Forum:New Editing Policies

Helloooo One Piece Wiki Editors! Recently, two of our admins along with various other editors discussed the recurring problem of users such as User:Mr._Whatever causing a ruckus and bypassing bans due to his creation of new accounts, as well as the excruciatingly long and overbearing length of the talk pages used to discuss images which usually result in either edit warring or no results whatsoever. As such, we decided in chat on a few different rules we could implement. Due to chat and its status as an unofficial discussion group area, I will be posting the rules we proposed in here for further and official discussion. Here is what we have:

1. A ladder-punishment system. Essentially, after an edit war, the user(s) responsible will receive a warning. If the edit warring continues, a 2-3 day ban will be issued. The ban periods will increase until they reach a year long ban, in which case a permaban will be implemented afterwards if necessary.

2. All images up for consideration (manga and anime) will be discussed and voted on in talks/forums.

2.1. If these discussions/polls are not resolved within 7 days, an admin will intervene.

2.2. If a resolution still has not been made after a day, the admin will make an automatic final decision, ending the discussion.

3. If a user continues to come back after repeated bans with different users and bypasses the IP address bans, a final ban will be implemented.

4. The word of the admins is law, meaning any unresolved discussion will be put to an end by the admin.

Additional:

5. Any editors found to be sockpuppetting, we locate the IP range, and suggest a ranged ban.

And that's all for now. Play nicely now, kiddies! 03:27, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I support the "ladder-punishment system" as I belive this can revole arguements and edit wars, even though not everyone will argee with the new way of doing things. 03:18, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

I too agree. And suggestion: 5. Any editors found to be sockpuppetting, we locate the IP range, and suggest a ranged ban. 03:24, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'll add suggestion 5 to the list then. 03:26, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I really like the idea of the ladder system. We really need to hammer home the point that this is not a lawless place where people can get away without punishment for clear-cut violations of edit war policy by talking out of it in a forum.

About sockpuppets: Does this apply to all socks, or only to socks that have edited on the wiki. I know many people in chat like their sockpuppets as jokes. I don't necessarily support them or hate them, I just want clarification on this issue so we don't range block a few chat veterans.

My opinion on images is a little different though. I think the current way we've been handling them should work fine in the future. It's really easy to tell when image discussions hit dead ends, and from there start a two-option, one week poll. (I've bypassed the test-poll phase for image polls when it's unnecessary and nobody's put up a fuss, so standardizing that would be cool) Usually that ends the debate with ease. Combine that with the rules we've proposed here on insta-banning for edit wars, and I think images will become a much less chaotic area of the wiki. Trust me, even though teams are defunct, as the image team leader, I've worked hard to take part in just about every image dispute for the last year or so. 03:35, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

I have some issues.Lets say me(MoM) someone who is familiar with editting reverts several images with no valid reason and i get the warning. I could then escalate my action and for good measure lets say i upload pornographic images. instead of a larger ban i will recieve 2-3 days. If what i am saying is unclear let me summarize. Bans and such should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Sometimes you need to straight up permanently ban someone after the warning because their action is too unforgiveable. the ladder system can be easily exploited. Quite simply it's rather childish. it seems like such a third grade method. With the whole admin intervening thing... What would be the point of voting if Admins have the final say? it then becomes a matter of whoever can convince the admin. what if DP has one view and Yata has the opposite? Whichever Admin posts first gets the decision? " The word of the admins is law" What if the words of the admins contradicts and simply what if the admins are wrong? 3:37, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Only vandal/gone-bad sock-puppets. 03:38, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Can we also get a new rule about ban forums? While I don't wish to name names or get off topic in here, I do want to bring up something inspired by "recent events" that we should NOT talk about here. Also, to name one less-relevant name, I'm talking about OPN too. (no offense to him either, but he's banned already so, there's that)

Anyways, I think that users who currently have an active ban forum should not be allowed to open ban forums themselves. It has happened a couple times before where users who have a ban forum open have opened forums for either users involved in their dispute or the user who opened their ban forum. It's generally been in poor taste (and usually poorly written in a rage) and they have never gotten off the ground, since the community just loads the second forum up with sarcastic responses. If more than one user has truly done something wrong, any user is welcome to open a forum for them, but people who have an active forum should not be allowed to open them. Users shouldn't have to worry about opening a ban forum from fear of retaliation from the person they nominate. 04:41, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

What JSD said. And MoM, the admins only get the final say when the discussion is deadlocked or going nowhere. They're not going to jump in as soon as there's a slight difference of opinion and lock the page. only if the discussion has lasted a week or has regresed to insulting parentage. At least, that's how I understand it...

