Bully Fanon Wiki
Bully Fanon Wiki
Bully Fanon Wiki
705
pages

Bully Fanon Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 1

< Bully Fanon Wiki:Community Noticeboard
View source
Sign Meaning
✓ Subject has been decided, cannot be brought up again in later archives.
✕ Subjects has been decided at that moment--can be brought up again in later archives.

McJeff - Request for promotion(Accepted) ✓

I've thought about it and I'd like to become an administrator here for the following reasons.

  • I have a lot of admin experience over on Bully Wiki.
  • Being able to delete and freely move pages would be a big help in getting the templates working.
  • It would enable me to assist with the blocking of vandals. I'm the one who understands Rangeblocks after all.

I don't see any need to become a full fledged bureaucrat over here since my participation is pretty much only in the technical (and if I get promoted, administrative) side of the wiki, but for the reasons I said above I would like to be an administrator here.

For the community's consideration, McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 17:38, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Votes

Comments and Discussion

This is a vote, and it will stay open until Friday. Jeff if someone says no, then behave and don't intimidate them haha. Dan the Man 1983 23:48, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Per our promotion policy, all that was needed was both Bureaucrat votes. In that case, Jeff is now promoted. Dan the Man 1983 23:59, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Request(Denied) ✕

Hi. I have been thinking about it, and I have reached a decision. I wish to be an administrator on here. I wish to help out more and have been on Wikia I think since July of 2010 on Bully Wiki. I am good at spelling and grammar so I can improve articles and whatnot. I will learn even more as I go along and become more experienced in being an admin. If you guys do vote for me, I will be fair and not abuse my power for the better of the community. Thank you for reading! (If you vote no, then please be nice about it.) SirLinkalot96 20:22, February 20, 2011 (UTC)SirLinkalot96

Votes

  • No: We have enough Bureaucrats and Admins for a wiki of this size. Dan the Man 1983 09:52, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • No: Nothing personal against Link, it would be cool if he were a admin to, but I think the wiki is too small to have any more. If we had loads more users, then I would say yes. ♦ Scarly ♦ 23:13, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • No: I don't see a need for any more sysops - the ones we have cleaned up the sockpuppetry easily, and aside from that there isn't too much admin work to be done here. It did occur to me that on Bully Wiki we decided to have an odd number of sysops so that when they had to vote on something there wouldn't be any ties, but as Link's already a rollbacker he can be given a vote without a full admin promotion. Also, I'd like to see some more content creation - not just trivia notes and quotes but actual creation. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 23:46, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Anymore votes on this? Dan the Man 1983 22:33, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorta edgy on this. One one hand, Dan's right, there are enough admins+b'crats. But on the other hand, there's been a lot of sockpuppets and fights and drama on here lately. Jenny ♣(Talk to me!) 22:51, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
Four of us can handle that. Nothing personal against Sirlinkalot, I just feel this wiki already has enough Bureaucrats and Admins, he is the patroller anyways. Dan the Man 1983 22:58, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for being honest with me, everyone. I just wanted to ask for a shot, and I did. The answer's no, so I will accept that fact and move on. One question, do patrollers have blocking privileges? I thought rollback rights and being a patroller were two totally different things hahaha. I need to study up on that. And another question: What does McJeff mean by real creation? SirLinkalot96 23:52, February 22, 2011 (UTC)SirLinkalot96
So would I Jeff, it seems like it's just me and you doing actual content editing. Dan the Man 1983 23:52, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Rules and Policies... ✓

