Raise any issues, suggestions or concerns about Qualitipedia here! You may also create a blog if you prefer. Keep in mind that certain high-profile issues may be directed to a special page or blog to be focused, and that official polls and 'final' discussions may be done on a staff blog.
Feel free to use a local talk page (Discussion tab) to discuss any page or policy in particular. We will catch up to it.
Or else we will continue to be spared the inane attempts to troll the regulars, oh no.
In any case I think this request alone makes it clear nothing has changed, so as an admin on the discord I consider your appeal (of sorts) unsuccessful, try again another time.
So anyway, as you all know, one of the categories of wikis on Qualitipedia is the musicwikis. However, they're not the original music wikis. The original music wikis are mh:thehorriblemusicandsongswikia:Horrible Music & Songs Wiki and Best Music Wiki. However, they were poorly-received by Qualitipedia users, and as a result, they were replaced with the originalMiraheze versions (The Miraheze Best Music Wiki was later replaced with mh:delightfulmusicandsongs:Delightful Music & Songs Wiki). However, the wikis eventually migrated from Fandom to Miraheze as The Horrible Music and Songs Wikia and The Best Music & Songs Wikia. On March 22, 2021, I tried to tell MarioMario456 that the Miraheze version was a ripoff as he was trying to adopt it at the time (see my contributions page for more information) because at the time I believed it was a ripoff (although in reality, it was just a migration attempt created by CHICHI7YT, the former owner, and the attempt failed due to outcasts editing the main page and therefore their edits caused the new owner to falsely believe it was a duplicate deliberately created to replace the wiki). I admit I acted somewhat immature in the situation, but regardless, MarioMario456 told me that it would be kept as some "form of backup" which wasn't true, but whatever. Afterwards, I asked him what his plans were, and he told me what he was going to do about everything. On the comment section of a blog post, I replied to this comment and suggested that the wikis could be merged, but MarioMario456 said that many pages were trash so the wikis wouldn't be merged. I then created this thread to explain that the wiki can still be improved (I actually sent him another message before that which I originally posted on the original Miraheze HMASW on his talk page there but he pretty much said what he said before and when I tried to continue the discussion before he replied his talk page was merged into a flow discussion so I had to make a new discussion) but he then said it had the wrong domain, which is a point (although domains can be changed and you can create a new wiki with a better domain and import all pages including the main page) as the database name is thehorriblemusicandsongswikiawiki, which is extremely messed up. However, he marked the topic as resolved in order to reply, even though I wasn't done as I still wanted to know what was gonna happen, so I started this thread which DuchessTheSponge replied to, and he said they were going to close it down although it wasn't really clear how and I didn't make my message clear enough so I still had questions. Due to users necroposting, MarioMario456 marked it as resolved, even though Qualitipedia doesn't use necroposting rules, it uses gravedigging rules, which gravedigging only applies if it has been resolved. Anyway, I didn't start a new thread on his talk page after that, because by the time I decided to make another thread, both Duchess and MarioMario456 retired, so I started a new thread which pretty much went nowhere. Anyway, I'm sorry this message was so long, and I know that I probably shouldn't have sent so many messages, but I didn't get the situation resolved in one thread so I needed to make more to officially see what had to be done. However, could something be done about this? Even if it's decided the wikis won't merge in any way, I just want the Qualitipedia administrators to make some agreement with the owners of the originalwikis.
Dude, thehorriblemusicandsongswikiawiki and thebestmusicandsongswikiawiki aren't affiliated with ours. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I know they're not affiliated, I'm saying that I would like for something to be done about them, because the existence of two wikis about the same topic is a violation of Content Policy.
I don't see anything in Content Policy regarding anything about two wikis of the same topic. "A wiki must not create problems which make it difficult for other wikis" might be the one you are referring to, but it does not "hinder other wikis".
It does not hinder in a way that requires global action, or necessarily obliges local admins to act. But again, sit tight on this one as I do respect it as an issue and intend to look at it if my RfP is successful from a QP bureaucrat capacity. Though not as a first or top priority.
In spite of the delivery, I see the point and I intend to have this topic on my agenda upon successful resolution of my Qualitipedia RfP, which does seem quite conclusive so far.
on the main page switch: 1. Super Mario Bros. with Minecraft, 2. Cuties with pre-2000 movie, 3. Star Wars with post-2000 movie, 4. Wonder Woman with pre-1997 show, and 5. Google+ with pre-2005 website or Youtube with post-2005. If you have any suggestions, you can reply to this.