11:20, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

1) If thats the case Nova it should be specified on the list. 2) it does not stop the issue. so once the 7 days is over, people are going to be all over DP or Yata to try and win their vote? Or does the admins opinion matter more than lets say 10 people who don't share it? If its a deadlock keep extending it till its broken.even if it takes an eternity. I liked how you used " At least, that's how i understand it.." its very telling of these rules. 16:12, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think banning IP ranges would accomplish much since it's easy to trick websites with proxies or TOR. 17:20, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

MoM covered what I was going to say. There would be no point to voting if that's how we allowed the wiki to be run. SeaTerror (talk) 22:48, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Voting would still happen in reasonable debates. The admins would only get involved if the debates last too long and appear to be going nowhere. 23:44, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Bump. 00:28, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

Right, we would extend the votes if it seems to take only a few more days to resolve. We admins will step in only as a (as you can call it) last resort. 01:45, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

I think the admins should step in on smaller, lesser debates. If an issue affects more than one page, we should continue with polls as we've been doing. When we have talk pages that sit in the active discussions for weeks with only the user who started the edit war adding to the discussion, that's when we really need more guidance from admins. Polls on those types of issues are silly, since if people actually cared, they would have added to the discussion. And if an issue seems small, but there's been a lot of responses to the discussion, the admins should let it run its course as well.

And about your concerns with the ladder issue, MoM, I think what we mean by the ladder system is users who continue to break the same rules. So if User A keeps getting into edit wars and not going to the talk page, they go up the ladder. But if User A starts suddenly uploading pron and actively vandalizing, of course they'll get a much longer ban and go right to the top of the ladder. And if User A and User B keep getting into edit wars with each other and avoiding the talk page, I think both should get the short ban. It shouldn't really matter "who started it" if both never go to the talk page. Short bans like that should really help us avoid creating users like Galaxy who are always in conflicts because they think they can never get in trouble for them. 14:15, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Bump. 04:06, October 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) 1-Unsure about this;but whenever any edit war starts,lets just revert the part of the page alone BEFORE the war started and talk things out on the talk page
 * 2) yeah
 * I dont see how polls will be unresolved:/
 * dunno >_>


 * 1) yeah,agreed.
 * 2) yeah,unless they're joke socks...

Alright, I think the best way to proceed with this forum is to actually do a similar thing that we did in the Manual of Style and blog rule forums: Divide it up into 1 new rule per section, and discuss them separately. So I'm going to divide them now. Just post on each section if you support it or not. 00:52, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

Quick Bans for "Veteran" Users
So this section is about the rules for Admins having the right to ban veteran users without forums when they clearly break the rules. Admins can already ban new users/IPs without forums, but with Veteran users, to ban them without forums would just bring about protests claiming "Power abuse!" even if the editor clearly broke the rules (expect of course cases of clear vandalism). Of course, this should follow standard ban practices of an an Admin or other user warning them about the proper rules, an only banning after a subsequent violation. I would also say that these would start out as quite short and/or appropriately long based on the violation.

Personally, I think it's just awful for us as a community to have to have a heated, long, and terrible forum discussion every few months when someone keeps image edit warring, only for the community to be worse off than before the edit war when it's all over. That kind of policy we have now just isn't good for the community, and is exactly how we end up with editors like Gal. 00:52, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

First, cases of what? It's just a space.

Second, I think admins deserve the right to ban whoever they want as long as it's in good reason, and people REALLY should learn this. For veteran users, if their edits are excessive, they deserve warnings. Maybe the forum can act as a warning. If they still do their thing without care, they get a ban. Maybe one week minimum. 05:11, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Can't deny that, I ban registered users the moment they start making obvious bull. Even veterans should immediately be banned, once it's clear they are making cracks at us. Of course, I mean once it's clear. 05:51, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, it's "cases of clear vandalism". Don't know how I left that out...

But anyways, this isn't just about cases of clear vandalism, but cases of any clear violation of rules (rules they are definitely aware of). Like for example, if I continued to revert images that had been decided by poll or something, even after a warning, an admin should be able to ban me without a forum, even with my experience and time as a editor here. Long time editors need to be held to the same standard as new users and IPs. We have too many non-editors who would vote against just about any ban for ban forums to be an effective way to keep order in this community. 13:06, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Veteran editors should be treated the same as new editors and anons. Regardless of how long an user has been around, they should be hold to the same standards as everyone else, and be given the same punishment if they have clearly broken a rule. Simple as it. 20:38, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. No special treatments for old veterans simply because they make more contributions. 22:08, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Veteran editors should only be banned without a forum if it's clear vandalism. SeaTerror (talk) 01:57, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. 02:32, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Veteran editors should know the rules better than new and anonymous editors, so they should have expected the ban if they break any of the rules. They should be examples to newer editors. 01:35, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

But Yata already said he agreed with me when I said it should only apply in cases of clear vandalism SeaTerror (talk) 01:56, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you and Yata then. Why should we need to make a forum when a veteran user clearly violates a rule? It almost always leads to a terrible argument where nobody wins in the long term. Why should we limit ourselves to "clear vandalism" when there are so many other rules that are more valid for quick bans, like abusive language, insulting behavior, edit warring, etc.? Vandalism isn't the only problem for the wiki.

