SmashWiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 3

current talk page

Archives

There are no archives provided for this page.
Please specify the archive count or remove this template from this page.

The Admin Noticeboard is intended to be a page to quickly alert administrators to issues that need their attention.

To make a request, statement, create a new section and provide a neutral, precise summary of events with thought-out reasoning, and, if possible, links to any pages with relevant discussions. It is also a good idea to notify any users involved with the request with a link to the section on this page. Make sure to add new sections to the bottom.

Report vandals in the following section labeled for such reports at the top using {{IP|Username}}, where Username is the name of the user or the IP vandal's IP address.

Vandal reports

Please place new vandal reports at the top of this section.

Tas man (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · man WHOIS) Anon 04:42, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Just a user massively obsessed with making Link number one. He probaly didn't know standards either. Gave him a warning, so if he does it again, sure block. As of now, unsure as this user probaly belived that Link is awesome in everyway.--MegaTron1XD 05:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Hawkins (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · Hawkins WHOIS) Sir Anon the great 04:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

72.93.215.229 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 21:22, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

98.154.161.8 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS)Anon 03:01, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

85.31.137.11 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) He made spams on Looney Tunes A few days ago.~~76.116.186.130 18:02 September 11, 2010

If the vandal stopped days ago, don't bother reporting him. It's too late for the situation to require an admin. Shadowcrest 18:35, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

71.253.233.20 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) BNK ^[E|T|C] 23:30, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

189.132.188.202 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 16:27, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Zelly12 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Mr. Anon teh awsome 03:34, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

That is not a vandal. It is a misguided user.--MegaTron1XD 05:15, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone makes a page that isn't needed doesn't mean they are a vandal. Actually take a look at the content first. The content on the Kumatora page was obviously done out of good faith. Omega Tyrant 07:08, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

The content of the page was "lol Kumatora has a crush on Lucas" and then there was an image of a hack. Definetly not good faith. Sir Anon the great 15:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was. The link was there. The user decided it was needed. And the lol was made by an unregistered user. The user wrote about her. Factual information boy.--MegaTron1XD 15:41, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

The content of the article was "Kumatora's Name in Japanese is bear.Most people do not know that.Kumatora has a crush on lucas!" with a picture of a texture hack. The article certainly does appear to me to have been created out of good faith. Omega Tyrant 15:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about whether you can call that good faith or not, but I guess he's not really a vandal. Sorry about that confusion. Sir Anon the great 16:46, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Good faith means that the user fealt it was necessary. There was a red link, and the user decided to fill it, not knowing that it doesn't deserve a page. --MegaTron1XD 16:50, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

184.32.66.185 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS)Sir Anon the great 03:29, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

69.171.164.246 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 01:37, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

208.96.123.219 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 19:41, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

96.54.130.162 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 13:27, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

24.0.61.200 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Anon 20:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

96.3.18.141 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS)Sir Anon the great 01:23, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

This IP has already been blocked. Omega Tyrant 01:33, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

76.89.115.119 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS)Anon 22:04, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

206.162.143.251 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) This one I'm confused about, since he's created and contributed to several Smasher pages, yet vandalized at least one. Anon 14:18, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

You know, you got the wrong IP. Omega Tyrant 14:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that the IP is used by more than one person.--MegaTron1XD 14:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No, Mr.Anon didn't include the full IP number before I made my post. He has now and the IP has been blocked. Omega Tyrant 14:47, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

68.150.169.181 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 01:51, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

24.186.144.240 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 04:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Acre (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · Acre WHOIS) Mr. Anon teh awsome 23:44, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

71.86.201.239 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Sir Anon the great 04:50, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

WolfLink33 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 16:14, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Please read SW:AGF and stop reporting people that aren't vandals. Shadowcrest 18:06, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

95.149.45.121 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 14:36, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

217.155.195.118 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 12:18, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

174.31.151.96 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 05:14, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

67.183.198.191 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 02:06, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

68.150.169.181 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 20:49, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

174.31.151.96 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) 06:25, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

173.76.228.205 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) DP99 (CTE) 05:04, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