One of the popular anime wiki sites known as Project-imas (a wiki for The Idolm@ster fans) is shutting down. If anyone wants to import the stuff and images from Miraheze you can which at the top where it says the shutdown the "More Information" that you can click on will send you to the admin's forum where there is an 11 GB XML dump.
What? The website wikis still receive frequent activity and are decently sized despite us banning pages about users or sites with user-based pointers, so they aren't going anywhere.
I wouldn't be interested in having companies as part of QP. I still think we have enough already. Plus, there are a lot of companies that already have a page on one of the other wikis.
I don't think we should limit our options by saying we 'have enough' especially since we don't even bother with several of the ones we have, so really we could stand to try something new that maybe will have attention paid to for the other part you mention.
Companies are not directly topical to most Qualitipedia wikis anyways and companies can be known for multiple reasons. May as well have it all on one with a concentrated topic.
About companies, companies are needed because not all of them can be on only one wiki because they can make all kinds of media (ex. Disney makes games, movies, shows, books (I'm pretty sure), toys and they have a website). Also, before anyone creates anything, there's Horrible Companies Wiki and Marvelous Companies Wiki.
Did you even read what I said? They're not "fine" on those wikis because the companies don't always usually focus on only one type of media. Video game companies can stay on CGW, but companies that are movie and TV studios can't be on either Terrible/Best Shows & Episodes Wiki or Awful/Greatest Movies Wiki.
Usually yes, they do focus on specific fields unless they're truly gigantic, but it's still enough to be valid to me.
As far as the linked wikis go, there is literally nothing there in structure or content. Content can be addressed collaboratively, structure should have more to it if the wikis ever wish to be part of QP or recognized in our system since they are but two of many wikis with a name and nothing to them.
Hmm, from what I can tell you, the website wikis are the most hated Qualitipedia wikis - especially Rotten Websites Wiki. They are so bad that even Grust hates them to a certain extent - and DuchessTheSponge tried to shut them down once without permission due to drama. It would be far better to replace them with company wikis, since companies in general have done good or bad things, and are less prone to drama than website wikis. You go with what you think, but this is my take.
Yes, but the website wikis are still important. The drama about the website wikis happened, but the staff of those wikis have been deleting lots of pages such as pages based on the userbase, pages about groups, pages about YouTube channels, etc. Most of the problems with the wikis have been fixed, and if not, they shouldn't be enough problems for them to close down. Plus, for what it's worth, I don't get what FWW has to do with it. I get why RWW can be hated, but there was nothing necessarily wrong with FWW, besides the fact that it's not as active.
A key problem is an inability for there to be objective sources and reception from an even vaguely accurate authority without its own partisan lean. The choices of which site goes where is entirely discretionary and more a matter of how much you can think that you don't like about it and a collective agreement between a biased audience. But that's just my issue, and much of what gave RWW its reputation is resolved.
People can complain, whine or otherwise be displeased about literally anything. It doesn't make these inputs objective or measurable, and even if they are it doesn't mean the Qualitipedia clientele is competent enough to assess it in a way that makes pages justified.
Perhaps "complaints" wasn't the right word. "Criticism" is probably a more accurate word, and if the criticism is obviously more common than the praise, they can have an article. However, something that I will mention is that people can point out valid flaws about a website and make a page about it without it being too opinionated.
Good and bad things can equally be subject to criticism. The point is not that sustainable pointers exist or not, but that the ability to conjure complaints or an audience that is for or against a website does not offer an objective measure if good or bad weigh more heavily, let alone to the extent of picking which wiki to put them on when each carry very strong titles.
I kinda think that wiki contradict the miraheze code of conduct, considering "celebdumb",youtubers and individual articles have been deleted from the negative wiki. Also, if the admin decide to not delete it, should we improve the wiki quality overall? cause from what i've seen, that wiki is very limited, both quality, and quantity wise. (Well... at least for qualitipedia standards)
There are two music wikis and which you mean is not immediately clear. Wikis are closed for unresolvable Content Policy violations and rarely in relation to Terms of Service issues, but Code of Conduct pertains to users and is not a directly citable reason for a wiki to be an issue. That's a common misconception that needs to stop and anyone still saying it should be informed. I also don't see how any of these things would be contradictory to global policy when those pages, which may have been possible violations were removed.
If the wikis are to be closed, this should be done by community referendum that includes the target wikis (which have a number of active users in them) and is very unlikely to result in deletion or even closure unless nobody wants to take care of them. Otherwise they could be removed from the official Qualitipedia lineup, and this would be something to propose with Requests for Comment.