Why do we even try to make all these rules if users can just escape any of them through a forum? There's enough admins now that if any of them truly make a bad decision around a ban, the others can correct it and make sure no power is abused. Especially if the ladder system below is passed. 04:04, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

This section needs resolution still, nobody responded to my questions in my last post. 18:42, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Quick Bans for "Veteran" Users Poll Discussion
So I've had enough of waiting for responses to my several posts in this forum. Let's just vote on this one. 1 week test poll, 2 week poll. 2 Options, unless someone has other ideas. Also, while it seems obvious, I'd like to include wikia's ToU as well as our own policies. 18:33, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

The poll looks good to me, no objection from me. 00:27, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

You forgot the clear vandalism option. SeaTerror (talk) 03:48, January 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Everyone's banned w/o forums for clear vandalism. Just vote no if you want that option. 04:51, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

We should also have a poll/discussion afterwards to define veteran user. Having a firm definition is usually better than leaving it ambiguous. 06:42, January 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * If the rule doesn't go through, yes. I agree. But we won't need to make the distinction if it does go through, as all editors will be treated the same. 13:07, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

That was part of the discussion previously. Plus some people think vandalism is vandalism when it isn't like somebody making a mistake. SeaTerror (talk) 18:59, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely think admins should be allowed to ban anyone for being a dick. If it's accidental vandalism, it can be discussed, but if it's blatant being a dick vandalism then a ban is perfectly acceptable, regardless of how long that person has been an editor or how much they have contributed. An admin has that position because they are trusted to make the calls, both on unacceptable behaviour and on ban length. If there needs to be any discussion, the admins can discuss it themselves, and if needed talk to other users to get a full picture, but it's the admins decision regardless.

21:41, January 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * What about rule/guidelines violations, Nova? You don't mention those.


 * And I feel like "accidental vandalsim" isn't really a thing. Something's either an obvious mistake, or it's purposeful vandalism. Nobody writes "luffy sucks ballz" on a page by accident. So unless you can provide an example of "accidental vandalism" I feel like that's non-issue, ST. 21:58, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Rule and guideline violations, such as adding speculation when you're new, is not instant ban worthy, despite according to our rules being classed as vandalism. That's what I mean by accidental vandalism - it falls under vandalism according to our rules (specifically the "Adding gibberish, unrelated content, or speculation." bit), but it wasn't done with malicious intent.

22:03, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not about just outright banning people w/o warning. Any violations need to be treated the same. In my mind, it's like how I handle image issues right now:


 * 1) User breaks rule, I warn them with the IGR.
 * 2) If they break it again without any attempt, I add my "Image Guidelines Final Warning"
 * 3) If they still don't respond or make any attempt to correct themselves, I go for a short ban.
 * 4) If they come back and do it again, they get another ban right away because they should have learned about Image rules by now.

So the point of this poll isn't to allow us to ban people outright w/o warning, but to allow us to ban them without a forum after fair warning about the rules It's a "quicker" ban, not the quickest. I've update the poll to reflect that. 22:09, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

The question then is how many times a veteran editor is allowed to break a rule. Say someone posts an image against the rules, and then 5 months later does it again. Does that qualify them for final warning? Personally, I think yes, but that's a majority decision to make.

22:14, January 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * As long as the rule hasn't changed or been altered, I'd say yes. 22:19, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

I like this poll. Something tells me we could dive deeper into it, such as the quantity of warnings a user might receive or how seriously they're breaking the rules, but that could probably be covered another day after the main rule has been established. As is, the poll looks good. 01:30, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Ladder System for Bans
This section is related to the last one, since I can't imagine this working without the last one passing. So I guess I'll make it a subsection. This is the same thing people described earlier in the forum where when admins ban people, the bans start short (few days) and get longer with each subsequent violation. Simple as that. 00:52, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was something we already did. I think real life does this, too. Repeat a crime after doing your time, they'll throw you in for longer at the turn of a dime. 05:11, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this system, and the strictness should be harsher each time by a good deal (like, first time is one week, second is one month, third is six months, fourth means perma-ban). 05:51, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what JSD and Yata said, although I'm certain we already have a somewhat laid-back unspoken rule-thingy about this? At the very least, we should definitely write this down in the rules or something. 20:38, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

After we clear everything in this forum, we will add all the rules into the place. 22:08, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

We already do this. I disagree with Yata that the bans should be that extreme. SeaTerror (talk) 01:57, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, if we don't, we'd be encouraging an environment of lawlessness. Strictness is necessary to make sure the vandals learn their place. 02:32, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

I also want to add that unless it's clear vandalism,we shouldn't ban users at all just because they're noobs trying to help the wikia but dont know/understand the rules yet(like somebody uploading a jpg can be banned infinity 10-20 min after getting a warning with the current rules).If that's how things worked 2-3 years ago,lots of currently regular users wouldda been banned forever.I say We should go easy on new users who dont know the rules yet.

