I... i dont know what this is. is this a fanon?
What's on your mind?
TEXT
POLL
- All47 posts
- General19 posts
- Help desk0 posts
- Off-topic28 posts
Sort by
Card Layout
General
Planes In the Evil Crophopper
Just Updated
The Analytics page is now on C.Syde's Wiki! Now, the Analytics page itself is only accessible to Administrators. But since I'm happy to see the smart new dashboard on this wiki at last, I have decided to post a free insight to what the Analytics look like as of yesterday (or today in my area)
The information on the Analytics page is only really meant to be seen by Administrators, but I can't see anything on the Analytics page at the moment that shouldn't be open to non-administrators to look at. So therefore, I have no guilt in presenting these screenshots! :)
It's been several days since I got the idea to create this proposal. But it wasn't until today that I was able to get around to putting the proposal in action. I apologise if this proposal may sound a bit rushed, but when I tried to write this proposal up the first time, I accidentally clicked next to the text box in Discussions. And it caused me to lose everything that I'd written. And I'm still rather irritated about it as of writing this. But anyway.
Firstly, I have noticed that the quality of the wiki has increased significantly over the years. And secondly, I have noticed that we currently only have four pages on this wiki that are categorised as test pages. Since this wiki has already exceeded 700 pages, in which more than 700 of these pages are categorised as standard article pages as opposed to test pages, I feel that now would be the right time to propose that we eliminate the test pages category.
I am sure that those of you that have created pages that are currently categorised as test pages will be wondering what will become of them if this proposal passes and the test pages category is phased out entirely. This does not mean that your pages will be deleted outright. As a matter of fact, I feel that three of these four pages have enough content in them to warrant keeping. However I do feel that they would be better to move to the userspace, since they aren't really fit to be grandfathered into the article pages category.
So here's what I propose should happen to the following pages if this proposal does pass and the test pages category is eliminated:
Dary's simple coding page — This test page does have a fair bit of content in it, and therefore I do feel that it would be a shame to delete it. However I also feel that it is unsuitable to be moved into the article pages category, as it is clearly intended as a personal sandbox page, rather than an article page. So therefore I propose that it is renamed to "User:Daryurian18/simple coding page" or "User:Daryurian18/Simple coding page".
Dary's simple coding page 2 — Pretty much the same as the first simple coding page. It does have a fair bit of content in it, and therefore I do feel that it would be a shame to delete it. However I do feel that it is unsuitable to be moved into the article pages category, as it is clearly intended as another personal sandbox page. So therefore I propose that it is moved to the creator's userspace, along with their other test page. I propose that it is renamed to "User:Daryurian18/simple coding page 2" or "User:Daryurian18/Simple coding page 2".
Shado's Syntax Practice — The title of the page says it all. While this is by no means the smallest page on the wiki — having more content in it than certain article pages — it is also very clear that it is intended for testing purposes. And therefore I do feel that if the test pages categories are eliminated, that this page should be moved to the creator's userspace. So I propose that it is renamed to "User:Daughter.of.Shadows/Syntax Practice". That's if the creator of the page still wants it. As I've noticed that the creator has not made any edits to the wiki in over three years.
Meme Of The Day! — Of the four pages on this wiki that are placed in the test pages category, this has to be the one that does not appear to have been created for testing purposes. In-fact the only reason I categorised it as a test page in the first place is because I felt that it was lacking too much content for it to be placed in the pages category. Should this proposal pass, I propose that it is moved into the pages category.
However, unlike the other "test" pages on this wiki which I believe should be moved to their respective creator's userspaces, I have a feeling that this page may not survive the effects that this proposal will have. Because if this page is moved to the pages category, it will be tagged as a stub and will get deleted if not improved within a reasonable amount of time. I have noticed that the creator has not been active since June 2017, so there is a possibility that they may not need the page anymore anyway. But if this proposal passes, I will still reach out to that user, requesting that they add a few sentences to the page so it won't be eligible for deletion.