Need some serious rewriting. And the articles; we should create some thing that helps you know what's 'worthy of going in to a summary'. And the main page featured article barely gets changed-- ever. Adding to that, we should keep the news more recent. Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 19:50, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Way I see it, this wiki is 3 things all rolled into one wiki. Fanfiction, information about Bully, and a blogging wiki. I think we need rules and policies for all three. Dan the Man 1983 19:56, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
True. Rules that we should keep are: the sockpuppet ones (and enforce that more than ever, since people think they can just skip along on tons of accounts), racism, and harassment. The others need some rewriting, changing, or deleting. We could seperate them in between headings or pages? I think headings would be good, to keep it all in one place. Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 19:59, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the current rules and put them in my sandbox here. I put our official rules and policies page as under construction. I like the idea of putting major rules into their own pages like we have on Bully Wiki. Dan the Man 1983 20:04, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
That's good. We should sort of model them off of the Bully Wiki ones, except with the fanfiction and blogging ones added. What about the main page? That definitely needs help. Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 20:06, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
Since we have a blogging side to this wiki, we need blogging rules. So do you reckon we should allow debate blogs, off topic blogs? Dan the Man 1983 20:10, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that, debate blogs could really get people going, and off topic blogs, well, I don't see the problem with them. What's your opinion on them? Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 20:13, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
Ownership rule on it's own page is a must, since it was ownership issues that blew open this can of worms. Dan the Man 1983 20:14, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with a debate if it is done in a calm civlised manner. If it gets out of hand that is where me, you, Jeff and Scarly could step in. Dan the Man 1983 20:15, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


Yeah, maybe some sort of thing to do when you want nobody to edit your things? (Like you said of putting User:Username/Page name) Okay, I agree with the debate thing. By the way, I think you should know that I may not be online a little bit later. Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 20:29, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
No debates about religion. It only leads to arguements and causes nothing but problems. If you want to, just state your religion, and no one talks or argues about it. Sure you can say, "Thank God" or "Thank Allah" little things like that. It got waaaay out of hand on Mafia wiki, that's why I'm saying this. SirLinkalot96 01:49, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
Religious debates are fine, aslong as it does not lead to religious intolerance. An example of religious intolerance is me calling a Christian on here stupid for believing in the "crucifixion" of Jesus.
Where as me saying it did not happen or that I believe it did not happen would be fine as that is me stating my religious beliefs.
What happened on Mafia Wiki was a Christian trying to shove his religion down athiests throats. That never ever bodes well. Dan the Man 1983 05:45, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

OC pages rule discussion

This is the problem that started this. When you write an OC page about your character, you still do not own the page, the wiki does, and it's public domain, meaning anyone can edit it. It does not give a person the right to have a go at someone for editing it. I think OC pages should be moved to userspace, that way people have control over them. As for you not being online, it's cool, we all have lives to lead, I do too :) Dan the Man 1983 20:34, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

I think users should have more control over their pages, after all that user thought them up and took the time to add information to that page. With out the whole username/page name thing. They should also have the rights to decide what categories they are in to, since it is in fact their own creation. Many times I've seen mistakes on pages, or thought they should be in different categories, but I haven't touched them out of respect for that user. I'd never mess with anyone else's work. I swear, this place makes fanfiction a chore, it really does. Like a total fanfiction fun sucker. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 21:59, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix that issue, Scarly. What you could do is maybe protect your page? Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 13:38, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to protect them, that only I can edit them? I clicked on the protect option, but it confused me. I don't want anyone to do it for me, I want to learn to do it myself, and protect my own pages. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 13:47, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
:::No, but you can protect them for admins only. Since Dan and McJeff don't like to write fanfiction, and I won't edit your page, that could work. Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 13:49, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
That could work. And, no one else change the categories? Also, I want to delete the pages that have been editted by someone else, and make them again, with a fresh start. I was going to just do it, but I want to confirm that it's fine. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 13:52, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Yes, you don't need to ask to delete character pages :) Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 13:55, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've protected most of my pages. The only ones I havent, are the ones that are going to be deleted and remade and that's Scarlet, Anita and Sophie's pages. I have to save the information first.
I'm still not completely going to forget that problem. OC pages should belong to the creator of the page. I don't care if it's public dominion or whatever. My argument is, if a author publishes a book, just because people read it, doesn't give them the right to mess with it. Only the author does. That should be in the rules, that the creator of the page decides what categories it goes in, and only they can edit it. After all, if someone gets blocked, their OC are deleted because it's their copyright after all. Why is it that OCs aren't current user's copyright? OCs are after all the creator's copyright. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 14:12, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
"OC pages should belong to the creator of the page. I don't care if it's public dominion or whatever." - Well what you think and what is normal are two completely different things. OC pages are public domain, and you have no right in having a go at people who edit them, just change the edits back to how they was. It is as simple as that.
"My argument is, if a author publishes a book, just because people read it, doesn't give them the right to mess with it. Only the author does." - This ain't a book, this is a wiki. An author has copyright laws protecting their books, you don't have them protecting your pages. Loads of users have made thousands of pages on Wikia, but do not claim copyright on them, that is not how this site works. If someone changes something on your page, BE BOLD and change it back.
"That should be in the rules, that the creator of the page decides what categories it goes in, and only they can edit it." - No, sorry that rule is never going on this wiki. Your an admin, use your damn tools and protect OC pages your wrote if you must. But no user owns the OC pages. Dan the Man 1983 22:41, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe that this all started because I changed a few categories. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 15:19, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