Yeah, agree with JSD and Yata. We need to harsher, but possibly make the fifth offense perma-ban, while the fourth could be a year instead. Roa, most of the vandals that I do come across do tend to add profanity to the pages, which is clear vandalism. We need to be bitter to them to set examples to other vandals. New users should be aware of the rules, as we have many warnings (ex. uploading an image), and possibly tend to be shy as they would be afraid of making an error. Older users would help them out, give them warnings, or advise. So this ladder system should work out fine. 01:22, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

The ban length should differ. There's no reason why a person couldn't just be banned for two or three weeks on a different offense. SeaTerror (talk) 01:56, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well, Roa, if this passes, nobody could actually be infintely banned for something as simple as a jpg mistake, since that would be completely avoiding the ladder. Something like that would need to be done multiple times in order to lead to a long ban. And of course warnings should be given before any bans (aside from vandalism, etc) are given.

Though sometimes, there can be cases where longer bans are need, like cases of harrasment/stalking, etc. So I actually think that while most violations should start at 1 day ban, Admins should be able to step up the punishment if they deem the circumstances extreme enough. 04:04, October 23, 2014 (UTC)


 * So lets pass this ladder system rule?

Lets just make a decision or start a poll on this.....:/

^ I agree. This forum's been ignored for way too long. 01:58, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

K we're giving this another 3 days,after that me or someone else is gonna start a forum on how this ladder system works.

No. Open it for all the proposed rules. SeaTerror (talk) 18:00, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Unlike other sections, this one seems to have a clear majority in favor of it. The only thing questionable about it is how it integrates with other sections of this forum, like the one above. So I don't think we need to have any polls about whether or not we pass it, since there's a clear majority in favor of it. Let's resolve the other sections first, then come back and see about how we integrate this one. 18:42, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

While I'm making many polls in other sections of this forum, let's wait on this one until after those resolve. 18:33, January 17, 2015 (UTC

Post-Polls Discussion
So now that the other polls are done, let's wrap up this section. Here's what we still need to do here:


 * It seemed a clear majority was in favor of this rule, so as long as that hasn't changed, we shouldn't need a poll for it in general, but we could need one for any smaller parts of the rule.
 * Does each ban apply only to one rule? For example, a user is banned for violating the image guidelines for a day, if they then get into several edit wars, are they banned for 3 days, or only 1?
 * Is this rule retroactive for previous warnings about rules which have not changed? Or for previous bans?
 * Should admins be able to increase the value of a ban if they believe the violation is harmful enough? For example, edit warring with hate speech, etc.

Anyways, any thoughts on these? I'll post mine after a few more posts. 19:30, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

I think the violations of any rules should equal more or longer bans, but retroactively this is going to be hard to enforce. If it's not immediately obvious from their ban history, I suggest users be given a clean slate from the point of this poll closing. And admins should be able to make the decision on the ban length independently, but if it's too extreme other admins should step in and discuss it.

19:29, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Stricter Edit War Rules
I also think we need to change what we consider a violation of edit warring rules. We need to work towards making sure that editors are working to build communication with each other, not just reverting each other's edits without any explanation. We need to strengthen positive relationships between editors to become a better community and set good examples for the new editors we want to get in the future. We also need to limit the amount of times reverts (with explanations) can happen before the page needs to be left alone and discussion can happen elsewhere (user/article/file talk pages, forums, etc. Even chat if it's not disruptive).

So I think in cases where someone reverts an edit with an explanation, and the other user reverts without an explanation should not be allowed. They should be considered the worst form of edit warring, since they are never done to resolve the situation. 00:52, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how edit wars should go for months; ping-ponging on my own ideas. Of course the edit before the war should take precedence, and we know this, but the "limit" of how many edits are kind of hard to consider. In my opinion, the only edits that really "count" should have an explanation. In fact, maybe it's best if we require an explanation for any major reversion, unless it's obvious. After maybe...three reverts, leave it at the original edit and head to the talk page to sort things out. Dunno if this will help any, but it's what I feel right now. 05:05, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how about anyone who edit wars gets one warning to tell them they are edit warring, and after that, if they do it again within the same place at a close time since the first transgression we put a ban? 05:51, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

The issue with edit wars is most people don't give reasons for it. SeaTerror (talk) 01:57, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

All the more reason to warn then once, and then ban them for the second breach. 02:32, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're entirely right about the problem being people not giving reasons for it.

The part you left out is that you're one of those people. I see one reason actually relevant to the topic, then a request to "stop trolling" which has zero value or relevance to the debate, then a bunch of reversions with no explanation.