Personally I don't think the wikis have much purpose; it's not feasible to expect quality and sourcing standards to go up for the subject and they have always been populated based on individual or assumed collective opinion. At the very least I have no trouble with their removal from the QP lineup and their only practical function is testing things that would be much more disruptive to more active wikis. There's not much 'we' to improve them if hardly anyone cares.
Thank you for you reply, but my point is basically the same as NJPet (I realized he's also speaks about this) along with the question does page about person (bands) are allowed or not.
NJPet is incidentally an admin on the larger music wiki now. The smaller music wiki remains entirely neglected though, as well as has very very few pages of content. Bands are not banned specifically, that would be local discretion. The banned pages on people policy also doesn't apply to the positive wiki. Given I could only do so much and at this point NJPet is the only one who persistently cares, splitting them off isn't a half bad idea.
I just thought of something: how about merging the small wikis and making them about miscellaneous stuff? Both the music and book wikis are already small enough as it is, and this would solve the problem on making more wikis about other things such as hardware.
Edit: On second thought, that would likely result in a mess of a wiki, so that's not a good idea.
General purpose or merged on a wider subject is one thing, mixing different specific subjects together is what would be messy, especially merging literature and music but then having dedicated wikis on entirely different things.
What "smaller music wiki" are you talking about? Also, the reason why the music wikis are so small is because the original musicwikis still exist and despite those wikis receiving hate, several users still contribute to those wikis. See this thread. Also, personally I don't think that the music wikis should be closed or removed from Qualitipedia, they fit here.
I honestly don't feel comfortable with using hurtful buzzwords on these wikis. We should delete everything political and focus only on why things rock and why things suck.
Pretty sure we all got the point by now that Qualitipedia must be apolitical. Users like TigerBlazer are already working to scrub these wikis clean of anything political.
Removing all mentions as a whole I'm afraid is not quite practical yet, but as Marxo mentions we're going forward and wiping out offenders one page at a time, and will be cleaning up more nuanced pages in the future. Official focuses on SJW and GamerGate are priority targets at the moment.
I 100% agree. Make this a proposal though. It seems like SJW is just used by people here to refer to people they don't like. Especially by MarioMario456. And frankly, who cares if someone is SJW or supported GamerGate. GamerGate was years ago and would just be beating a dead horse at this point. I do not understand the extreme obsession with politics on these wikis.
For the record, wikis are not about being biased, judgmental, and opinionated. In the cases of wikis (the critical ones in particular), they have to explain things from an objective, factual, and truthful perspective, not the other way around. For instance, if a page has a pointer of someone/some corporation in terms of the higher-ups, being hypocritical, I will rather make it non-derogatory, and have it instead explain why they are/its hypocritical. And that's what the critical wikis should be doing. What I am doing, is not political correctness at all, nor is it censorship, it's regulation.
On Wikipedia, the Adolf Hitler article for example (especially the other articles that might feature him), may not be derogatory, but at the same time, they do explain clearly, that he is in fact (as opposed to being an opinion) a demagogue, a tyrant, and an evil individual of the 20th century. I am against censorship and political correctness as well, and I do firmly believe there should be platforms for debate, as well as political incorrectness. But being politically incorrect and controversial, doesn't have to be in wikis unless they are quotes being posted from IRL individuals like Joe Biden and Piers Morgan.
And besides, it also needs to be put into account, that not just actions, but words also have consequences...no matter what it is, the same logic goes with opinions. As a consequence of those occasional derogatory, biased, opinionated practices the Qualitipedias all have, they don't even feel like wikis at all, other than just populist domains. They will be wikis if they all explained about the qualities in objective, factual, unbiased, non-derogatory ways, but that's not the situation.
I'm going to try and address the substance of this in full detail. To do so, lets look back a bit.
Qualitipedia has built from a very low starting point, where people posting their own opinions on things was rampant and quality standards were nil. This has changed a fair bit, especially in recent times as we try to raise the bar and make the articles more useful to the wider internet. Things are missed and some best practices are not followed because good change is gradual, and we haven't reached that point yet. There are systemic issues that are worth addressing, although the way you write does not seem to address anything in particular nor offer actionable solutions for them. If we were to use the block situation from Rotten Websites Wiki as an example and explain why you were blocked, we would have a specific topic and perhaps arrive to actionable solutions to do better in the future, or at least explain why things happened the way they did.