209.150.49.37 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) DP99 (CTE) 05:04, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

68.184.40.187 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) DP99 (CTE) 03:16, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna let this one pass for now. We'll see if he causes any more trouble. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:35, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

71.7.209.56 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Mr. Anon teh awsome 05:02, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

92.8.100.131 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) DP99 (CTE) 16:57, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

71.75.81.43 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Dr. Pain 99 (talk) 23:32, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

75.41.228.138 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Dr. Pain 99 (talk) 23:32, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

71.225.233.74 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) DP99 02:02, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

How is this guy a vandal? Omega Tyrant 02:05, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I fucked up. I thought since someone used rollback against the guys edits he was a vandal; I didn't bother to check, because of i was afraid of freezing. Won't happen again. DP99 02:11, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

No, it's my fault. I used rollback against him as his edits seemed unncecesary at the time, an it's not like you can leave an explanation for rollback. Mr. Anon teh awsome 04:39, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

76.111.66.108 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Dr. Pain 99 Talk 19:32, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

24.203.65.24 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Dr. Pain 99 Talk 19:05, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

AJB15 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Dr. Pain 99 Talk 18:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

174.31.156.52 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Mr. Anon teh awsome 06:02, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

190.209.182.214 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Dr. Pain 99 Talk 23:43, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hemley1 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS) Dr. Pain 99 Talk 15:33, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Koopas

I think that merging all Koopa-related pages together would be a good idea (which isn't too surprising, it being my idea). Describe everything in terms of Green Koopas, then explain the differences between the Green and Red versions for each form. Have one section on each of the forms of Koopa-kind: Shell; Koopa Troopa; Koopa Paratroopa. Describe how jumping on / attacking a Koopa Paratroopa turns it into a Koopa Troopa, how jumping on / attacking a Koopa Troopa turns it into a Shell for a period of time, and how these shells cannot take damage, but can be thrown to do damage, and can be destroyed by throwing them off the screen. Have two pictures of each of the forms, one of each colour, and a picture of each of the relevant trophies. Currently there are at least eight pages on Koopa-kind - there need only be one or two.
I'm not sure if the Green Shell (Item) and Red Shell (Item) pages could be incorporated into the one page, as there is quite a lot to say about them (e.g. damage lists) but even if they couldn't be part of the main Koopa page, they could be made into one Shell (Item) page, removing all references to the shells found in the Subspace Emissary in Brawl. The following are the Koopa pages that would be affected by the move:

• Green Koopa Troopa
• Red Koopa Troopa
• Green Shell
• Red Shell
• Koopa Paratroopa
• Red Koopa Paratroopa
• Green shell glitch (which doesn't even have an appropriate name)
• Red Shell Glitch (which is the same glitch as the above)

PenguinofDeath 11:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from keeping the items Green Shell and Red Shell separate, I concur. Miles (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you put everything Koopa-related all on the one page? Wouldn't that make it horribly long? Also, if the above Koopa plan is viable, I think a similar thing should be done about the members of the R.O.B. Squad, just because having a page for each member leaves the pages very short, but with a lot of repetition between them. In other news, is my signature okay? I seem to be the only person to have used the <big> coding...

PenguinofDeath 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A long article isn't bad by default; rather, a complete one is desirable. On second thought, though, Koopa Troopas (both colors) should be one page and Koopa Paratroopas should be another.

And for sig rules, read on. Miles (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn... I knew there was a reason why that code was never used. About the Koopa Paratroopas, is there really enough to say about them to justify their own page? And is there so little to say about Shells as items that their own page is not justified? I'd have thought that the Koopa Paratroopas were the least important of all Koopa-kind (I'm determined to make that a real phrase). I don't mind. So long as some sort of cleanup occurs, I'll be happy. Just point me (or whoever you want to do it) in the right direction, and I'll write the relevant pages. PenguinofDeath 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

R.O.B. Squad

After the above discussion with Miles, I reworked all R.O.B. enemy pages into one R.O.B. Squad page. What do you think?
I haven't moved the original pages, and it's all one edit, so just undo it if you don't think it's appropriate. PenguinofDeath 11:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd use that article to describe the R.O.B. Squad as a whole, and do a quick summary of each kind of R.O.B. enemy. However, I'd keep the other three articles separate from this one. Miles (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Image removal