I really think we need to change the rules as soon as we can to stop ongoing issues like this. 20:46, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

The original statement is what it was. Plus if you actually look at the edits I was the only person who gave an explanation. It becomes a point when people don't claim why they are removing it that the assumption is just trolling. SeaTerror (talk) 01:17, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if you weren't the only person doing it, or if you gave an explanation. ALL REVERSIONS should have an explanation. If someone reverts 15 times, there had better be 15 meaningful explanations. No less. 01:30, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. You can only blame the people not giving explanations. SeaTerror (talk) 01:33, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

See, this kind of debate and evidence is at the top of the list of why I don't feel comfortable making an account here to help out long-term (I'm the anon who questioned the "Substitute Instructor" Occuptaiton on Talk:Koala). The way things boil down, the legal channels of questioning material lack expediency (of the 15+ suggestions of corrections over 3 years I've made on talk pages, the issue on Koala is the first time anyone replied), and a legitimate edit to a Trivia section (albiet skipping the Talk Page first) that says 'may' and thus isn't absolute—supported by 4 different users—are undone with only an initial reason of " Because that was mentioned in a blog with no reference to back it up, " followed by ' Stop trolling, ' and finally without explanation on both sides repeatedly. I hope I don't have to go over why this doesn't make sense, but I am prepared to.

Bottom line: What's the point in getting a username if it means nothing besides get noticed more when you have a legitimate suggestion that might get ignored/blown off/undone anyways?

As to SeaTerror's reply to JustSomeDude: No, it makes perfect sense, as does your reply. "You can only blame the people not giving explanations," and you gave one explanation for 4 reverts—"Stop Trolling" is a declaration, not an explanation. Even though you remain partially to blame by others standards (as shown above), by your own standards you still carry some. How hard is it to copy and paste your previous Edit Summary—or better yet, actually clarify so they don't keep Undo-ing things? 137.150.222.191 23:29, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

So has this been resolved? Because I completly agree with JSD, I hate reverts without any explanation in the edit summary. Then I have to figure out why they reverted it on my own, sometimes I don't figure it out, then it turns into an edit war with a troll. MrHammer91 (talk) 03:38, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the most important section in this forum, and the one with the least amount of people who have responded.

And ST, do you understand my last post now? These other people seem to get it, why don't you? 18:42, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Stricter Edit War Rules Poll Discussion
This section is getting a poll too. Same as the other one, 1 week test poll, 2 week poll, 2 options. 18:33, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

Needs a it depends option. You can edit war with vandals too. Also "sufficient edit summary" is subjective. SeaTerror (talk) 18:42, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's gonna get banned for edit warring with a vandal ST, be reasonable. How about if I re-word it to "edit warring either without a summary or with a counter-productive summary"? And example of a counter-productive summary would be something like this which does not help facilitate discussion. 19:09, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

Now you're purposely taking that one out of context since it should be obvious what happened due to the previous edit summaries. SeaTerror (talk) 19:35, January 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter about the previous edit summaries are. That one edit summary is counter-productive, it does not help the discussion close, and it does not talk about the content being edited. It is counter-productive.


 * But is the wording I gave in my last edit better? Please answer that question. 23:42, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

The wording is still the same. "Sufficient edit summary" is subjective. SeaTerror (talk) 18:53, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

An edit summary in the event of someone reverting an edit that explains why it was made. What's subjective about that?

19:02, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

An example of a super long edit summary that even gets cut off: 22:18, October 20, 2014 (diff | hist). . (0)‎ . . File:The Simpsons Anime Incarnations.png ‎ (Uknownada uploaded a new version of "File:The Simpsons Anime Incarnations.png": Reverted to version as of 20:49, October 20, 2014 Actually, the claymation side might be relevant to the trivia, since the picture shows multiple versions. But i)

An example of a smaller one 22:02, July 1, 2014 (diff | hist). . (+2)‎ . . m Seagull ‎ (You for not adding the parenthesis.)

Then a medium sized one: 04:00, November 30, 2014 (diff | hist). . (-42)‎ . . m Shichibukai ‎ (→‎Trivia: Do we really need that thing for a freaking sentence?)

Then an example of an extremely short one from my talk page: (cur | prev) 15:05, January 31, 2014‎ SeaTerror (Talk | contribs)‎. . (15,408 bytes) (-954)‎. . (Spam) (undo)

Some people would claim that an edit summary isn't sufficient unless it's as large as the first example while others would say the last example is fine. SeaTerror (talk) 19:20, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you just let the admins judge what's sufficient. 19:18, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

What a terrible idea. SeaTerror (talk) 20:18, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

A terrible idea because... the admins aren't given their responsibilities in order to make these decisions? The admins aren't reliable enough to make these decisions? There's no active admins? Or is it that you don't like any admins, so you're just going to say it's a terrible idea because you don't want to have to explain yourself.

20:37, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I held this opinion long before I was elected to be an admin, and if you doubt me, you're just wrong: I trust the admins to make responsible calls when going for bans. This would be especially true if the ladder rule goes through. Yeah, "sufficient" is subjective, but because it's only the admins making the calls, I think that's ok. "Sufficient" is terminology that works because it makes the required explanation depend on the content of the edit. Obvious vandalism doesn't need an explanation (this is why rollbacks exist), but disputes between two users over page content better have an edit summary that at least tries to resolve the conflict.

