you gave him the power of chat moderator? This guy is getting insane with power and, as a conspirator, I think he is trying to take over this wiki. Adventure Time is supposed to be fun, but you are making it look like a scientific stuff that has nothing to do with what it really is. SS doesn't have any personal problem, he just have a political syndrome: Just wants more power and more power and more power until they are above everyone and then dethrone everyone. Admins please, don't be blind. Open your eyes and look what is going on. Let's put it in this way, no matter how many people are disagree, if two or three admins want something, It'll happen. Afliador8 17:19, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's scary isn't it? He probably sees himself like Napoleon or something, it's ridiculous. I don't know who ever decided to make SS a chat moderator but it was a very, very bad decision to make. It made him feel like he's a lot more then he really is. The real Napoleon must be turning in his grave by now. Marcaline 17:22, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Afliador, you obviously didn't heed my warnings. I never said I wanted to take the blogs down. I never said I wanted to delete all the images. I never said I wanted to get rid of comments and chat. I never said I wanted to destroy this wiki. Listening to what the trolls have to say makes one an ignorant and brainwashed individual, like many on this earth are. I DON'T even have much power. Chatmods have no jurisdiction over anything, EXCEPT just chat (a very small portion of the wiki). I expected such arguments from trolls. Only the sensible, intelligent, rational people can discern the truth from the lies. We'll see exactly who those people are. SaberSworn 17:32, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Look at you being all morally superior, pretentious and up your own ass, SaberSworn. And I don't think insulting people is gonna be terribly helpful when you want to convince them you are right and we are not. Marcaline 17:35, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't directly insulting anyone. I was merely saying that the ones who are falling for and believing the lies are very gullible. Can you cite your sources for when I said I wanted to destroy the wiki? NO? Okay then. SaberSworn 17:37, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

That's just weak man. You know I'm way to busy being a kickass revolutionairy to spend hours digging through all your comments. Anyway, people, FIGHT THE POWER! Marcaline 17:39, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Ok you are right SS. 99.99% of people are stupid, but 99.999% are already brainwashed. We are looking for a better and more technological world? Nope. We are looking for a world without freedoms, where the weak is destroyed for those who think are stronger. You were brainwashed by the system and that's why I'm not (and nobody should) be angry with you. My opinion, start seeing this wiki as it really is, a page where people with interests in common can hang out and get out of the world for a while. Too much trolling? Maybe. Can we do something that brings a final solution to stop that? Yes. Legally? No. The way you're thinking? less.Afliador8 17:52, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'll admit I've probably been the most lenient admin around, in the past. And most of the time, that worked out OK. I just kind of hoped the community could be free and open, and police itself. (I'm not talking about vandalism here. I'll ban vandals all day long.) The thing I have trouble dealing with with are social problems: the things that our new code of conduct is meant to address. I can't speak to what other admins will do, but the things people have said in the past day have convinced me to be less lenient on users who are acting in "bad faith." That means users whose actions are intentionally negative and violate our rules. They will receive fewer warnings from me, and more blocks. --Cornprone 22:43, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's just lovely, Cornprone... the leniency is one of the best things about this wiki and you guys are killing it. Way to go guys... Marcaline 07:56, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm also that way Cornprone. Marcaline, I think you're skewing his words a bit. All I see changing is that people who are "intentionally negative and violate our rules" will recieve fewer warnings and more blocks. I don't think that is going to incur extreme strictness, I think it will just force certain people to improve their behavior on the wiki. I don't think there is anything unfair about that - do you? Flame Prince Finn 02:43, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Marcaline, careful what you say this guy is our second boss next to travisource,respect, remember Marcaline? by the way, the people who invaded the MLP wiki should be banned from here because of all the great threats they caused. It could trigger an Internet war between bronies and AT fans, besides we know we would lose because there are more than millions of bronies who numbers are greater than us. Besides there might be alot of brony vandals who will trash us and are plotting to. When did the invasion happen anyways?, if that happened do you also know How long it would take fix over 1,300 pages?(Finntheeditor 05:24, April 30, 2012 (UTC))

Invading wiki's should be punished severely. If anyone does such a thing I suggest you contact the general wiki staff so that they can be banned cross-wiki. Because if you only ban them here, they will go some place else to vandalise and troll. Don't get me wrong here, what I propose is not total anarchy. Marcaline 08:28, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should be careful what you say to administrators opinion wise. As long as it isn't breaking the code of conduct it would be horribly unjust to block you. From what I can tell Cornprone and the rest of the admins on this wiki would not ban you for a dissenting opinion, despite our apparent public image I'm fairly confident all we are trying to do is improve the wiki. Flame Prince Finn 05:39, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not. ƒelinoel. 18:49, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Personal View