"And, no one else change the categories?" - If it's admin protected, only Bureaucrats and Admins can change the categories. But you cannot tell other admins or the Bureaucrats not to change the categories. Only Bureaucrats can tell admins not to do something. Dan the Man 1983 00:26, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do have the right to ask people not to edit my userpages, as you will see by the message Jeff left on my userpage. I do propose that it be made official, that none can edit a user's character page, without their permission. 02:51, March 27, 2011 (UTC)♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery
That's asking, not telling. Big difference. You have got to understand that OC pages you create do not belong to you, they belong to the wiki. But you can ask people not to edit them. We can easily make that a rule. Dan the Man 1983 03:35, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but I did ask Jeff not to, Dan. I am fully in my rights to do so, and will. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 11:40, March 27, 2011 (UTC
What would you do it I saw something against the rules in your OC and deleted that peice of information? Would you object to that? Cause that is a rule I am proposing. "Bureaucrats and Admins can clean up vandalism in OC pages, no matter who they belong to". Dan the Man 1983 11:49, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Okay you asked him, but you still threw a hissy fit over the whole thing, that itself was wrong. Dan the Man 1983 11:52, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't post anything against the rules, but I suppose I wouldn't object. Dan, I'm not arguing with you over it. Arguing isn't good for anyone, so let it go. (I'm not dictating, just telling you that I'm not going to argue with you.) ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 11:55, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Okay since you asked nicely, I'll let it go :) Dan the Man 1983 12:00, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
I'm still keeping my pages protected though, because it gives me peace of mind. That way, when I'm stressed about something, I don't have to add "worrying about people messing with my pages" to the list. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 12:17, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