And yeah, Nova's hit the nail on the head here: It's obvious ST is putting up a fight because he doesn't like at least some of the admins (me and DP for sure). But this forum isn't about only ST's opinion. So hopefully we can get some less biased opinions on this poll before it starts. 21:49, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Think of ST as one of these conspiracists with a tin hat, and you're all good. In other words, he's just very distrustful of authority. 21:56, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

So we should ignore everything he says that doesn't have an actual point and is just his opinion, such as "That idea is terrible." ? Sounds good to me. Shall we move on to an actual discussion?

21:59, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like the discussion with ST isn't going anywhere, since it's heavily biased and ST isn't giving any solid argument at all. Let's drop this and move on to an actual discussion, if any.

I think the poll is fine, sooooo. 01:05, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. Any comment where this clip is applicable should be ignored. 06:27, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Inactive Users and Voting
I was thinking that we should also have a rule against inactive editors voting in polls. I've noticed several cases where inactive editors show up to vote in the poll and then go back to being inactive. A lot of the time, it seems like people are just showing up to support their friends and then just leaving again. 13:57, October 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly how can we define inactivity? I haven't been an active contributor to the wiki, in discussions, editing articles or blogging for a long time, yet I'm a frequenter of the chat, and am even a chat moderator. Would I still be eligible to vote or not, despite having not been an active contributor for such a long time? What about how long a person need to be inactive to be considered ineligible to vote? There is a lot of questions need to be answered this suggestion brings up, Vid. 20:33, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with Vid, about inactive people voting for polls, and I'd like to see something to prevent inactive people, who possibly have no idea the reasoning behind the poll, or any rule changes, etc. However, there is a lot of questions that need to be answered before we can consider making the suggestion into a rule. 20:33, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to define. There are plenty of users who don't edit often but frequent the chat and this shouldn't apply to them. I meant inactive like OPN, who has 19 edits from the past year, several of which were just voting in the admin poll and leaving messages on peoples' talk pages. 20:42, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Inactive users don't matter. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them voting on polls. SeaTerror (talk) 01:57, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Can't deny that inactive users are rather not up to date, they don't understand what they are voting for at times. 02:32, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

In the past, I've been on the side of allowing any user who has met the requirements to vote. However, the controversy surrounding the Admin election has caused me to question that belief. I'm toying with some new ideas right now, and here's what I've come up with:
 * Any restriction on voting based on activity should be limited to only election and ban polls. Those are the only polls we seems to have problems with inactive users returning. And combine this with the next point, and there's a lot more meaning to this.
 * How about we define "activity" through voting history? (Or perhaps discussion-based contributions, like forums, talks, etc?) If the idea of limiting voting is to make sure only users who care and follow the wiki can vote, the users who keep up with discussions and polls are obviously the one who do care.

So in the end, I guess what I'm saying is what if we only allow users who voted on 3 of the 5 most recent polls to vote on ban forums/elections? We'd have to start tracking polls, but that would be an easy task after awhile. It's new concept, and likely needs tweaking, but to me it's an interesting idea to play around with. 02:37, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the second part. There are some active users, myself included, who don't always keep up with talk pages. Also, what if a regular user goes inactive for a while and then comes back? Maybe we could measure activity by edits, like defining active as having 10 non user page and user talk page edits in the month before the discussion starts. The number could be changed, but 10 doesn't seem like asking too much. I'm leaving out user talk page edits because some editors who don't contribute to the wiki itself still occasionally leave messages on their friends' talk pages. 03:32, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Like what ST said,I also find no problem with inactive users voting at all.Some might become active after the voting(most wont).If you're telling me that u want this rule because inactive users dont read any discussions and just vote for the options their friends voted,lots of active users do that too.The saddest part is we decide too many things with voting instead of discussions;(.

The problem is that most of them don't become active. Like JSD said, voting in regular polls isn't an issue but look at how many inactive users showed up to vote in the two polls I linked above and then disappeared. Users who aren't really a part of the wiki shouldn't have a say in important issues like bans and admin elections. 15:10, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. If you ban them from one type of polls then you would have to ban them from the rest. It isn't a big deal at all. SeaTerror (talk) 17:22, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

I already explained why it's an issue in my previous post. And we wouldn't have to ban them from other polls, just ban polls and admin elections since those are the most important polls. 18:31, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