In counter it is worth mentioning that while Qualitipedia can and should write from a neutral point of view, there is a certain level of bias that is part of the purpose of the wikis. Being a reception wiki does not always mean writing in a fully neutral way, but reflecting the common arguments of the audience with only as much commentary as necessary to understand the complaints that lead to the overall reception (leading to negative wiki or positive wiki respectively). Sometimes this can result in wording that can be inflammatory and it is worth discussing the merits of the wording, but this should be done civilly and with understanding of the point's purpose to reach a compromise. Understand the community that populates these wikis, the gradual requirements in improving said community, and picking your battles in a way that don't set you at odds with the majority of users or staff itself.
This has two methods, a reasonable general discussion on a wiki like this to help establish direction, and reasonable discussion through an offending page's discussion tab to deal with the example. This cannot be achieved through edit war, which inevitably pits an average user with an administrator. Due to how the wikis were founded, the administrator will always win. However, as I like to think I've done on these wikis to a point, the administrators can be held accountable by reason. So rather than a clash of powers resulting in a temporary ban, you can affect change by using reason and playing by the rules of civility. Again, using talk pages and addressing direct points rather than an edit war that goes strictly against the established rules and culture and scattered points that don't address the original problem.
So in conclusion, I invite you to make the distinction with this thread - do you wish to start a policy conversation with broad results, or do you have an individual issue that should be approached in context? You can do both, but each is best held in a different way with a clear statement so we can reach a usable solution.
"There are systemic issues that are worth addressing, although the way you write does not seem to address anything in particular nor offer actionable solutions for them."
What do you mean that it doesn't address anything or offer solutions?
"In counter it is worth mentioning that while Qualitipedia can and should write from a neutral point of view, there is a certain level of bias that is part of the purpose of the wikis. Being a reception wiki does not always mean writing in a fully neutral way, but reflecting the common arguments of the audience with only as much commentary as necessary to understand the complaints that lead to the overall reception (leading to negative wiki or positive wiki respectively)."
Unfortunately Raidarr, we cannot have it both ways either. Like I've said before, I am against censorship and political correctness, but I am sure there can be various platforms for debate and controversy (whether online or in real life), and the platforms would come in different flavours. What I was getting at with what I said, is that the reception wikis due to the same issues addressed, to put it bluntly, makes the wikis out to be complete mockeries of how wikis should really work. Wikis are meant for documenting information and explaining how things work, but really what the reception wikis do, are painfully the opposite. So sadly, this argument doesn't really weigh up. Unless the reception wikis truly act like wikis, then there are no problems.
"Due to how the wikis were founded, the administrator will always win. However, as I like to think I've done on these wikis to a point, the administrators can be held accountable by reason. So rather than a clash of powers resulting in a temporary ban, you can affect change by using reason and playing by the rules of civility."
Edit wars aside, even though that was an error on my part, to say that admins always win, pretty much gives indications that they are above criticism, treated as a priviledged class. As a golden rule, just because someone is good/successful at something, how important they are, or what position they are in, should not mean that they are above criticism.
In the event that there is an abusive, mean-spirited administrator, there is no equalibrium in that moment. What you need to understand, is if we cannot stand up for ourselves and others we care about, against most bad individuals, we will be much more vulnerable, and we will keep on being pushed around/harmed by them. There's a fine line between being assertive, standing up for yourself and others, as opposed to being an asshole/genuinely evil person. Using reasoning to hold an abusive person in authority (e.g. administration) is a hit and run, as they are likely to target and unrightfully punish those who dares question him/her. In case if you treat it as something trivial, I will be using corrupt states that use forced labour as an example. Hypothetically speaking, let's say someone that you closely love, had gotten into a tragedy of getting physical and/or mental health problems that makes him/her unable to work. He/She decides to use a pensioning system to suppport himself/herself over the years, but he/she had to put up with the abusive, threatening nature of most staff members (the higher-ups especially). He/she tries to stand up for herself and rightly so, but was kicked out cruelly, driving him/her over the edge, And then, commits suicide. That in of itself, should serve as an example, that there isn't always a level playing field. Good luck defending that.
As for the solution(s), I can offer one/some.
1. In terms of categories, instead of categories that use derogatory languages and names, should instead be non-derogatory and objective.
Example
'Hypocrites' to renaming it as 'Hypocritical.'
2. As for the quality pointers, it will be in similar vein to the above solution (i.e. having the language unbiased, non-derogatory, professional, and objective).