Honestly, I see how blogs are a problem for some people, and I can completely agree that blogs turn into nothing but spam when not AT related. However, i think blogs make up a good portion of this Wiki, I mean how can people post their opinions if they don't have a blog? AT related or not. Meaning, let's say I want to post an idea about how i think AT will go one day, or how it will end, where should I post it if not a blog? I don't want to spam the wiki with pages, or add to a forum where I see that people hardly ever visit unless it affects them directly.

Again however, you can always bring back the feature once things settle down, I mean people are using the blogs as a chat system because it's easier to comment on a blog then it is to edit or add a note to someone's talk page, it's about pleasing the public. Also many people get banned from chat for their own reasons, but if chat is their only way to talk to someone, and you've banned them then they seek out a blog to continue communications. I'm not in agreement or disagreement I just want people to understand where the ideal came from for the idea, as well as those wanting to get rid of it why it would be a bad thing.

{C}Long story short: Blogs can always be brought back if disabled, the cause for wanting the disable in the first place is because people abuse the blog system. There are rules for the entire Wiki, not just chat, and those rules apply all over yet people abuse those rules in the blogs assuming the blogs don't apply. But the admins who have control never do anything about it in the first place, or even inform those people that there is that system so they continue to do it. Some will see this as a Wiki cleaning, the people who aren't here for the wiki will leave because their form of social networking is gone, which in some cases can be a good thing, but others will view this as an attack against them and their friends for their own personal reasons. This is an Adventure Time wiki, however the majority of the images, and blogs have little to nothing to do with the focus of the wiki, which in most cases is considered flaming, spam, and overall distruction. The rules here at this wiki are nothing that's not in any forums code of conduct (though no one reads it), i've seen wiki's with worse rules (by the power of god i guess) survive, I've also seen wiki's with no rules die in a matter of days. This wiki has just the right amount of slack and rule regulation, to disable one feature while others are still available isn't the end of the world, but i don't agree it should be the blogs. I mean there are talk pages, a user could create their own page i guess and have a link on their page for random talks, using chat, etc there's other ways around disabling blogs, but i think blogs should be regulated instead of just taken out. Katari12 17:58, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I definetely do not think the blogs need to be regulated any further, if anything, the Code of Conduct is going too far. SS is seeing ghosts, he is seeing problems that aren't really there outside of his own mind. And that's really a shame because others will suffer the consequences of his messed up opinion(s). Marcaline 18:04, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Can you at least agree that there are TONS of images and blogs that should be deleted, for sake of too random, never used, never commented on, or never looked at? I mean, saber is going through helping the admins gets rid of some images, most wiki's that i've seen don't even allow non-wiki related images in the wiki, i was super shocked when i saw that, but he's not going after all of them, just a lot of them, there's over like 2000 images on this wiki... If not more or a little less, about 60% of those are random, only added to troll... I mean, some of them can go, don't you agree? And with the blogs, maybe not regulated so much, just calm down on the spam, i mean for example: A user posted a blog with their OC drawing, and asked a simple question in the comments "how can i get the AT creators to see this" and she got trolled. Would you agree that it was unnecessary for her to be trolled in the first place and that something should have been done? At least a little? Katari12 18:10, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

No I don't think all those images need to be deleted. And SaberSworn was also tagging images for deletion that were AT-related just because HE thought they were innappropriate - even though NOBODY else agreed with him on that. Also, an image can be used only once but that does not mean it HAS to be deleted. What's the harm in keeping such an image? The blog will be messed up when someone reads it and sees all the red links, or just empty pages with only text. The many images don't seem to slow the wiki down so why get rid of them? Marcaline 18:15, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