That is cool. But assume good faith if me, Jenny or Jeff do an administration edit on them okay. Dan the Man 1983 10:06, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I still expect you to ask me first, or you will be wasting your time editing them, because the change will be removed, I'll delete the page and move it to a blog. Unless it's removing something that breaks the rules, but I wouldn't post something that breaks the rules. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 21:54, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Unless it's removing something that breaks the rules, but I wouldn't post something that breaks the rules - That is what I meant by administration edit. Bureaucrats and Administrator don't need to ask to do an administrative edit, they just do it. Dan the Man 1983 15:48, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
So it's agreed that other users cannot edit another user's OC page without permission, unless it is an administrative edit done by a Bureaucrat, or Administrator.
Of course I would like to point out that if an editor spots vandalism and deletes it from an OC page of another user, it will be considered a good faith edit. Other edits will be considered bad faith. Dan the Man 1983 17:28, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
That totally defeats the purpose of the rule. So, it's saying, "no you can't edit it with out permission, but wait, look go head, edit all you like." So, it'll mean even more editing. Which, will give people more editing of other people's pages than before. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 18:34, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not saying that. It's saying: "Admins and Bureaucrats still hold full rights to edit whatever they feel needs fixing, and if you see someone vandalize something not protected they're allowed to remove the vandalism." Besides, aren't your pages protected? SodaCat 20:05, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, they are. But, I'm suggesting things from the side of users that don't have that option. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 20:33, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
So now you don't want the allowance of users doing good faith edits of cleaning vandalism if there is any in other users OC pages? They still have to ask permission to do other edits. Any edits done without permission that is not cleaning up vandalism will be considered bad faith.
What you want and what is agreed on here are two different things, and quite frankly I am sick to death of walking on eggshells and biting my tounge with you because of your control freak demands. YOU'RE THE REASON WE ARE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. Dan the Man 1983 20:49, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with you, Dan, end of. I have to say this one last thing to say though: Control freak? Pot, kettle, black!
Consider it this way, then. You make something, anything. Then, someone offers to display it for you. Then, they change it however they like, altering everything about it. Then, when you say something about it, they say that because you displayed it, it doesn't belong to you anymore and there's nothing you can do about it. How would you feel about that?
But, whatever. Don't listen to me, I to be honest don't care anymore. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 21:44, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. But anything you add on here is on public domain and you really cannot control who edits what. I am willing to get rid of the editor does good faith and clears vandalism bit if you like. Anyways, since your pages would be protected, how can anyone make a good faith edit of clearing vandalism from it?
Look Scarly, I never wanted to argue with you, I like you, and your stories. I enjoy reading them, and I voted for you on the user of the month because I enjoyed reading them. So don't think just because I argue with you, it's because I dislike you. Allah knows I have often argued with Jeff about Bully Wiki many times in the past three years. I do apologise if I came across as nasty, and I do not want you to leave this wiki if that is what you're thinking of doing, you're a great asset to this wiki. Dan the Man 1983 22:28, April 3, 2011 (UTC)


But, I can ask people not to edit my pages, and that is exactly what I did, before all this started. I asked Jeff not to, and both me and Jeff have agreed a solution to this - which is on my talk page. My pages are protected, because I have enough on my mind right now, without having to add stressing about my pages to it. When things calm down for me, I may unprotect them.
I'll reply to the second paragraph on your talkpage, so this doesn't get all personal. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 22:39, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
I know what is on your talk page, and yes you can ask people not too, I have never denied that. Dan the Man 1983 22:57, April 3, 2011 (UTC)


Section break

To clarify, what I learned at the Community Central was that, if the community agrees to it, yes, any fanfic author has the right to tell other people not to edit the pages relating to his or her OCs or fanfics. Therefore, I propose the rule be written like this.

  • Authors have the right to request that others not edit their articles. If an author wants this protection on her articles, he or she must ask a sysop, who will either place a template at the top of the article declaring it an "Authors Only" page, or place a statement on the talk page authorizing this.
  • Authors Only templates should not be placed without permission, but an editor may ask permission for multiple pages at once.
  • Pages with the Authors Only template may not be edited by anyone besides the author except under extreme circumstances.
    • An example of what might be an "extreme" circumstance - an editor is inactive for several days, and another notices an error regarding his/her OC on the absent editor's article. The offending statement (but nothing else) could then be changed.
  • Editing a page marked Authors Only may be considered a form of harassment/personal attacks, with the warnings/blocks placed correlating to the severity of the incident and number of prior incidents.
  • Should template-marked pages be edited by anyone who isn't authorized, authors may request that a sysop delete the page and then restore it excluding the revision(s) made by the other editors. If said author is already a sysop they may do this themselves but must remember to say this in the deletion/restoration logs.

McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 02:31, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

How do you do the Authors Only template? I want to add them myself to my pages. Also, does that delete/restore thing always work for deleting other people's edits? ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 21:54, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Well I'd have to make it first, but the way it works is, I'd make a page called Template:AuthorsOnly or something similar to that. Then I'd put a text notice in a box, sort of like the one you have on your talk page saying "please don't tell me to read your blog". Once it was created you could add it to your pages by putting {{AuthorsOnly}} at the top of the page. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 01:22, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
Actually I'd probably ask on community central for someone to make us a template instead of trying to do it myself, because I'd want to set it up so that it linked back to the author. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 01:23, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
That's cool. Could you let me know when you do make it? So, could add it to my pages. I have no idea how to add that thing on my talk page, I asked Jenny how to add them, and she added it. I just changed the text. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 01:28, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Fanfiction rules discussion

At the moment we have a No explicit blood/gore/murder/sexual content in fanfiction rule. I feel this rules does not need to change, however what needs to be discussed just how gory can content be.

I think it is safe to say that we all agree on the "Do not copy another user's fanfiction" rule. Dan the Man 1983 04:14, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think things shouldn't be explicit. The sexual, I had the bar set at Burton's personality, I'm not sure if anyone agrees on that? For how gory, it can be like, I dunno, sort of a really low, mild GTA sort of thing. Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 04:42, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
The things I think should be accepted is, mild blood from fighting. Because, if that was wrong, that would be total Mary Sue on characters. (How many people that you know can get into a big fight, and not have a drop of blood on them?) Bad stuff is so much blood that it's like a total massacre, murdering and so on.
For the sexual content, I think the whole thing in detail wrong. That's also a iffy one to, because Bully is a kinda highschool setting, and in real life some teenagers do it with each other. So, I think the cut off point, should be that there's not much detail. Does that make sense? ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 12:26, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I would phrase the rule.

  • Bully Fanfiction should match the rating of the game. Since Bully was rated T for Teen, any content that would cause it to have a Mature rating (MA in books, R in movies) is banned.
  • Depictions of rape, murder, and explicit sexual content are fully and unconditionally banned.
  • Depictions of violence and sexual situations past those that officially occur in Bully are not fully banned, but users are strongly cautioned to keep it in good taste. If you want to write something and you are unsure about whether it is within the rules, ask a sysop.
  • Profanity is not banned or forbidden but it is generally discouraged.
  • Partially obscured profanities (i.el "f*ck", "sh*t") are not any more "acceptable".
  • If Bully Fanon Wiki staff feels that a blog entry breaches these standards, the proper procedure is to request that the blog's author tone it down, with a specific statement in regards to what the offensive content is.
  • Blocking should be reserved only for 1) users who violate the rules and refuse to edit the violations, 2) repeat offenders, 3) people who are obviously trying to be deliberately offensive. In other words, blocking for unacceptable content should be more of a last resort than a first resort.

My personal opinion is that writing, as a creative exercise, should be left alone as much as possible... I'd rather people just be able to write and not have to worry too much about whether they're breaking any rules. So I'd like to keep the rules relaxed where possible with a few extremely clear boundaries, and have the system for dealing with possibly inappropriate content be geared more towards fixing it than punishing the person for stepping out of line. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 01:50, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Gurney refer directly to sexual activity, though? Hua Xiong 17:03, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

As a patroller, am I allowed to ask users to tone down on the explicit content, and if they don't, can I tell one of you guys? SirLinkalot96 18:11, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Dan the Man 1983 18:25, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Dan ^^ SirLinkalot96 18:29, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Administration rules discussion

We currently have a "Administrators, Patrollers, and Bureaucrats are asked to NOT give out reasons why a user has been blocked rule". Does this need to be changed? Dan the Man 1983 04:14, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reason I'd added this a while ago was the problem with all the socks-- Goodfellas and A-Bomb. I think what we could do is that each infinite block has the reason on the blocked user's page, but if a user (usually new or not very active ones) begin asking too many questions, admins and b'crats should start sort of not tell them. Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 04:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think we should keep that one, because it is a case of "they got blocked because they broke the rules." This next part isn't a rule, but it should be discussed: I don't think that it's right that users can have a go at other users for voicing their opinion. The way I see it, this place is all voluntary, and we don't really have to listen to what anyone tells us to do really. Because, even though some of us have extra controls, it doesn't make us different from other users. We just enforce the rules. We don't have the right to push people around. ♦Scarly♦ Graphics Gallery 11:50, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
People should not really have to ask why a user was blocked, because they can read a Bureaucrat or Admins reason on the users talkpage. Dan the Man 1983 11:56, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

I understand the idea behind the rule but I think it's the wrong way to go about solving the problem. Telling the users they can't ask why someone was blocked is just petty. Of course the users should know since the blocking admin should have left a detailed talk page comment and edit summary.