And you're wrong. It just plain isn't an issue. The only voting rules we need are what we have now. SeaTerror (talk) 20:04, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Your position would have more force if you actually explained why I'm wrong and why it isn't an issue. Just saying "you're wrong" isn't helpful or productive. 22:28, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Sure this may be consider an issue, but it seems unjust. It will be similar to adding more requirements to the voting rules. It would narrow down the active users, but then we would realize that there don't seem to have as much voters as we desire. What if a user is considered an "inactive user" but actually stays up to date with the wiki? They just don't wish to edit, vote, or comment until an important issue arises. They should have the free will to be involved in bigger issues, if truly wish to get involved. Forcing them to get involved in smaller issues that really don't concern them is a bit too much. For example, making them vote in a forum which they are casually neutral. 01:05, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

It isn't even an issue though. It doesn't happen as often as they make it seem like it does. SeaTerror (talk) 01:56, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's say Mugiwara Franky comes back just to vote. You think he should? He's been gone for years now, he probably doesn't know how much we changed, who's doing what. 02:14, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Requiring 10 edits in a month isn't unreasonable. A lot of users get more than that in a week. And ST, this doesn't happen that often because we don't have ban forums and admin elections that often. Look at the recent election, though. There were several users who were completely inactive before the poll and went back to being inactive right after they voted. That's fine for regular polls but admin elections and ban forums are both a big deal and should have stricter requirements. 20:49, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

"And ST, this doesn't happen that often because we don't have ban forums and admin elections that often." So then you just admitted it isn't a big deal. Also THT's laptop was run over so that's why he's inactive. SeaTerror (talk) 21:19, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that about THT's laptop but OPN and FA are still valid examples. And this is still a big deal because those polls are big deals when they do happen, even if it isn't often. 23:01, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that we should do something to prevent poll manipulations from inactive users. Deciding on a certain number of edits a month before the poll actually starts would be a good first step. MasterDeva (talk) 18:15, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say 10 is fine. Any other suggestions? 03:54, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'll say 0 edits. SeaTerror (talk) 06:44, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: any other helpful suggestions? 17:29, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is helpful. It was already mentioned why this is a bad idea. SeaTerror (talk) 17:43, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

And I provided a counter argument which you didn't reply to. My previous comment was directed at people in favor of this proposal since your stance was made perfectly clear before. 23:05, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Bump. We really need to resolve this forum. 04:24, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

^Bump. 07:41, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, by basic standards an inactive user is one who does not do any edits for 30 days consecutively. Anyone who reaches that point should be stripped of all their special statuses. And if they decide to return, if we have not chosen a replacement yet, we can give them the position back. How's that sound? 08:00, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Then by your own logic you cannot vote on any poll since you didn't make a single edit on the 15th. SeaTerror (talk) 08:20, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

When did I say that? I said those who do not do any edits for 30 days consecutively. And I never said anything about voting. 18:17, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

That's EXACTLY what this section is about. By going by your own logic you are counted as inactive since you missed one day of consecutive editing. SeaTerror (talk) 18:31, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Can you not tell the difference between 1 and 30? According to Yata's definition to be be considered inactive today you would have to have not edited since October 22. Missing a day (or 29) would be fine. It's a completely reasonable requirement. 18:46, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

con·sec·u·tive adjective \kən-ˈse-kyə-tiv, -kə-tiv\


 * following one after the other in a series : following each other without interruption. Totally reasonable. SeaTerror (talk) 19:36, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

I think Yata meant go 30 consecutive days without editing. 01:11, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

This rule(if passed) is only for ban and election forums right?

Yeah, those are the only ones where inactive users voting is really an issue. 07:50, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Calu, I mostly observe discussions, forums, and talk pages, and only comment when necessary. But I am an active contributor, I know I don't have much flack here, but does that mean that people like me shouldn't vote? Unless your definition is less than 10 edits in general a month. MrHammer91 (talk) 03:26, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

This wouldn't affect you. This is more about users who go months without contributing and just pop in to vote in a poll with their friends. 22:57, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about this issue, I'm a bit undecided on it at the moment. I do know one thing: Blog edits or user/user talk page edits that have nothing to do with our actual content shouldn't count as edits that allow you to vote. Polls are about wikia issues, not your friends here or blogs. 18:42, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, although this rule should probably only apply to ban forums and admin elections since those are the only places where I've seen this kind of thing happen. 00:58, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Inactive Users and Voting Poll Discussion
Since nobody's responded in several weeks, let's just vote on this and be done with it. 22:13, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

I think the exact figures about what's considered inactive might make this hard for people to vote for. You're better off doing this in two stages: 1st Poll is whether or not we should make the rule, and after that closes, discuss and possibly poll what the specifics of the rule should be. That way people will be more likely to vote for the creation of the rule. 00:32, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Done. 18:03, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

What is an "Inactive User"?
Alright, so now that this poll has finished in favor of restricting voting on ban and election forums to active editors, we need to define what an "inactive editor" is. I'm not sure on this idea myself, but here's a couple thoughts I have:


 * Any definition based on X edits in X days should lean towards being more forgiving, not strict. Like a timescale of at about 2 months. Don't know about the number of edits though, as that is kind of a shitty measure of activity.
 * Any definition of inactive should be based on the date the poll opens. People shouldn't be able to make edits after the poll starts to meet the requirements. If they really care, they can get involved in the discussion or nomination phase (Ban and elections don't have "test polls")
 * I think chat mods should be exempt from the rule, as long as they are still in the chat fairly regularly. It's their job to moderate the chat, not necessarily edit the wiki.