It seems that multiple users, including Sonic64 and various IPs, cannot save the Palette swap (SSBB) page without all the images getting deleted. What the heck is going on? Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer cntrbs 22:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction: it seems that some users cannot edit any pages without the images being removed somehow. The problem seems to be unique to new users. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic cntrbs 22:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried editing a page with a new account and without being logged it, but I couldn't reproduce it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 23:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The answer is the new rich text editor (RTE) which I'm sure most older users disabled. It causes problems like:

• Removing page content (images in particular).
• Breaking tables.
• Breaks formatting by eliminating linebreaks near <br> tags.

(for a more complete list see here)

Do we want to disable this RTE for all editors? --Shadowcrest 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Auto Disable it, and if people want it enough, they can turn it on for themselves. New users won't be able to understand most likely.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 17:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to make an announcement. Something like "It has been discovered that Wikia's new Rich Text Editor causes problems such as image removal. Please disable it in your preferences." Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer cntrbs 18:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We can auto-disable it for all users on the wiki, who can re-enable it in their preferences if they wish. Imo that's a much easier solution that putting it in sitenotice, which most people ignore anyway. Shadowcrest 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shadowcrest. Miles (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

IP users (the ones who seem the worst affected) couldn't change it in their preferences, as they don't have an account, and even if they could, it would be unfair to rely on them to change their preferences themselves, so putting out a notice wouldn't work. Auto-disabling the Rich Text Editor is the only option. PenguinofDeath 19:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What Penguin said. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 20:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

→ copied from User talk:Clarinet Hawk:

Wikia response:
We cant do that. Its either on at the wiki, or its off. The setting to use it is on a per user setting in their global settings, we cant make it "default off" at a wiki. So if the extension is enabled at a wiki, all the people who opt to use it can, and it is turned on in the settings of all new users (something we cant adjust per wiki, since accounts are global, they dont actually get created at any 1 wiki).

So basically, we can't auto-disable it. I don't know what else we could do, aside from preventing IPs from editing and making new users disable the RTE themselves, but that seems rather extreme. :/ PenguinofDeath 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the best we can do is to somehow alert users of the problem, and just damage control the IP edits until the RTE is fixed. I know that announcements are ignored by some, but I don't see what else can be done. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy cntrbs 19:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(end of copied posts)

According to w:c:guildwars:User:M.mendel, the RTE will probably never be bug-free. He thinks that unless wikia scraps the current one and designs an entirely new one, there will always be problems with it, such as image removal or messed up tables. (See here for a written declaration; he also told me on IRC "I think it will never be completely bug-free when it deals with wikicode".) Seeing that auto-disable is not an option, should we consider disabling the RTE on the wiki? (Also keep in mind that we can add it later if they do get around to fixing it.) I don't know about you all, but running damage control for forever seems like a waste of time to me. --Shadowcrest 02:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Endless damage control is boring, so either disable it, or block IPs from editing (if possible). The latter would save us a lot of trouble in other areas, but would greatly reduce the number of good faith edits as well. I'm not sure - one of the two. PenguinofDeath 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Shadowcrest on getting rid of it for the whole wiki, at least til it's less glitchy. Miles (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of disabling the RTE. The limited benefits of having the RTE enabled are far outweighed by the hassle it creates. – Defiant Elements +talk 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting article deletion

I'd like to request that the article written about me in the smashers section be removed. I do not want my personal information open to the internet. This is the page: Smasher:Levi. I am removing all personal information regarding myself until the entire article is deleted. Also I am removing my brother's name from his page to maintain his anonymity. The article on him: Smasher:Neat. Mariownage (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think an article should be deleted, please tag it using {{delete|reason why it should be deleted}}. PenguinofDeath 08:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