Already I have done a bit of cleaning up around the wiki, as I have already reached out to a user asking them if they were intending to expand their test page at any time in the future. And they said that they didn't need it anymore. So their test page was deleted.
This thread will be open for a minimum of five days. It is currently 1:35 PM in New Zealand, so if there is a consensus after five days, the thread will be closed at 1:35 PM on the 17th May 2019. If there is no clear consensus one way or another, the request may stay open for an additional two days. If there still isn't a clear consensus, well we'll see what should happen after that.
Since we've had a lot of successful nominations of various users on this wiki, I thought that I should make a proposal regarding whether or not the current requirements for chat moderator, rollback, and discussion moderator candidates should be increased slightly.
Currently if a user applies for chat moderator, rollback, or discussion moderator rights, they will always have their requests accepted as long as the administrator or bureaucrat accepting the request is unable to find any history of negative edits from the user on any wikis.
But that tactic hasn't always proven to be the greatest, especially given that a few of our users that had their requests approved were discovered to have a questionable history on other wikis, after their requests were accepted.
Three of these users were globally blocked at some point after their requests were approved for different reasons, so there was no other option but to demote those users.
Since local administrators cannot lookup a user's contributions on multiple wikis by means of the community.fandom.com/wiki/Special:LookupContribs special page, their methods of trying to verify whether a user has made any negative contributions on so much as a single wiki are quite limited.
So my proposal is that the current requirements for chat moderator, rollback, and discussion moderator candidates be changed so that a user can only have their request approved if the administrator or bureaucrat is able to confirm whether the user has a clean record of no negative edits on wikis. Candidates for content moderator, assistant, and administrator rights will also be bound to this change.
It is currently 5:11 PM in New Zealand. This thread will be open for five days. Once the timer expires, if there is no clear consensus one way or another, the request may stay open for an additional two days. If there still isn't a clear consensus, well we'll see what should happen after that.
Looks like polls have been enabled on this wiki now, after I sent a request to have them enabled.
While it is a beta feature, I requested to have them enabled early, which makes C.Syde's Wiki one of the first communities to have polls added, as well as the second community that I'm part of that has gotten them so far.
By the looks of things, it appears that only the original post can have polls added to them, other posts can only have images added to them. But enjoy! :D
11 Votes in Poll
It's been quite a few days since I got the idea to make some changes to the csydes.fandom.com/wiki/C.Syde's_Wiki:User_Rights_Requests page. I've had this idea since I've noticed that several of our candidates that have requested rights here have failed to format their requests correctly. Initially I believed that that was due to the fact that the candidates lacked the experience to format their requests correctly.
However it seems that perhaps it's about time that some changes were made to the way candidates are expected to format their requests. The way the requests are supposed to be formatted was adopted by the way candidates were expected to format their requests on sims.fandom.com/wiki/The_Sims_Wiki. Many of the templates etc. on this wiki were in-fact adopted from the Sims wiki, and then customised to my liking.
I've been looking at some other wikis for inspiration. I got some inspiration spongebob.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Discussion_templates from the spongebob.fandom.com/wiki/Encyclopedia_SpongeBobia and I thought of possibly making some pre-loadable templates which will duplicate what the candidates need to format their requests, since a big problem I've noticed is that too many of our candidates have completely ignored the "SAMPLE FORMAT, DO NOT REMOVE" label when trying to format their request, which unfortunately resulted in them trying to format their requests using the default which is example rather than copying it.
Admittedly the user rights request page has become rather cluttered from merging two user rights requests pages into one. While I wouldn't be keen on splitting the page up again to what it was prior to the merge, I was thinking of maybe splitting the page up so that one page could contain the information and one page could contain the request sections. For an easy navigation, I was thinking of making a tab template like bdaman.fandom.com/wiki/Template:Chartab this one. I'm not against the idea of making pre-loaded templates, but the thing is it would take quite a bit of work to make them exactly how I want them, and I'm not entirely sure whether they'd be able to work exactly how I want them, since I've never actually made a pre-loaded template before. But anyway, I was wondering if there were any other alternatives besides the ones that I've brought up.