Anyways, anyone else have ideas on what we should here? 19:22, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Any activity in the decided time period should count, not the amount of activity in it. The chat mods thing... well, I'm undecided on that one, at least for now.

19:30, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

People who use chat should still be counted as active since they are still using the wiki. Some people join every day but rarely edit like Enrik. I'm also against the rule about them not being able to make edits to make the requirements and that would be a hypocritical rule since you even said somebody could make edits if they wanted to vote on this exact forum. SeaTerror (talk) 20:55, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

Nova, any activity means that someone could come here, change "it's" to "it is" and be eligible to vote on a ban forum or election. Does that one edit really make them an active and informed member of the community?

It's impossible to monitor people's chat activity. It's slightly more possible for chat mods through the ban log (though that hasn't seen too much action lately). Only way to really measure it for other users is just pure memory. I have a hard time remembering who was in and out of chat 3 days ago, let alone a month.

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about in that second part, ST. This is not a ban forum or election forum though.

Also, how about a simple rule that allows people to vote if they have taken part in the discussion in the forum the poll is in? So if people want to vote they need to either: OR As long as either of those are done before the poll opens (I'd say nomination phase of elections is not "voting" so anyone can post then) I would believe that vote was done in good faith and not someone "recruiting" a vote from a long-inactive user. 22:15, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * Be an "active editor"
 * Take part in the discussion on the forum.

Removing unsigned posts
I got a good one: any post that is not signed should be removed. 15:16, October 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Why man?-_-..it's already bad enough that we automatically delete forums(even good ones) that are unsigned instead of just tagging it with a simple .why do we have to be so harsh on noobs?

Bad thing about that forum one is it isn't even a rule to delete them even though the unsigned template is used. SeaTerror (talk) 16:33, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Noope. 4:08 October 27, 2014 (UTC)

It's a sign of disrespect for the rules, saying something without telling who said it (sure the record can tell us, but we want to the person to say it themselves). 04:12, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

It should only be a factor, not a reason for deletion on its own. The unsigned template is fine for when the post is otherwise acceptable. 04:26, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

The unsigned template is fine for any unsigned post. SeaTerror (talk) 06:48, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Then how about a rewording: any editor who constantly does not sign their posts gets future posts deleted. A warning or two first. 23:53, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Zodiaque here, it should be a consideration for deletion, but not the main one (aside from the policy we already have with forum creation. Unsigned forums should be deleted). 18:42, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Since we already have a popup when someone doesn't sign their post, is it possible to automatically add the unsigned template instead?

15:03, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know this as well. Automatically adding the unsigned template would be good for us.

By the way, the template should look like this. To include the date, the template should look like this. 00:37, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

The pop-up appears regardless of whether you actually posted a message or made some other kind of edit, so I definitely wouldn't recommend any kind of auto-unsigned marking. 00:45, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Poor Treatment of New Users
Alright, it's about time we really talk about this. For the last several months I've been stammering on about how we need to be nicer to new users here. Real simply, I want to make some kind of policy that holds veteran users accountable for their behavior towards new editors and IPs. I don't want to have potential future editors scared off because people are mean to them. We need to change our ways, and I don't really know of any other way to make sure everyone is on the same page. 05:26, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for new rules
If you have an idea for a new rule, post it on this section, and if a couple people think it's a good idea, we can move the related posts to a new section. 00:52, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --Murder now the path of must We, just because the Son has come. (talk) 20:47, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Out of Order Forum Posts
Here's an idea: Often new editors will make posts in non-wiki based forums that are out of order. In addition they are often, above the forumheader, unsigned, and just generally unnecessary. I believe that these types of edits should be reverted, since they mess with the flow of the forum, should anyone actually want to read it.

For the record, posts made in forums about the wiki itself should still be allowed to be made wherever in the forum, like we allow currently. 18:42, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Does the Forum Guidelines template explain to post at the end of the relevant section of the forum? Might be worth adding if not.

02:31, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Stop posting multiple IGRs
Post IGR+a brief explanation of what they did wrong and don't keep posting IGRs multiple times on the same talkpages.

I'm already doing this, actually, and telling other users to do the same. I just did it on User talk:Kaizoku-Hime today. This isn't really a rule, just a change in the process. One rule I passed a long time ago (can't even remember where anymore, perhaps the forum about broken links?) allowed people to edit other people's pages and posts. So let's just edit it out when it exists multiple times. And since I imagine the IGR is going to go through some changes soon, let people update it on pages with the newest version instead of reposting. 05:48, February 8, 2015 (UTC)