In rare cases when we're dealing with a serial sockpuppeteer or someone who's obviously reveling in the attention he's getting it becomes alright to say nothing, but - one of the things I've always liked about wikia is that you have more room to invoke the "Ignore All Rules" rule. That's why we don't have any pages or blocklogs about that TheDaddy guy.

So I would just delete this rule wholesale. We'll write something about how sysops should conduct themselves when blocking users and clarify that they're supposed to use polite and clear block summaries there. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 01:34, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

If a user asks to many questions on why another user was blocked, then that is blatant Meatpuppetry or Sockpuppetry. As for polite summaries I agree with that. I also want to add in, if a Bureaucrat or Admin can, then provide diffs as edvidence on why as a user is blocked too. That way a blocked user can explain their reasons behind such actions. Dan the Man 1983 15:44, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Core policies discussion

I think it is safe to say that the general core policies like "No vandalism", "Civility", "No mutilple accounts", "Assume Good Faith", and "Talkpage guidelines" all used on Bully Wiki, will be used here too. Dan the Man 1983 04:20, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Since this wiki is informal I think we should tolerate just general discussion of canon characters on their talk pages here. More convenient than making people make a forum topic for each character and neater than having discussions on the actual article page.McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 01:36, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Damn, the talkpages are no longer. Just noticed that now. In that case I agree with the suggestion above. Dan the Man 1983 16:14, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
However, we still have general talk pages, like for the main page. So the talkpages rules will be used for them. Dan the Man 1983 16:21, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Blogging rules discussion

Since blogging off topic seems to be a big part of this wiki, I feel some rules need to be made about that too. Anyone got any ideas on what we shouldn't include in blogging? Dan the Man 1983 00:31, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Hate talk, rudeness towards other users, talking bad about other wiki's. Jenny♬ (Talk♣) 00:42, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
No spamming. No talking bad about other's fanfiction. That's pretty much it. All of what Jenny said is what really covers everything. SirLinkalot96 01:24, March 29, 2011 (UTC)SirLinkalot96
Agreed. Dan the Man 1983 15:17, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few blogging rules that I want to add.

  • No racism - This will get a user blocked for good and their blog deleted without warning.
  • No cyberbullying anyone - User will be warned, and the blog will be deleted.
  • No vulgar blogs - Like posting a blog saying fuck off just for the sake of it, it will be deleted. As for blogs on sex, sex is not a disgusting topic, it only comes across as disgusting when talked about in a vulgar way.
  • Debating to be done in a civilised manner. Dan the Man 1983 15:40, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
Racism and cyberbullying both obviously fall under incivility/personal attacks, which aren't permitted anyway. It's actually best if we don't mention them by name in the rules, since as I've said a trillion times letting the trolls know what offends you the most just causes them to troll you harder. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 05:13, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
I listed them seperately as user will blocked for good without warning for one, and user will be warned for the other. You're right, trolls feed off what makes you sick to the pit of your stomach the most. In my case it is racism. Dan the Man 1983 05:37, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Other Wikis

Inspired by recent events, I would like to make the following rule.

  • Editors bringing disputes from other wikis to Bully Wiki or Bully Fanon Wiki may be blocked for "tendentious behavior", although they should be warned that it is blockable before they are actually blocked.

McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 02:33, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, however we do not block them for good first time, as we need to give them a chance incase they do want to edit here. Dan the Man 1983 15:23, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
I agree, too. SodaCat 02:19, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.