Our current policies require that all prospective candidates or nominees for Assistant or Content Moderator first attain either Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator rights on the wiki. I could just go ahead and modify the requirements myself, without seeking input from anyone who happens to notice this thread. But I have decided to propose that these requirements to obtain Assistant and Content Moderator rights are removed.
It's important for us to understand why the requirements were originally put in place, and the effects they currently have. When the Assistant and Content Moderator user-groups were first introduced, it was decided that a user must obtain either Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator rights, before obtaining Assistant or Content Moderator rights.
There are no requirements to become a Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator on this wiki, since none of these user-groups so far, especially the Chat Moderator and Discussion Moderator user-groups, have a significant impact on the wiki. Very few users use chat here, so the need to ban users is almost always overlooked. The forums on this wiki aren't used very often, and talk pages are used on this wiki instead of message walls, so the need to archive threads is increasingly limited.
For users with Rollback rights, they are more likely to cause a problem since if a user is promoted to rollback on this wiki, and they are later revealed to be a troll, they may use rollback to revert good faith edits. The editing side of the wiki is significantly stronger than the social side, which probably explains why there has been one incident of an inappropriate use of rollback on this wiki, but no incidents of inappropriate uses of kicking and banning users, or inappropriate uses of taking over thread conversations, or article comments.
Users that misuse rollback on this wiki receive warnings as a result of their blatant misuse of the tool, or if the situation is serious enough, they may risk loss of rollback privileges altogether. But since the rollback tool is the only thing roll-backers have that regular users do not, there remains to be no requirements to become a rollback here. Users who apply for Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator rights here always tend to have their requests approved, unless they been found to have a history of negative contributions on this wiki, or on other wikis.
For Assistant or Content Moderator rights meanwhile, a user must have Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator rights. In addition to those requirements, there are several recommendations that can mean the difference between an approved request and a non-approved request. These recommendations are: having made edits to templates and categories, and use of more "complex" tools or features such as tables, and knowledge of or experience with JavaScript or Cascading Styling Sheets. These recommendations are not compulsory, but they can strengthen the chances of the outcome of the request.
It is possible for a user to not be very experienced, and still have their requests for Assistant or Content Moderator pass. But it's a relatively uncommon occurrence, and is unlikely to happen, unless the user is considered trustworthy to use the Assistant and Content Moderator tools appropriately, and not abuse them for their own gain, and to cause havoc. The main reason why Assistant and Content Moderator rights are held to a higher standard is because they can view deleted contributions, change the protection levels of pages, and edit fully protected pages.
Content Moderators can delete and un-delete pages whereas non-Content Moderators can not. And Assistants have access to several tools such as importing pages, marking reverted edits as bot edits, enabling and disabling article comments in blog articles, editing other user's user blogs, and editing wiki-style forums which are locked and archived on this wiki, and un-editable by non-Assistants.
But to be honest, I feel that Assistants and Content Moderators are held to a high enough standard without needing to have one of the following pre-requisites - Chat Moderator, Rollback, and Discussion Moderator rights - because like I mentioned, there are several recommendations may have or may not have which can determine the difference between a successful request or an unsuccessful request. Chat Moderator, Rollback, and Discussion Moderator candidates meanwhile will always have their requests approved unless they have been found to have had a negative history on this wiki or on another wiki.
Also I do feel that having those prerequisites in place doesn't do much to encourage users to apply for Assistant and Content Moderator rights, especially since Chat Moderators, Roll-backers, and Discussion Moderators will usually just want to apply for Administrator rights which are available for them to request. Users who apply for Assistant or Content Moderator rights are less likely to have their requests declined than if they were to apply for Administrator rights, since there are slightly more requirements to become an Administrator which are just recommendations to Assistant or Content Moderator candidates. There hasn't been a single user on this wiki yet that has had their Administrator request approved that wasn't once an Assistant - Content Moderator rights didn't exist yet at the time.