PS: You also need to take in mind what the community wants. And it seems today, the community is making it very clear that we do not want all these images removed. See the polls, see the blogs, judge for yourself. Or make a new poll for all I care. A little democracy is not a bad thing, is it? Marcaline 18:16, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Just because people are screaming the loudest doesn't mean they have the most or best support. I stopped commenting on your blog because it was a futile effort. It doesn't mean I abandoned my viewpoints. SaberSworn 18:21, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's not my blog, it's Demon's. And he started it weeks ago so this is not by any means a new issue. Marcaline 18:22, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Just because it's tagged for deletion doesn't mean it will be deleted, it's just his opinion, he can't delete them himself i don't believe, i think an admin has to approve the tag first. But What I asked was if you agree that there are images that COULD be deleted. I never said all of them, or that the ones he's tagging, i asked if we could all agree that there are unused images, and random images that serve no purpose for not being used. I see where you're coming from, but you answered me with something i didn't ask, I'm just curious as to if anyone can agree on anything at all, being the amount of unused images, or what not. I agree that marking the AT ones shouldn't be done, i honestly haven't looked to see the list, but if I do, I'm sure i could second tag some (none being at related mine would probably be the ones of like ponies that no one uses) Katari12 18:23, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

No, I am against it for a very simple, technical reason: a file tagged for deletion has to be discussed by admins first, right? But when you wanna get rid of thousends of files, it is going to take ages to delete them all AND discuss them. If you skip the discuss-part, there goes your democracy. If you discuss it all it'll take super long. And once more: what would be the point? What is the harm in having these images? At least by keeping them you know you wouldn; t mess up the blogs. Marcaline 18:26, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

So you don't agree that at least ONE or TWO images are not AT related and should be deleted? That's what i'm asking, you're bringing things into it I'm not asking. I'm not asking about thousands of iamges, I'm asking about a few. And the admins will still talk about it, no matter how many there are, that's the point, they are admins that's their job, they just don't approve. You're assuming they will feel overwhelmed and just give up discussion and delete on a whim, that's not how it works.... Katari12 18:30, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care what you guys think SS has done. The real think he has done wrong is turning this wiki in a place with more rules than fun. It's like school.Afliador8 18:33, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Mr. Afliador8. I am honestly pissed at this obscenities. We, as members of this wiki, have rights, and we shouldn't have them taken away. I'll fight more when I'm unbanned. 216.176.129.200 18:49, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

He's not adding rules, he's simply getting rid of the fact that we have over 10000 images on this wiki, and there's simply not space for it, as well as image that are never touched again after like 1 year. And he's putting the already there rules into play. This whole thing started over emotions and misunderstandings, and it's getting our of control. Katari12 18:53, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

What is it with space? Marcaline 18:59, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Everytime a website is created, there's space to take into considersation. Main wiki space, user space, image space, etc. Just like with the chat too much of something will slow it down. Too many emotes in chat makes it laggy. Things need to be dealt with in certain ways for it to be made easier on everyone. Katari12 19:18, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Cornprone's suggestions and that the rules should be more relaxt :oh my gosh you actualy found it 08:16, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Marcaline 08:20, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

how can people post their opinions if they don't have a blog

You could use the userspace, here are examples...

• User:felinoel/Infobox
• User:Princessbubblegum3/Snow_Bunny

ƒelinoel. 18:51, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts on blogs

Blogs and forums on this wiki are pretty similar. Both allow users to post a message, and anyone else can leave messages in response. And yet, because it's just a tiny bit easier to post a blog comment, the content of blog comments turn out to be greatly different: more plentiful and, frankly, worse. I don't mean to pick on any particular user, but look at this user's edit history, and the last 30 or so blog comments they made today, before I was forced to temporarily block them.

Wikia implemented optional modules like blogs and chat because they thought it would attract more users and get users more active. But does this wiki need more active users? Does it need to be a site for general fan discussions in addition to being an Adventure Time wiki (which is what it's actually supposed to be)? Increasingly, I'm thinking not.

About a year ago, we removed badges, because they were causing some people to spam up the wiki with unnecessary edits just to get achievements. And guess what: it worked. We already decided not to turn on message walls and article comments. Would it be a huge leap to turn off blogs and chat? Now, neither I nor the other admins should make that choice unless there is broad community support followed by an official decision. However, I'm just saying that I'm open to the idea, since it was raised by a couple of commenters in this forum thread. --Cornprone 00:54, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that's ever going to happen man. The community does not want it to happen. It's hard to determine support based on the opinion of just a few people, I know almost for certain that if you would decide this really democratically, the community would vote against it. Or at least the majority of people would. Please don't let the actions of a few people ruin it for the rest of us. It would be a shame and the wiki deserves better. Marcaline 07:15, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I support disabling blogs for a week just to clear out the junk. Even if my own is affected.