Example
Pre-Change: "Some examples of bad wikis include Geoshea's Creepypastas Wiki (Because of non-existent quality control, and Oddguyoutwithsoda, a hypocritical, toxic, spammy and heartless admin who did a lot of horrendous things on YouTube), CBeebies Wiki, PewDiePie Wiki, SML Wiki, Villains Wiki/Heroes Wiki (Due to being hypocritical about fanon characters being forbidden), VS Battles Wiki, TheScumHouse Wiki (thankfully shut down), Pooh's Adventures Wiki and the infamous Gran Turismo Wiki."
Changed: "Some examples of bad wikis include Geoshea's Creepypastas Wiki (Because of non-existent quality control, and Oddguyoutwithsoda, a hypocritical, toxic, spammy, unpleasent admin who did acts that are truthfully, horrendous things on YouTube), CBeebies Wiki, PewDiePie Wiki, SML Wiki, Villains Wiki/Heroes Wiki (Due to being hypocritical about fanon characters being forbidden), VS Battles Wiki, TheScumHouse Wiki (thankfully shut down), Pooh's Adventures Wiki and the infamous Gran Turismo Wiki."
Example 2
Pre-Change: "While YouTube does have a plenty of well-received channels such as Cinemassacre, PewDiePie, including modern channels and others, the other part of the community is filled with a terrible userbase with the staff barely enforcing YouTube's guidelines and ignoring tickets. This leads to a lot of questionable videos, YouTubers who upload videos just for profit usually with clickbait titles, trolls, SJWs, scummy users, and a lot more, with barely any action being taken against them due to the severe lack of quality control."
Changed: "While YouTube does have a plenty of well-received channels such as Cinemassacre, PewDiePie, including modern channels and others, the ugly side of the community are individuals who are unpleasent to come across, with the staff barely enforcing YouTube's guidelines and ignoring tickets. This leads to a lot of questionable videos, YouTubers who upload videos just for profit usually with clickbait titles, gremlins, mean-spirited subjects, and a lot more, with barely any action being taken against them due to the severe lack of quality control."
"What do you mean that it doesn't address anything or offer solutions?"
I meant that the content was mainly a repost of an over-lengthy address to the blocking admin that did little to help with the immediate problem, and that originally here it seemed to be a cross between a global address and frustration with that user. But looking now I think we're on a decent track. It is a difficult, but necessary conversation, because there are elements here I can understand, but may ultimately have to say are not practical. But we'll reach those in a bit.
"Unfortunately Raidarr, we cannot have it both ways either. Like I've said before, I am against censorship and political correctness, but I am sure there can be various platforms for debate and controversy (whether online or in real life), and the platforms would come in different flavours. What I was getting at with what I said, is that the reception wikis due to the same issues addressed, to put it bluntly, makes the wikis out to be complete mockeries of how wikis should really work. Wikis are meant for documenting information and explaining how things work, but really what the reception wikis do, are painfully the opposite. So sadly, this argument doesn't really weigh up. Unless the reception wikis truly act like wikis, then there are no problems."
This is a gradual goal for me. But it is important to understand how the wikis have managed to operate (with quite a lot of turbulence of course) before you, I, Bluba or FreezingTNT decided to try and change their nature. It is not an overnight change and how to do it without essentially pissing off the rest of the userbase is critical. This is why I am moving in more of a per-stage process of integrating into the system, introducing structure and policy to be accountable with, and once people have accepted these systems, using them to constructively guide them to better results and ultimately better serve the purpose of a neutral delivery that is truly based on reception. The problem of two aforementioned users is that they were impatient and attempted to do too many large steps at once that obviously would not go well with the users they needed to reach. And so in this I urge you to also take a more cautious approach to avoid getting their reputations. Blunt statements and even declarations of this length can be good, but only with care. I am by no means an expert and tend to be overly blunt and not always diplomatic (and of course I can be simply wrong), but I like to think my net average is better, so I advise taking this advice so you too may have the proactive influence.
"Edit wars aside, even though that was an error on my part, to say that admins always win, pretty much gives indications that they are above criticism, treated as a priviledged class. As a golden rule, just because someone is good/successful at something, how important they are, or what position they are in, should not mean that they are above criticism."
Going with the above, I wonder if you've noticed the rules section in a few areas that say 'admins, make the users respect your decisions, not the other way around'. It is a callous, narrow and you're quite right, 'privileged' policy. It must also be corrected properly. They are not above criticism, but you must use your head to make the difference between butting with them and making them understand the reasonable choice. This is by blazing the trail of how things should be done by taking the better step yourself, not locking horns in a way you yourself admit was an error when there is clearly work to be done in the extent of arbitrary power admins still have.
