Tis place is fun but it would bo more fun if I was admin so make me.ajn kbye
What's on your mind?
LOL GUYS! LET'S **********LE********** VOT 4 **********LE********** NEW STARPOLAR LOGO!!!!!!!!!!!!
PICK 1 OF THE 3:
Pls bring cat back neow
Hello fellow members of this nice wiki, I'm here to suggest we may demote admin SARDONYXXX for her crimes against humanity
Reasons: she is mean.
Alright, so I'm just going off of what Fatal told me. Chat's been shut down due to excessive drama and bullshit which has been affecting the wiki as a whole. Mike shut down the chat. As of now, this is about the only information I can provide on this. I will provide updates as I gain new information about this.
Can someone please explain why ANY AND ALL COMPETENCE seems to gone with me when I resigned? Seriously. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT FOLLOWING A COMMUNITY CONSENSUS? ALA, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE CHAT. I left with confidence that the staff here could actually handle the site. And yet, come to find out, it's been less than a day and somehow we've managed to successfully alienate the 20 people we were banking on to KEEP THE SITE ALIVE until we had a stable community to operate from.
Basically, now I'm starting to regret resigning and leaving the site in the hands of people who don't seem to know what they're doing. Seriously, how you could you not know how this was a suicidal decision? Why in the hell would you sincerely think "Oh, this is a good idea. Rather than controlling and moderating the chat, banning troublemakers, why don't we shut it down?" The ultimate climax? It's led up to Fatal self-pitying all over my facebook messages and not knowing what he should do because of the stupidity going on here. Forgive me if I'm a bit cussy, but I wanted to do my own thing, and instead, I've been forced back here by SHEER AND UTTER INCOMPETENCE. That's literally the ONLY word for it.
Now, because of the fact that we have this bad habit of doing things that go against and behind community consensus, I'm reclaiming my rights. in that time, I'm going to try my best to get you guys out of this shitstorm you've caused. If I fail, you're free to join me on a site I'll be creating, where I can most certainly assure that you will not have rights until I see fit to trust you guys again. In the mean time, someone explain to me how you could possibly think that ANY OF THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?
The chat will be at a temporary shutdown for the week. After the week is done (probably Monday or Tuesday), the bureaucrats (Simba, Spicy and I) will discuss whether or not to keep the chat closed down permanently or not.
THE CHAT HAS BEEN REOPENED. I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS BLATANT DISREGARD OF COMMUNITY CONSENSUS AND COMPLETE AND UTTER POWER ABUSE. -Senjumaru Shutara
Alright. The current bureaucrat team have decided to remove the prerequisites of rights (minus bureaucrat, you still need to be an administrator to apply for it). All users can apply for any right. You can jump on board to the admin team (which would be highly encouraged), you can help moderate the site by being a site moderator, or you can just creep up your way up to ranks if you feel that you have a lack of trust.
But keep in mind that the bureaucrat's have the final say to what user gets right. It does say that on the requests page, so just be aware of that.
One of Wikia's many features that we DON'T use is the Message Wall. I used to not care for them myself, but in the end, they're really just forums.
The reason I'm proposing this is because I believe the Message Walls would actually be fairly easier to use. For one, they're self-archiving. The only real thing that would need updated is the Talk Page Guidelines, and that would basically be: Don't use the wall to spam or be a blog.
Self-archiving. They'll leave the public record there.
No need for signatures or reply colons. Newer users aren't going to remember to leave a signature all of the time. Nor are they going to remember to leave a colon. Namely, because they have no idea how wikitext works. The Message Walls would take out the need for both of these things.
Easier to use. It doesn't switch to a talk page editor - it operates exactly like the forums in nature.
Newer users will have an easier time understanding message walls rather than talk pages.
Posts on Message walls can only be edited by the original author and people with rights. This would prevent talk page vandalism. Granted, this isn't a problem, but it's better safe than sorry.
Conversations that get out of hand can be removed and closed. Site admins and moderators will have a much easier time preventing site drama.
Message Walls remove a lot of the bad things about Talk Pages, such as people not leaving new sections and things like that.
Users won't end up missing messages whenever two people leave messages.
Message Walls are far more organized.
The Supposed "Risks"
"Templates for talk pages become a hassle, so a number of them would have to be altered." Or, we could just actually type out why a person was banned from chat rather than trying to rely on a template?
"Since when are we Facebook! People would just use Message Walls to post their status!" Of course, we can also remove those threads and promptly leave a message reminding them what blogs are for, and also update the Site Rules accordingly.
"I don't like them!" There's no factual basis behind that.
"They're not easier, they're harder!" How so?
"I like the box that comes with Talk Pages. With message walls, you get notifications jumbled in with forum posts!" And? It notifies you of a message. Granted "You have new messages on the X wiki!" is simpler and clearer, it's outdated. The notifications are out of the way and don't overshadow things such as the Star Article notify and vote templates on the main page.