Users have turned a social feature meant to encourage interaction and community, into trash and troll paradise. -- Bunai82 ^(talk) 07:23, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

That is your own personal opinion. You think this is neccesary, but it's still just that: a personal opinion. For all I care, the other mods agree with you. Doesn't change that fact. But the moderators are just the top of the piramid here. You believe the "junk has to cleared out," question remains: what is this junk, and just how much are you going to delete? You know I am highly against it, but what about the rest of the users, the rest of the community that are NOT admins and have no moderating powers? Do we even get a say in this or are you just going to ignore us and do whatever you guys feel like doing? Marcaline 07:27, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I have no mod powers outside of the chat, and I'm just a normal user like all of you as far as posting, blogs, comments, etc goes. However, I beileve that SOME things should be cleared out, again blogs from banned uers, users that no longer log in, blogs that has requested to be deleted, blogs that have been edited by the user to a blank page. Those are the necessary blogs to delete. Katari12 07:31, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Just because a user get's banned does not mean his or her blog has to be deleted right away. Some people can make an awesome blog, then mess up and get banned. Now if the blog in question would be nothing but trolling, I might agree. Blank pages and blogs requested for deletion by users should of course be deleted, I see no problem with that. Blogs from user that no longer log in... I dunno man, I made some cool blogs and I'd hate to see you guys delete them if I ever decided to leave the wiki. It's kinda like a legacy ya know? Marcaline 07:35, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

PS: Getting rid of some of the rotten apples (what you are suggesting here, Katari) is not nearly as bad as what Cornprone is hinting at: simply closing down the blogs altogether. You see the difference, right? Marcaline 07:36, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a time factor that's being lost when i type. I feel as though you assume aI mean users banned within the past few weeks, or users that just left. I mean users that have been lost to the wiki itself, users no one remembers, thinks about, or even cares about to look them up. User's who've been banned forever and wont ever come back, users that have been gone for a LONG amount of time. There's tons of members here, I don't mean all of them, there will have to be a discussion involved (as is with EVERYTHING to be deleted) and should be determined with a sense of "what if's" but if there's no "what if" then it would be gotten rid of. I also never said rotten apples, i'm mearly giving examples to keep the calm and come to an agreement on both sides. Katari12 07:39, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Just because a user leaves does not mean their blog has to go. A user can leave and a year later, the blogs he created can still be active and people could still comment on them. I made one blog that has 1200+ comments, it sometimes goes for a few days or even a week without a comment, but there is a poll on the blog and people continue to vote on it so I know (new) people frequently watch it. But by your logic, it might still end up deleted if I ever decided to leave. That is something I want to prevent. Another thing I would hate to see happening is the blogs being closed down altogether, which is an idea Cornprone is now hinting at. You are not going that far, and I am relieved by that, but still... Marcaline 07:44, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

But your blogs get attention. I'm simply referring to those that haven't gotten any attention in a long time, I mean the AT crew dislikes the wiki because of it's disfunctions, do we want to really make it worse for ourselves by having such old information? Again, I'm takling about things lost in the time, no notice, no return, no anything, that's why i said it will then be based on "What if's" Examples of those What if's are: What if they come back, What if people still search for the blog, What if this person had good idea's, What if they wanted it to be deleted. Etc. Katari12 07:48, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