"In the event that there is an abusive, mean-spirited administrator, there is no equalibrium in that moment. What you need to understand, is if we cannot stand up for ourselves and others we care about, against most bad individuals, we will be much more vulnerable, and we will keep on being pushed around/harmed by them. There's a fine line between being assertive, standing up for yourself and others, as opposed to being an asshole/genuinely evil person. Using reasoning to hold an abusive person in authority (e.g. administration) is a hit and run, as they are likely to target and unrightfully punish those who dares question him/her."
In spite of the above, a majority of admins across QP act in good faith in the best way they know, only erring out of inexperience and being used to a nepotistic system that props them above the average user. Treating them as an enemy and hyperbole including comparing them to evil is one of the great errors in a corrective approach and the stakes are not nearly high enough to justify the means and comparison you went on to describe. They perform abuses but do not necessarily intend abuse, and if the majority of both users and admins are comfortable with things as they are then you are simply a minority martyr like the other users I name dropped. I think that is a waste of talent and I urge you not to follow their path. Instead perhaps contribute to the policy building ends and a more diplomatic way of improving the leadership, which should make dividends on then improving the content.
I agree with the examples proposed and the third in particular is actually something that is beginning to be pushed by various admins collectively in the wider drive to not attack userbases. I would go even further in numbing the second example as it still makes potentially troublesome namedrops. The first is something that can be discussed with additional admin input to see if it makes sense. Having that particular category in my opinion may be unnecessary in the first place, so it seems clear to me that both category removals and renames would be warranted. This can be more deeply addressed in a wider 'category compliance' project I would like to explore soon. In the meantime, thank you for raising those points and if you seek to make further changes that may result in issue or discussion, please take the issue to the talk page so it can be rationally discussed. Heck, pull someone else in to look it over, even me to come up with a wording that is both agreeable and useful, to result in the change you desire being done without making you an outcast.
From the outset, to take into account is that, bad changes should not be welcome, at all, while the good changes are welcome. Because it cannot be a neither thing, and it should not have been since the beginning of time.
To be honest with you, and to just level with you, I fully acknowledge that there are those who are in power who are fair-minded, not prideful, not narrow-minded, etc. And if they make mistakes, they should be held to account in a civil manner. And I agree with that. But by the same token, I am talking about those who are indeed callous, uncaring, apathetic, wrongfully biased, change things which are entirely in regards to opinion as opposed to instead being tied to factual issues, and relying on political correctness. The bottom line here, is that political correctness causes much more problems than it has solved, and it far more often than not, defends the perpetrator time and time again. If it exists, there is no better way to hold a malignant individual to account. On the same subject, all of us have a right, to take a hard line against malignant individuals, stand up for ourselves and the people we care for, and to give them justice. Silencing people from doing so, is dangerous, it goes against freedom of speech, it exonerates most people that are indeed bad, and it just has zero place. If the worst of administrators happen to target a helpless individual, its a David and Goliath situation; its not fair, and the person has no chance to stand up for him/herself. If the same person does take a stand, he/she will be blamed and silenced, and then at worst, banned. That's the whole problem with political correctness.
Quite frankly, with all due respect, we all need to stop putting on blinkers and trivializing the abuse. Because unless its taken very seriously, then the situation will become much more ugly as time as on, and people (myself included) will not only abandon the site, but happen to call it out more actively. The ideas to fight against all this, is three-fold.
1. Create a system to vote corrupt moderators/administrators/founders out.
2. Have the times of being a moderator/administrator limited rather than permanent.
Examples
Admins: Three-Month/Half-Year/1 Full Year Periods
Moderators: 3/7 Month Periods
3. In the events of abusive conduct my certain select admins and moderators, they should not only have their statuses stripped off of them, but also ban them for greater lengths of time, in order to serve them as examples of what not to do as an admin and moderator. Its basically a case of rule of rule, where all of us must be equal under the rules.