SSBM fighters' Overview/Gameplay/X in competitive play sections

So I was talking to Pikamander2 here, and he suggested taking my question here. My full reasoning can be found on his talk page, but in short, about 6 or so Melee fighters' have a short, messy section similar to attributes, though under a different name. I believe we (and by "we" I mean me) should replece those sections with an attribute section based off the pros and cons already there. Agreed? Enigmatic Mr. L 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If it would improve the articles, do it. PenguinofDeath 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

A little after I left a message about my leave on my user and talk pages, an account named Forenzza radio was created and then proceeded to try and offend me on my talk page. I didn't egg him on, so he then left me a message on Zeldapedia (see here), where he admitted to creating the account to "stem any turmoil" that would have happened, under his normal account, I assume. He then told me he was imitating the users I had offended at SmashWiki and that I should tell an admin just so they could see how I had "belittled Smash Wiki to the lowest level possible". I just thought you might be interested in finding out the IP of the account to see what user it is that's operating a sock puppet and throwing around personal attacks. Thanks for the time.

--Baltro (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if this is relevant, but there's now a Forenzzza radio 2 account that was just made. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. In my opinion, that only worsens the offense. --Baltro (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Can someone protect this page please? It seems to be a vandal magnet. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:26, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

One vandalism does not a target make. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:18, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

It's been vandalized more than once. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:53, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

...you mean twice? Shadowcrest 19:12, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

There were some issues when it was being made, but that's about it. I thought there was more than that. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 22:27, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Also, Please protect this page as it is a vandal magnet. 98.117.158.220 03:09, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

You're about 3 weeks late, plus that IP that vandalized the page was the only person who vandalized it in over half a year. Unless there's more vandalizing of the page, I don't think the admins will protect it anytime soon. RAN1 03:19, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking at the wright page? That page was repeatedly vandalized by three vandals subsequently and it took me quite a while to fix it. Besides, let's see what the admins think. 98.117.158.220 06:03, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

As RAN said, the vandalism happened weeks ago and there hasn't been any recent vandalism- protection would achieve nothing at this point. Shadowcrest 06:13, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon

There are way too many Pokémon pages and I suggest some of them should be merged. I see a similar issue has come up before with Koopas. Tuth (talk) 15:38, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think we're okay for Pokémon pages. The rule is that all trophies should have their own article, and that no character that only makes an appearance in the series as a sticker deserves its own article. As far as I know, all Pokémon pages stick to that rule, so they're all fine. The problem with the Koopa pages is that they're not very well organised or standardised. PenguinofDeath 16:18, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Serious Smasher Page problems...

Hmm... this page has been the subject of small edit vandalism. Shadowcrest already protected it, but it is in total disarray. I don't think this guy or or this one were fooling around at all... A bit of help, please? RAN1domchupunch!!! 02:36, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism, extended protection, warned Dan00b (not X.x.x as all they were doing was changing his location). PenguinofDeath 09:42, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Policy

I think we should improve our language policy. Originally it was fine as we swore minorly every now and then but there's people like 13375poolr who say the f word freely. This wiki is supposed to be appropriate for all ages. In fact, I myself am only 12. 98.117.158.220 01:18, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole bunch of reasons why we shouldn't. Among them is that freedom of expression is something we value here on Smashwiki. Another reason is that what use is it to 'control' people's words? If I have to say 'flip' instead of fuck, what are you changing? You're changing a sequence of sounds that's completely arbitrary to the meaning. If it's the negative emotion that you are trying to keep away from yourself, then you're extremely naïve. If it's the combination of the sounds that make up the word fuck that you're afraid of, you're a retard. I'm going to assume you're not a retard, and it's the negative expression that you don't like. 1) Grow up. 2) Changing the word doesn't change the capacity to express negative emotions. 3) If we all start saying 'flip' and 'crap' and 's word' and 'witch' instead of what they really mean then we sound like a bunch of tools and immature 8 year olds who have sensitive ears. We're not changing the language policy. Semicolon (talk) 17:21, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

I would hasten to add that Semicolon is not encouraging users to start swearing more - swear words are almost always used to convey the fact that one is angry or upset, feelings which can be much better articulated without the use of swear words, as needless swearing can only aggravate the situation, which could end up getting out of hand. We don't need a "language" policy - users just need to be more mature in their dealings with others. PenguinofDeath 17:48, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

hey guys, welcome to the internet Shadowcrest 19:58, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

OK, you win. By the way, welcome back, Semicolon. 98.117.158.220 05:24, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

What is this??