It would be a massive operation and a lot of things could go wrong. At the same time, I still don't really see the point. You could start by deleting empty blogs, or blogs that the writers themselves want to see deleted. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have some sort of tool showing you how much space we have left or something. If only the admins can see how much space we have they can just lie and nobody here would ever be able to tell. It's not unlikely it will show you there is no need for "creating space," simply because we are not short on space. And the AT crew, well, so far only Natasha has been negative and that negative reaction was not because of the blogs, it was because she edited an article as an IP and her edit was reverted! :) Marcaline 07:52, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Nope, As I told you, we wont abuse our powers, (even those of us like me who have none outside of chat) And we will do the process, I can assure you that, no matter how long the process is. As for the other parts, One admin stated to close blogs for a few days to clean, not for forever, just to make sure that none were being created adding to the already there confusion, can you at least agree that this step would help in the cleaning process? I just want to keep people thinking logically, and not getting their emotions into it, people need to think clearly, and understand this isn't an attack it's just a step to making things easier to manage. No more fights, just level-headedness. Katari12 08:05, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well we are not even on one line when it comes to "cleaning the wiki" being neccesary, and people are already talking about closing the blogs temporarily to "help the cleaning." You are getting ahead of yourself here. There are a few users that misbehave on the blogs, I agree. Does that say something about the blogs, or about those users and how you deal with them? You can allow someone to make 100+ troll comments then delete them, or block him before someone does. Why don't we keep everything as, say, a reminder of the past? The blogs are like a piece of history, why not focus on preventing things from going wrong in the future? Destroying the blogs (many or all) would be like destroying a piece of history. Marcaline 08:13, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with you there, that it's based on the user, I will admit that sometimes the other admins are very nice when it comes to some users, there have been times when i go in chat and ask anyone if they can find an admin because someone is seriously out of line, and come to find out it takes an admin (who's already watching) a good 15 minutes to actually do anything to the user causing problems, but that's where all the freedom of the wiki comes into play. People want to be free, and the admins give that freedom. I'm not saying removing the past, I'm simply speaking from the things that add nothing to the past, nothing to history. :) Things like "season one predictions" while that in itself isn't a bad blog to delete, season one is done and gone, as well as the user, and the comments that haven't existed since the wiki was created. keep the blog, in an archive somewhere, but delete it from the mainspace, and delete the spam comments, just a clean up a bit. I'm not agreeing with anyone on these points so I'm not getting ahead of myself at all. I disagree AND agree with lots of points, I have my own opinion, i've had it since day one of me joining, I just choose not to voice them until it's necessary because i know neither side will agree with me. if we could create an area for "historical blogs" then by all means the admins should make it, to keep history, but the ones to be deleted you even agreed should go, and the ones marked with SOOOOO much spam should also go. You're correct blame the people not the feature, which is why there will be a huge talk for a long time about it until an agreement is met. But the idea of a clean up would be nice, just so that it doesn't look so trashy sometimes... Katari12 08:23, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

We have a nice blog out there to discuss this further. We'll try to keep it clean and factual, m'kay? And "clean up a bit" doesn't sound all that bad... but deleting dozens of blogs and thousends of files is anything but "a bit." It's a massive operation, let's not downplay that. Marcaline 08:27, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

No one is downplaying it, just stating it at is it. I said clean up a bit, not deleted thousands of blogs. And please don't take my a bit out of context, that's how things get started. Katari12 08:40, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

We don't even have thousends of blogs, I was obviously talking about the images. :) Marcaline 08:54, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

=PThought since I said blogs that's what we were talking about T_T. Katari12 08:57, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well I think it would be a splendid idea to delete all the blogs and let the watercooler do the work of them. It takes up less space, and frankly, no one really cares about the stupid stuff people put on blogs anyways. All opposed? 67.142.178.24 02:21, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all opposed. :) Marcaline 08:21, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

One view of the blogs, and the whole wiki looks unreliable. If disabling blogs cuts out the trolling, spam, and unhelpful contributors, then disable them. And no, I have no intention of changing my mind, or seeing it from the point of view from those who are the reason for my comment on this issue. -- Bunai82 ^(talk) 01:16, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to disable blogs completely, but I still think it would be a good idea to have all blogs meet an AT relevance requirement of some sort. I don't think we need trolling, spam, and unhelpful contributors, but frankly just removing the people rather than the system seems like a better solution. Flame Prince Finn 02:05, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah FPF, I'm with you on this one. Especially certain anonymous contributors should be banned more quickly and for longer ammounts of time. Banning the IP adresses of people misbehaving will also mean they won't be able to creat a new account and keep trolling, because that would be disabled. I think that would help quite a bit. People tend to be so much more hateful and mean when they are anonymous then when they are not. Marcaline 10:21, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Making blogs meet an AT relevance doesn't mean the trolling, spam, and unhelpful contributors will stop. No reasonable amount of enforcing the rules will make people stop because they can't really control themselves on the blogs, it seems. If anything is to be changed, people have to commit to it. There are comments that are obviously said purely for the sake of insulting, yet I sometimes see admins and other users post stuff right below it without saying anything. If people cared about the future (and even the bad present state) of this wiki, they'd be seeking change. SaberSworn 02:33, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

The AT relevance requirement doesn't really have anything to do with leniency issues, pardon my digression.

I'm going to start warning users that repeated offenses will result in blocks on the more obvious offenses and blocking those who continue to violate. I think short (2 day?) blocks after a single warning seems fair seeing as I will essentially be introducing rule enforcement. That will apply to all users regardless of block history, given that otherwise this otherwise the enforcement is basically retroactive. Are there any administrators opposed to my doing that?

Flame Prince Finn 19:36, May 22, 2012 (UTC)