So here I would say I agree at least with the directional focus of more equity between members and accounting of the staff on QP. Something I can get behind anyways even if I think the extent of what you speak of is more nuanced. Mainly I believe the approach to truly bad actors as you suggest is to highlight the actions and not let it down. I believe in a bar of civility, but you may notice I've had no trouble digging into certain people regardless for what they did through various outlets; these days this wiki can be an acceptable outlet, where previously one would mainly have to go to The New Reception Wiki to offer controversial commentary on QP management. In particular right now, if you have examples to offer of these people in action that are recent and actionable, I invite you to reference them as I'm also willing to hold them accountable if I agree that they're acting poorly. QP is a very very difficult thing to 'fix', but we can at least raise the bar over time and reduce the negative impact on the wider platform's reputation.
1. is fairly standard for Miraheze itself, and I'd fully agree with codifying it. Theoretically this can happen now, but again, not codified.
2. is more difficult between the messy logistics of how many admins there are and frankly, the limited audience of invested members. There's a minority of non-staff who are as active as most of the active people who also act as staff. It may be easier to hold the staff accountable in their own culture, which is easier at this point since there are now two distinct levels of QP management; the global bureaucracy with two members and the local administrations - mainly administrators and local bureaucrats; as you know, these can still overlap on several wikis, but they do not decide wider QP direction and policy. So keeping this framework in mind would be helpful for reform. Frankly if we have a more consistent base to use, I'd rather we consider a mix or a merit-focused way to issue promotions and determine leadership. Ultimately in spite of risk I value stability over true democracy, given democracy's flaws and the frankly questionable maturity of audience. I'm especially in favor of this when considering how ultimately small the invested Qp community is, especially as far as qualified people who actually know what they're doing and are willing to hold power.
3. is reasonable so long as there is a proper system to determine abuse that deserves the full extent. Note the default Miraheze pretense of 'assume good faith', where people shouldn't be automatically stripped and banned for slipping once or twice. Heck, one past issue is admins being promoted with nothing to go on, screwing up or becoming disliked and then being promptly demoted, or even demoted and blocked. Going forward I would use demote and block sparingly, and I do not trust the people or the processes at this time to be fair at the process. Really, I'd rather look at the rules they are to follow and enforce first, more on that...
I invite you to consider the rules on this page, and tell me the ways they can be better refined and better enforced. When they are generally good enough, I would like to push them for inclusion across all QP and then link them properly to the global rules as well so there is a bar to measure against. Then, the staffing can be improved to also match that bar, and finally things can be enforced consistently. But the groundwork must be complete, as one historic issue is staff not knowing what to enforce, in general or between each other.
In other words we need a stronger base to hold people accountable to, before we try to make them accountable.
Old, barely of relevance to QP and not going anywhere. Please bring this subject to a blog if you really wish to keep an expression of these thoughts open.
I've asked them to globally lock a few users like Harry2003, and that user who sent me a rape threat on TTSW, but they ignored me for no reason at all and aren't doing a thing to stop these users, thus allowing them to do whatever they want. Is Miraheze dying? Is it suffering from a lack of quality control or poor communication with other users? If these Stewards can't do a thing, then this site's in serious trouble.
If a user is being handled locally and only affects locally, the Stewards likely look over it in favor of greater priorities. What Miraheze does lack is available time for them to address just anything at all, and so if you want the topic addressed with linked evidence of their activities as a global negative or if there needs to be a CheckUser to establish long term abuse with multiple accounts, perhaps pass it on to DarkMatterMan. He is fairly persistent and if there is merit, there is at least a reply or something gets done.
Well, the problem is that I actually do show evidence of these users' wrongdoings; it's just that the Stewards don't even respond, leaving me to handle these situations myself.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Topics like this die for no reason, because no one wants to continue discussing them, so this discussion might as well be deleted.
I'm not sure there is anything more to say really. Perhaps as compared to somewhat dancing around the issue outside the Stewards periphery, you may ask it of them on their own talk pages on Meta to ask for a review and status.
You would have to discuss it with User:DarkMatterMan4500 and/or other current bureaucrats, whenever they'd like to comment. We don't have a true 'joining qualitipedia' policy yet, beyond getting in touch with them.
To make it part of QP you could add DarkMatterMan and Blazikeye as bureaucrats, given they are leader and co-leader respectively. I guess it's up to them from there to QPify it, unless you have other ideas to make it fit.
This does raise a question for QP as far as trust; I don't mean for all of QP, but for each QP wiki if people 'founding it' are trustworthy to be (ideally permanent) bureaucrats on QP for that place. Considering just founding a wiki and getting it approved makes it easy to get at least one slot of absolute power since founders expect to have those powers even if they join QP, where they otherwise wouldn't.
No widespread issues have been reported, even to corroborate the initial statement. Indeed, they've done no harm with reported abuse and at least some people seem to get a kick out of them.
