Created subtopic: Various changes


I think much of the policy can be reworded.

  • 1. Do not attack other users personally. This includes but is not limited to: threatening the wiki and/or user(s), name calling (including, but not limited to idiot, jerk, stupid, retard, etc.), and derogatory statements.
  • 2. Do not discriminate other users based on their religion, political affiliation, sexual preference, or anything else. It is strongly recommended that users do not discuss these things as these may cause distress.
  • 3. Do not use profanity. You can say "damn" as it was used in the first movie, possibly "hell" if in the context. This also means no use of the words such as "f***," even when used as an expletive.
  • a. Any use of profanity in general will result in consequences.
  • b. Any use of profanity directly toward other users will result in a more severe consequence.
  • 4. Do not add or link to content that is inappropriate for younger readers/contributors (someone that is under 8 years old.)
  • The "8-year old" thing should go as some content on the series itself is not appropriate for 8 year olds. We should at least be more specific on this part.
  • 5. Do not correct other people's use of spelling and/or grammar on discussion pages, message walls, or the forums unless it is in regards to spelling and/or grammar use in an article.
  • This could be shortened, and it would certainly fall under any policy in which we do not tolerate rude behavior.
  • 1. Do not vandalize anything on the wiki. This includes, but is not limited to: spam, nonsense edits, removal of good quality content, and the unnecessary blanking of pages.
  • Reword: Do not vandalize the wiki. This includes, but is not limited to: spam, nonsense edits, removing good quality content, and blanking pages.
  • 2. Any user who continues to revert or change articles to a previously lower quality version will be blocked per the blocking policy.
  • This part is vague and belongs in the blocking policy or the like.
  • 1. Each user is only allowed one account, unless you have a good reason that can be approved by the administration by a 70% consensus. In that event, all users must identify themselves as the owner of the accounts on the user pages. Any other accounts that are not a user's primary account with the exception of flagged bot accounts run by administrators will be blocked.
  • 2. Only administrators may have a bot account. This account must be flagged after a discussion. Any exception to this rule requires a discussion.
  • 3. NEW LANGUAGE (working): Using multiple accounts is strictly prohibited unless it is the bot account of an administrator or an approved bot account of a non-administrator. If a user has multiple accounts, they must choose one to use and the others must be blocked.
  • 1. Do not directly ask for the sysop, bureaucrat, or any other similar tool directly. Use the request form here and make sure you qualify.
  • Unnecessary. We don't have problems with people asking; they just create a request. If someone asks to be an administrator, we just tell them to go fill out a request form. The admin policies/bylaws cover the second part.
  • 2. Do not pose as an administrator if you are not. Administrators are the only ones allowed to inform a user that they have been blocked or banned.
  • This belongs in a new bylaws section under "administrator duties" or the like.
  • 1. For your own safety, you are not obliged to reveal your personal information.

These are the changes I am thinking about so far. I think all of these should be inserted into the bylaws. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 21:38, November 13, 2017 (UTC)

You talk about a non-admin having a bot, but what would the point of that? Who would decide that? --Alleluia, Hurry the Lord is Near! (Cans48)

It would be a bot without administrative abilities. An assistant could very well have a bot. It would need to be approved. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 02:09, November 14, 2017 (UTC)

The eight-year-old thing should go but should we put a higher age on there? I mean while some of the stuff isn't appropriate for 8-year-olds (*cough*), stuff relating to suicide outside the episode I just linked still probably shouldn't be linked so there are some problems with that. Jack'sAvatarThe Ninja5 Empire (Message Wall) 02:15, November 14, 2017 (UTC)

It should be written so it is specified which sort of content is given a clear generalization. A discussion of suicide would be deemed "inappropriate" for discussion on a wiki about a TV series. Certainly there are other topics, but it would be a matter of where do we draw the line? Do we want to be specific? Or do we just write new policies as things come up? Such discussion on that subject may be considered "disruptive" as well as other matters. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 02:22, November 14, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I see where you're going. It would actually be covered by disruptive and to some extent, revelation of sensitive information. Jack'sAvatarThe Ninja5 Empire (Message Wall) 02:24, November 14, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.