For all the reasons listed above, I feel that with these changes, not only will Assistant and Content Moderator rights potentially receive more recognition, but users will no longer need to apply for any lower tiered rights first, which will serve as a benefit for users wanting to work their way towards obtaining administrator rights, having a choice between five user-groups to apply for, instead of three. Considering that the process of filtering out users who are unqualified for Content Moderator, Assistant, or Administrator rights is good enough, allowing regular users to apply for Assistant or Content Moderator rights as a first request will do much more good than harm, if there is any harm that is.
- Should we remove the Chat Moderator/Rollback/Discussion Moderator requirements for Assistant/Content Moderator candidates, and give them the option to apply for Assistant/Content Moderator rights to fulfill the requirements needed to apply for Administrator rights later?
To weigh in on this discussion and vote, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:
{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:
{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for seven days. Time remaining:
This new proposed policy has been put forward, upon being advised by wikia staff to make changes to the way blocks and unblocks are handled.
Currently the policies say that any user who has joined this wiki will automatically be placed on an indefinite block, should they be found to have a history of sock-puppet accounts.
However wikia staff, and possibly a couple of users have said that automatically placing users on such blocks, particularly sock-puppet users that otherwise edit in good faith, may result in unwanted provocation and possibly even complaints.
I actually noticed a user unsuccessfully attempting to request that my wiki be closed down. I initially believed that they were doing this in response to me blocking all their accounts from editing here, hence their having a join date, and being confirmed to have had a history of sock-puppets.
But since I was advised to make some changes to these policies by wikia staff themselves, I've come to think that maybe that user had a point. They weren't being disruptive, and I guess them being blocked may have been construed as a personal attack to them, which wasn't my intention. Still, I will keep all but one of their accounts blocked, because I wish to retain the policy of limiting users to one active account only.
The user in question however won't be unblocked until their birthday this year, as they are apparently one year below the legal age to have an account on wikia. But one thing is absolutely certain is that some users, such as this one will not be given the chance to return to this wiki, not after the disruption they have caused on numerous wikis across the wikia network.
So I've put this policy proposal forward, for users to vote on it, either publicly via thread posting, or anonymously via poll.
- Should we give good faith users a chance to return to this wiki, even if they've been revealed to have a history of sock-puppet accounts on other wikis?
- Yes I think it's a good idea. [3]
- No I think it's a bad idea. [1]
- Policy? What policy?! [0]
If users are not comfortable with giving their names, I won't scold those unknown people to the air. That's why I've given users the option to vote using a poll.
But for the users that are comfortable with voting publicly, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:
{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:
{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Please do not vote if you are not registered. All unregistered votes will be discarded and deleted.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining:
In light of a recent idea that has come into my head, I would like to start a discussion as to whether we should fully enable the article comments feature on my wiki.
The wiki features describes the article comments feature as an extension that will let people write comments at the bottom of article pages. Other users can reply to the comments, and signatures and time-stamps are automatically assigned. This will replace talk pages on this wiki.
I've always preferred the talk pages over the article comments option, and I was in favour of disabling the article comments feature. Back in January 2015, a consensus was reached, and the article comments option was disabled.
In April 2015, the article comments feature was re-enabled, but for the fanon namespace only. However I don't see the talk pages for the namespace being used very often, and thus I have begun to question whether we should keep using them, or replace them, and fully re-enable the article comments.
The reason I disabled them, was because I always preferred the talk pages, however since this wiki is a lot newer than wikis like The Sims Wiki, it won't really matter if the article comments feature is re-enabled, since we only have a few semi-active users here, and only one full-time user.
So basically we don't really have any long term wikia users that have been editing wikia for many years that would benefit from keeping the talk pages for the main namespace on this wiki. And even with the comments section fully enabled, we'll still have talk pages inside the project namespace.
So because of all this, I've subsequently decided to propose that we fully enable the article comments feature, and use it to replace the talk pages inside the main namespace.
- Should we enable the article comments feature completely, so that it will replace talk pages inside the main namespace?