Since DuchessTheSponge, the one who came up with the idea of allowing them, is retired, should we go back to disallowing custom headings on Qualitipedia? Because, I've been looking at these pages and, if you ask me, the headers are unfunny, immature, and they add nothing to the page, and at some point in the future, the wikis are gonna end up looking like Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki and Healthy Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki.
Not enough support to remove these templates on local wikis. Topic may be raised again, in blog or in (ideally new, with a stronger suggestion for action) topic here.
I think we should just do away with these templates, because they're unnecessary, the pages don't even show any pornographic or graphically violent content, the templates are added to certain pages for no reason, they clutter the pages, and they often cause other users to engage in edit wars. What does anyone think of this?
I agree. They need to go. They may have been useful before, but now they are just a problem (For example, a SpongeBob episode had the NSFW and NSFL templates when it was just an episdoe of a children's cartoon that doesn't even have that in it (Key words: Children's cartoon)).
There were two SpongeBob episodes you refer to, and those are The Splinter and Ink Lemonade. A user kept adding the templates to the pages when neither of them needed one, and started edit warring, but I block them for a couple days and had to protect both of the pages for a while afterwards.
I somewhat see the point of NSFW, but NSFL not so much, and both on one page is redundant. As it is I wouldn't mind if they were simply removed, but I do think the NSFW one can be used responsibly.
The thing is, both of these templates have been abused for quite a while, because not only do both of them get added, but either one of them will be added to a page for no reason at all, like how months ago on Awful Movies Wiki, when pages like Logan and Joker had the NSFW templates when those pages weren't even well-suited for one, and on Best TV Shows Wiki, shows like One Punch Man and Courage the Cowardly Dog had the NSFL template when, again, those shows didn't even warrant those templates, nor is there anything NSFL about them.
NSFL is rather hyperbolic anyways, so I'm fully in favor of pitching that one. The other would be dependent on simply knowing where it applies, namely content that has traditionally nsfw warnings already (ie, that type of game on steam).
UPDATE: I made a poll on CGW about whether or not these templates should be deleted from Qualitipedia, and most people voted "no", so they're both pretty much here to stay.
Discuss issues, suggestions and so on related to all wikis part of Qualitipedia (that share this administration). Also, Global rules and other pages for things that apply to multiple wikis.
This is the first time we actually use our meta wiki. After some drama (we will not say who caused it because it would be gravedigging), we removed the person's logos after we found out they ripped off MatPat's profile pictures. I'm currently making my own logos, but so far only the CGW and AGW logos have been made so far. Since I was busy with some other stuff, I only made these two logos and moved along with some other stuff. I will be making my own logos as time goes on. Here are my logos (I already have the vectors in my hard drive, but I'm uploading them here as PNG for people using old-as-shit browsers):
I think there should be a common design. My suggestion is to make it based off the MediaWiki logo with two square brackets surrounding the icon. Also, there will be a caption in the Graphik font showing the name of the wiki.
I want to make a mix of FreezingTNT's logos and the MediaWiki logo. There will be three petals for each wiki, because there are 24 petals in the logo, with square brackets surrounding the sunflower. The wiki's icon would be located on the disk (the circle surrounded by the petals). I will use the same colors as NJPet's proposal.
Actually, now that we have only seven wiki sets now (The character wikis will be reopened if the community agrees, but will not be part of Qualitipedia), I think we should go back to using FreezingTNT's designs.
The only reason why FreezingTNT's designs were retired was because MarioMario456 blocked him and Mario couldn't tolerate his hard work for designing the logos. He decided to make unprofessional logos that rip off MatPat's profile pictures, and he decided to make Qualitipedia's logo a rainbow, which has nothing to do with the agenda of the network, which is to review entertainment (websites, games, home and handheld consoles, movies, TV shows, TV show episodes, literature, game developers, entertainment companies and game developers) and categorize them into negative and positive reception.
I think you're on a better track in shape and idea. I would say the problem is; too detailed. There is no sense of contrast. Logos are not about being detailed or artistic, instead memorable. And I don't get why they feel the need to include the text every time. Logos should stand on their own without it, as that is what they are for.
I actually wanna remove the touchpad as well. But, When I removed it, It looks too boring to me, so I decided to add it back. If it's still too detailed, I'm sorry but this is as far as I can go.
-
My contenders. Inspired by FreezingTNT's ones and by Qualitipedia banners. Note these are prototypes.