Why don't I get any say over people harassing me on my Talk Page? - Gargomon251 (talk) 02:01, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

It's a policy. I don't see why you're gettings so worked up about this. 98.117.158.220 02:41, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

According to what I read, it's NOT a policy. And I'm sure you'd feel the same way in my situation. Besides, you're not even registered, much less an administrator... - Gargomon251 (talk) 11:46, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

The IP was wrong, it's not a policy, but this is not the place to discuss the issue - there are in fact two sections on my talk page devoted to this issue. Also, the fact that he's "not even registered, much less an administrator" is irrelevant - anyone can comment on any issue raised on this page, but only Administrators can deal with any situation that may arise. PenguinofDeath 15:36, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

What Happened!?

My article was deleted by Sky2042.I don't think this is right because he sayed "Is this a joke?"after he deleted it!It was true though!It was in a Nintendo press conference!The smaller version of the article is on my user page.You may look it up on http://www.google.com or something and see it for yourself. StarFalco242 (talk) 22:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted for being unsourced and too trivial. Also, Cheezperson was the user who typed "{{d|is this a joke?}}", not Sky2042. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 00:18, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Unresorseful and trivial!? They could just look it up and edit it instead of deleting it! I just don't understand... Well you might just think that because you only saw the back up article and not the original article. StarFalco242 (talk) 01:30, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

User:MarioGalaxy/User talk:MarioGalaxy

Can you unlock MarioGalaxy's page/MarioGalaxy's talk page for me, please? Thanks!--SSBBfan (talk) 13:32, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

BNK

At this point, he is breaking policies. He is abusing rollback and engaging in edit wars, even when an admin told him to stop. I don't want him blocked, but something needs to be done. Sir Anon the great 04:56, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

New users

Something that's been really annoying me recently is the amount of new users. Most of them don't even make any edits, just change their avatar. I'm not sure whether this is a great concern, but I fear it will clog up our space. Sir Anon the great 04:16, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a concern. The Smash Wiki always had new users who would create an account, maybe add an avatar, and then leave. There has been no disrupting influx of those. I have notice more new users editing the mainspace constructively and this is something that is good for the progress of the Wiki, not concerning or detrimental. As such, this is certainly not something that requires admin notification. Omega Tyrant 19:02, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Leaving Wikia

Hi, I'm from NIWA and have made an offer to host SmashWiki on an independent domain, currently ssbwiki.com. There's a little more information here. Are you guys interested in leaving Wikia? --Porplemontage (talk) 06:20, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

No, but I don't have much of an opinion anyway and if that is what the community wants, then so be it. However, seeing how I may end up leaving anyway regardless, my opinion may not matter much. Omega Tyrant 11:36, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to work on (/administrate if needed) a NIWA Smash-wiki. Shadowcrest 20:22, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

@Shadowcrest: Why? What excactly is wrong with Wikia? What can NIWA offer that Wikia can't? DP99 (CTE) 21:57, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Basic list of problems with Wikia:

• Wikia keeps certain big tools away from wiki staff (such as checkuser).
• Wikia is full of ads.
• Wikia is moving towards a new skin that looks mandatory and darn horrendous.
• Cross-wiki vandals; someone can make an account off-wiki to bring here without worrying about any bans.

Toomai Glittershine 22:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

LMFAO. Ask that again. What's wrong with wikia? More advertisements and server problems. NIWA can not have server problems because it's THAT good.--MegaTron1XD 22:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