There's not a lot of things actually wrong with message walls outside of subjective opinion, and why should we run the site on that? We should be a little concerned with making things easier for new users, since that is what we are trying to gain - a bigger community of people with differing opinions. Personally, I've started to prefer the use of message walls rather than talk pages. They're a hundred times easier to regulate and maintain. They don't need a lot of guidelines.
We're overhauling the entire site to get the best features and make the site both look and feel better to the user base. We should be more open to this feature same as we are open to a lot of other features we've added to the site.
Just like the previous one, except I've gone searching for newer themes and gotten rid of the first theme. Namely because people continuously encouraged me to illegally remove a watermark and also because I couldn't fix the picture without going over the 300 kilobyte limit.
A: - 90% Zoom
B: - 90% Zoom
C: - 90% Zoom
D: - 90% Zoom
E: - 90% Zoom
F: - 90% Zoom. This one looks very similiar to the theme we had already.
G: New theme, none from here
H: No new theme.
So, part of the new theme design needed is the background. Well, I decided to look on Google for backgrounds that may fit, namely ones that could be asscociated with "Starpolar", such as the poles, ice and winter things, and stars... and I've gone with some aurora themes I've found. And a couple of star pictures.
So far I've found four that could be good.
These are the four I have looked at so far. You can select one of these, ask for a new one, or choose to elect not to change the theme at all. That is your choice.
NOTE: Please do not add a poll to this thread. Votes will be decided by counting the replies in the comments and it better allows users to express criticism or suggestions by doing so in this manner.
Is it REALLY that hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt? IS IT REALLY THAT HARD, to think someone has changed or actually,... I don't know; LOOK AT THEIR BEHAVIOR.
Someone cared about the site, yet we've ostracized her. SOMEONE did their job to the best of their abilities, yet WE had the audacity to accuse her of power abuse because of HER PAST. SOMEONE legitimately tried to help, was there when we needed her, and was ASKED to help the site. Something she could've denied in an instant, but chose to help instead. But we fucked that up, didn't we?
That person was not involved in many site changes, yet for some reason I feel like I'm the only one who could see that she had changed. Maybe I'm not, but it's too late now. Only one person has actually come to me and felt guilty about it, so far as I can see. He's ashamed of himself because he treated what could've possibly been the site's biggest asset - and one of my greatest friends - like she was nothing but dirt under his feet. And so have the rest of us. I should have done something sooner. I should have addressed a problem I knew was going on, where this user, this admin, was being harassed and accused in such a manner. But I didn't do everything I could have and should have done. And for that, I'm sorry.
I am absolutely disgusted with this behavior. We should all know better, knowing where we come from. Knowing that we've all faced these kind of accusations. We should.
Let me ask you this; I was once accused of power abuse. I was once considered a bad person. But now I'm starting to question if anyone believes I'VE CHANGED or learned from my mistakes. After all, if we can't give the benefit of the doubt to one, how can we give the benefit of the doubt to another?
This behavior will not continue. If you have an issue with an admin, you take it up with a bureaucrat. If you're a crat and have an issue with another admin, you take it up with another crat. There will no longer be this disgusting ostracization of people in our community. I don't care who they are or who you are. If nothing else, you can take it up with me. We will no longer burn bridges of trust. I will no longer allow this kind of behavior, I can promise you that.
Forgive me if I'm a little cussy, but you know who you are. If you were one of these people that this blog post discusses, two words: Grow up.
Feel free to comment, but harassing and idiotic comments will be deleted. The proof is in the pudding, and I will not argue about this.
Chat will be closed down for two hours as a cool-down. When it comes back on, the bureaucrats will discuss some important changes about what we can do.
A couple of other admins have been mentioning a chat shutdown. There are a lot of reasons apparently cited for this, but it's definitely not set in stone. As usual, it would have to be heavily discussed first. One of the reasons is because of users complaining about their bans. So now, it's time to make yet another new thread.
What CAN you do if you feel you have been banned unfairly?
You can leave a CIVIL message about it on the banning mod's talk page, asking them for both clarification and to appeal the ban. Be sure to leave evidence as to WHY you feel the ban was unfair. Screencaps are better than words. If they say no, and you still feel it was unfair:
Leave a CIVIL message on an admin's talk page. Same thing; if they say no, and you feel it's unfair:
Leave a CIVIL message on a bureaucrat's talk page. This time, though, if told no, that means no. You drop it immediately, and wait your ban out.
We're not going to appeal any bans that are under the time frame of 3 days unless the reason is extraordinarily ridiculous. If you cannot last that long without getting on chat, then there is something wrong there. That's not an injustice; that's clarifying that appealing a two hour ban is an absolute waste of time.
What CAN'T you do if you feel you were banned unfairly?
Attempt to argue on the main site about your ban. No means no, and that's it.
Attempt to pick a fight or cause drama. This will just end up getting you a site block.
Harass the admins or mods about it. You can continue bugging us, but that's not going to get you your way.
Begin violating the site rules.
Act like a four year old who isn't getting their way.