To weigh in on this discussion and vote, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:
{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:
{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining:
This new policy request has been in my head for quite some time now, but it wasn't until today that I have decided to suggest that this policy proposal be taken into effect.
I've noticed that unlike on the Sims wiki, on C.Syde's Wiki, we don't really have very many users on here, and I was thinking in order to modernise, we should put this policy into effect.
My proposal is that we eliminate the process of having unregistered users contribute here. Meaning that users who are unregistered will no longer be able to edit on this wiki.
Currently here at C.Syde's Wiki, unregistered users are able to edit here, but the places where they are able to contribute are increasingly limited, and thus I don't think it will hurt to eliminate anonymous editing entirely.
So I've put this policy proposal forward, for users to vote on it, publicly via thread posting.
- Should we disable anonymous editing here at C.Syde's Wiki?
To weigh in on this discussion and vote, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:
{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:
{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Please do not vote if you are not registered. All unregistered votes will be discarded and deleted.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining:
This new policy request has been in my head for quite some time now, but it wasn't until today that I have decided to suggest that this policy proposal be taken into effect. Currently here at C.Syde's Wiki, unregistered contributors are strictly forbidden from actively engaging in any activities other than giving queries on user talk pages. I was thinking that maybe to encourage more users to practice editing here, we should allow them to start off as nothing more than what I was three days before I got an account - Wikia contributors. My proposal is that we eliminate the process of automatically locking all pages inside the main namespace, and talk pages. This will also allow unregistered users to vote publicly on forum threads without having their votes discarded (if any), and be able to participate in community discussions. Most of the templates will remain locked so that only registered contributors can edit them, and most of the pages that have been locked to administrators only will remain this way. I suppose it won't hurt to allow unregistered users to leave messages on the administrator's noticeboard. So...... Should we eliminate the policy restricting the participation of unregistered contributors for this wiki? Yes I think it's a good idea. [3] No I think it's a bad idea. [0] Policy? What policy?! [1] If users are not comfortable with giving their names, I won't scold those unknown people to the air. That's why I've given users the option to vote using a poll. But for the users that are comfortable with voting publicly, just vote below. To vote for, just post: {{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:
{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Please do not vote if you are not registered. All unregistered votes will be discarded and deleted.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining: 02:46:00 May 7, 2015 UTC
This new policy request has been in my head for quite some time now, but it wasn't until today that I have decided to suggest that this policy proposal be taken into effect. I've noticed that unlike on the Sims wiki, on C.Syde's Wiki, roll-backers, moderators, and chat moderators are listed as staff, despite not being in the position to take bigger actions against trolls, vandals, and sock-puppets. Currently here at C.Syde's Wiki, users can request for rollback, moderator, or chat moderator rights separately, or they can apply for the moderator deluxe feature which is basically three nominations in one. My proposal is that we eliminate the process of having users apply for rollback, moderator, and chat moderator rights separately, which will make it compulsory for users to obtain all 3 rights together. This new proposal will not change the requirements needed to obtain these rights, nor will it affect users that belong in any one of these 3 user groups. For example, if a user currently belongs in the rollback user group, and this policy takes into effect, then they will become a moderator, and chat moderator. In other words they will become what I call, a deluxe moderator. I personally think that merging these 3 usergroups together so that they can not be obtained separately is a good idea, and it should make things a tad easier for users to have their RfAs approved, since it's a big step up from rollback, chat moderator, and moderator, to administrator. I myself can remember the pressure of having to apply for administrator-ship on the Sims wiki, the first time. Should we make it compulsory for rollback, moderator and chat moderator rights to be obtained together on my wiki? Yes I think it's a good idea. [2] No I think it's a bad idea. [1] Policy? What policy?! [0] If users are not comfortable with giving their names, I won't scold those unknown people to the air. That's why I've given users the option to vote using a poll. But for the users that are comfortable with voting publicly, just vote below. To vote for, just post: {{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:
{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Please do not vote if you are not registered. All unregistered votes will be discarded and deleted.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining: 05:34:00 May 3, 2015 UTC