@Toomai: Keeping Checkuser away from most users isn't a bad thing, IMO. The ads link to other Wikis; I found goods wiki via ads a few times. I'll give you the other two, but the fact that one account isn't cross-wiki on NIWA is bad for normal users. @Megatron1: You are terrible at arguing. You made some sarcastic comments and gave no good reasons as to why NIWA is better. I already mentioned the ads thing, and NIWA has server problems as well. DP99 (CTE) 22:14, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Your problem is the fact that you fail to see my arguments. I make sarcastic comments, which doesn't matter. Wiki has more advertisments and more server problems.--MegaTron1XD 22:20, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Reasons why Wikia sucks:
1. They complicate wiki matters, such as bureaucrats being unable to demote other bureaucrats, being unable to promote bots to perform tasks, and the lack of access to checkuser to quickly resolve sockpuppeting. These are basically unarguable; Wikia restricts admin/bureaucrat access to all of these funcationalities. That's just a fact, you can't really dispute it.
2. Wikia has forced a lot of undesirable changes upon us editors. To name but a few examples:

• The entire Monaco skin. Many users I've interacted with across 3 separate wikis believe that Monaco is not only unattractive but a drain on computer resources. It is a drain on resources-- that's a fact. Monaco is much harder on computer resources than Monobook. As always, the visual appeal of Monaco is subjective and naturally varies from one user to the next, but as I mentioned earlier, 3 separate wikis all in general disliked the Monaco skin and wanted to switch the wiki default to Monobook. Again, Wikia did not allow this, forcing numerous contributors to deal with a skin they taxed computer resources and was visually unattractive. Though it is true that registered editors could select their own alternate skin (nearly always Monobook) or edit their own Monaco skin so that is less of an eyesore, most of the traffic on wikis comes from unregistered IPs that may not even contribute, and therefore these unregistered contributers/viewers of the site were forced to use Monaco until they registered an account. As I recall, one of Wikia's decisions for designing and forcing the skin on people was that "advertisers wanted the various wikis to be uniform so that the advertisements were more effective," or something to that effect. Though my recollection may be slightly off, I am positive the Monaco skin was designed at least in part so that Wikia could make more of a profit off advertising.
• The rich text editor. This was honestly an absolute joke. Not only did it generally fail at simplying code (which is, to the best of my knowledge, its intended purpose), it actually routinely ruined tables and other code for those experienced editors who actually knew what they were doing. A single editor compiled 13 reasons in a single post why the rich text editor sucked, and more than one code-savvy editor who really knew what they were talking about confirmed that unless Wikia completely rewrote the entire program from scratch, it was always going to be buggy. In order to disable the rich-text editor-- since it can't be disabled by each user personally, according to Wikia-- one either had to register an account and switch to Monobook (my explanation of why this is a piss-poor 'solution' is found in the above paragraph about Monaco), or the wiki in question would have to have a discussion, come to a consensus, and notify Wikia and request that it be disabled. This again is a restriction of the rights of the community to run their own wiki.
  

3. Wikia has undoubtedly questionable morals and values in multiple respects. An example from my own experience would be the sale of the formerly-independently-owned site GuildWiki. The company who produced Guild Wars, ArenaNet, wanted to host their own wiki so that they could link to it from in-game. They contacted GuildWiki's former owner, Gravewit, and negotiated with him about the transfer of ownership. However, no such sale occured, because GuildWiki was previously licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA; for those of you who don't know what that means, the "NC" stands for non-commercial-- no profit was to be made off the contributions. This meant that by selling GuildWiki to ArenaNet, Gravewit would be making a profit off the contributions of others, which violated the NC clause of the site's copyright and would therefore be illegal. ArenaNet had to start their own wiki from scratch, GuildWarsWiki (or GWW). For a time, all was well in the land of GuildWiki... until Wikia came along. Gravewit sold the site to Wikia without even bothering to notify the community, and made over $50,000 USD on the sale. This naturally outraged many who believed their hard work had been used to make a profit for someone else, and many (understandably) left GuildWiki(a) for GWW. You may ask, what was Wikia's justification for the sale? Their lawyers said that it was perfectly legal, since Wikia was buying a domain name from Gravewit, not a community website. Legally, this holds water, but many (myself included) spotted the gaping lack of morality in the sale.

Slightly out-of-date (new skin is even worse than Monaco, stupid shit like blogs, myHome, etc), but I think the point is obvious. Also, @DP99, checkuser can be assigned to specific users like the other userright functions. Shadowcrest 22:23, September 27, 2010 (UTC)