Why can't you do these things? Because they're not going to change anyone's mind. Whenever someone gets angry at me about a ban, that really just tempts me to ban them for longer. You're not making the site or its admins look bad; you're making YOU look bad.
Additional note to moderators: If you ban someone, would it trouble you to take a quick screencap of the infraction (please take the screencap of the whole chat and not just the user's infraction)? Prtsc. It exists.
It doesn't help us to appeal your ban if neither side can provide any proof of the other's negligence. All it does is turn the entire situation into a he-said she-said, and that doesn't change anything. In the end, a user is still banned and a mod is still a mod. Providing evidence for your case can actually HELP you. I'm not saying take a screencap of chat every two seconds. I'm saying that until we have a working chat bot that can provide chat logs, it would make things alot easier to have your positions backed up.
I really should not have had to make this. Since we've gotten some new staff requests, some people decided to post nonsense votes. To be fair, one app was in Yiddish, but that's beside the point. On the other hand, there was some (even if it was a joke) vote rigging. So: what can get your votes invalidated and therefore, make them not count?
Ad hom attacks. List legitimate reasons behind an oppose vote. Don't attack the person in question.
Non-sensical votes. Jokes are fine to an extent, but an oppose most definitely needs to be listed with a reason. A support does as well.
No reason behind the vote. This was added recently. To be fair, even I can be guilty of this. But nonetheless.
Other reasons are pretty obvious.
How to tell when a vote has been invalidated: It will crossed out. Like this.
Who can invalidate votes: Bureaucrats are left in charge of the invalidation of votes, however, a vote will not be invalidated if it carries a proper reason and does not fit the criteria listed in this post (or is obviously invalid).
Just because a vote gets counter-argued doesn't mean it's invalid. Naturally, one wants to defend oneself when applying for a position, but this is actually fairly unprofessional. The reason this thread is being made is because of... well, stupidity in the voting section. Respect for opinions is fine and dandy. Voting oppose for "Remember the Ayylmao!" (Rough English Translation) is not. Vote rigging (even jokingly, if you follow through) is not. So, therefore, if you do these things, your vote can and will be invalidated. Clear? Clear. Carry on.
Lots of content, first and foremost. Post anything you can, don't just hang out on chat. Please.
A new wordmark. SG has this part covered, and I'll be making a thread shortly to vote on the best Wordmarks presented.
Network expansion. If you're a bureaucrat on an active wiki, our Network Applications board is kinda empty... I've got plans for it myself, as well.
More community members. Tell your friends about us.
Permanent chat mods; there will be a mod purge shortly.
A couple new admins. I've got one person who wouldn't mind being an admin, but at the moment, that person is not able to apply.
Ideas and proposals to spread us around and make the site better.
There are other things that need done too, but take part in activities around the wiki. This site is not just mine, or Fatal's. It's yours. If you know that there's something we should work on, leave it down below for discussion. And please keep this thread drama-free. Thank you~
^Yeah. I'm proposing it.
There are other places to chat on the network. Both FilmCow and YuriofWind wikis have chats.
It's become hard to control. 4 separate invasions, multiple spammers, and becoming increasingly annoying.
Remember why CPWC got shut down? It's the same here: rather than having contributors to content, we have people who continuously excercise their teenage angst.
Did I mention shitposting?
Excessive amounts of drama and spam lead up to alot of crap going under the radar. It's harder to actually enforce the rules.
Drama keeps spreading to the main site.
The things between this site and TPWC have really gotten out of hand.
My main concern with shutting down the chat came from the fact that a lot of friends got to meet back up and this would snatch it away. Another main concern was the idea that the spamming and problems of the chat would end up on the main site if we shut the chat down. But these are quite minor compared to problems the chat currently does have.
I'm sorry about being shoved to this point, but from here it doesn't look like there are many other options. Leave your opinions below.
EDIT: I've also temporarily shut down the chat due to excessive spam, according to Fatal.
Guys, it has come to my attention that a user who I shall not name, but you should already know who he is anyway, was banned indefinitely from chat with no regard to the rules concerning said issue. And also, much of said drama occured off this site and in the past on other wikis., meaning that, according to our rules, it does not count towards banning him from this wiki.
We have these rules there for a reason, and this brings me on to my second point. You CANNOT let your personal feelings and history with a user, any user, affect your judgement in a situation. At all. Things like that will end up causing serious issues further down the line, and I suspect it is already beginning to.
When this user comes back, and any other user violating the rules in addition, I would like the rules followed by both parties. No thinking "Fuck it" and handing out a long ban.
Thank you for reading, and please, for the love of god, don't argue about this.
Don't block users for chat reasons. It is basically power abuse now. Unless if they bring the drama from the chat onto the site, you may block them for a temporary time. Not infinite. Not the same time the ban is. A few days would be good.
But DON'T BLOCK PEOPLE FOR CHAT ISSUES, UNLESS IF THEY ARE DOING THE FOLLOWING:
RAIDING OR PLANING IT
THINKING OF OR ACTUALLY HACKING/NUKING THE CHAT.