Editing some rules for the Wiki

[DaMonkeMan]

Permission from Agnaa to post this.

• Before making sweeping or significant changes to characters or verse pages, please start a thread in our Content Revision forum first, so that the suggestions may be evaluated by our Staff and our community at large, to ensure that they are acceptable. The concluding evaluations must be handled by Thread Moderators, Administrators, or Bureaucrats, who should make an effort to base their evaluations on valid arguments, not personal opinions.

First of all, this shouldn't apply to any and every edit/chance made to a page, as some edits can be very evident or blatant, for example:
If I made an edit that says "Fire Manipulation" for this character's profile, that should be fine as it's pretty clear he makes a wall of fire with his sickles in the video.
However, if I then attempted to make an edit giving him Fear Manipulation for this, it'd be removed and I'd be told that it would require a CRT, as threatening someone who previously bragged about being immortal with a permanent death isn't really Fear Manipulation by it self.
Of course, this would affect this rule as well:

When applying content revisions to our wiki pages, it is required that you always provide links to the discussion threads in the external forum wherein they were accepted by the wiki staff within the edit summary boxes. It greatly helps to avoid misunderstandings when the staff are patrolling edits, as they might mistake the changes for vandalism otherwise.

Do not link to or promote anything illegal within the Wiki. Linking to scams of any sorts is obviously strongly forbidden and will lead to an immediate ban.

This is fine and what I'm about to say may just count as nitpicking, but I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be in the "Offsite Rules" section, because even though it focuses on someone posting a link to a malicious site, it's still posted/seen within the bounds of the wiki/forum.

• Threatening someone off-site, be it a threat of violence, hacking, doxxing, sexual harassment, etc.
• Harassment of users in their immediate surroundings (ex. Someone constantly messaging you with insulting comments via DMs or PMs)

This probably shouldn't be in the Offsite Rules section either (or even in the rules at all), and I'll tell you why:
If someone is just threatening to find you and hurt you on another site because of something you did on that site, you shouldn't be able to report them HERE for it, as they did not do it here and nothing they said or did involved the site, though of course they should still be monitored here so that they don't try it here.
If they threaten you because you didn't agree with their CRT, didn't vote for the right character, etc., then that should be reported here, as they're blatantly manipulating someone into doing their bidding.
What I'm trying to say, is that you should generally just report someone on the site they harassed you on, rather than take it here and spread unnecessary drama, unless what they're doing is very egregious and related to destabilizing the wiki (as noted in the rule above the ones I mentioned), after all we've had a good amount of cases where these rules were brought up and the people who supposedly violated them got off scot free, because it's almost unanimously agreed their behavior off site really should not be punishable under most circumstances.

And last but not least:

Kirby Rules​

• Do not attempt to downgrade the Kirby characters without new evidence and arguments. Among other things, we have discussed the issue here, here, and here.

I'm not sure why this is even still a Discussion Rule.
You may correct me if I'm getting this wrong, but all the evidence of people violating that rule is just links to CRTs that are over half a decade old.
Unless someone can provide proof of this happening in more recent times, I believe this rule should be removed.
I might edit this later if I find more rules that should be edited/removed (or make a follow-up thread), but that's the gist of it for now.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler

Your input might be required here.

 

[GarrixianXD]

This seems pretty reasonable. Though, this is just my personal thought.

 

[Damage3245]

If I made an edit that says "Fire Manipulation" for this character's profile, that should be fine as it's pretty clear he makes a wall of fire with his sickles in the video.

If you're adding a new ability to the profile, then it doesn't matter how self-evident it is, it still needs some evaluation. Likewise if you think it's self-evident that a characters doesn't have an ability and you try to remove one from the profiles.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

If you're adding a new ability to the profile, then it doesn't matter how self-evident it is, it still needs some evaluation. Likewise if you think it's self-evident that a characters doesn't have an ability and you try to remove one from the profiles.

I get where you're coming from, but if something is incredibly blatant and sourced, I feel that it should be put on the profile without a CRT.
That's just me though.
Still, I do want to know why we have to make a CRT for every ability we add.

 

[Antvasima]

Sourced and extremely blatant minor ability changes seem like a comparatively minor issue to require content revision threads for, yes, but on the other hand we would invite constant widespread edit-warring otherwise due to the subjectivity of even such changes, so I am very uncertain.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Your input might be required here.

Alright

First of all, this shouldn't apply to any and every edit/chance made to a page, as some edits can be very evident or blatant, for example:
If I made an edit that says "Fire Manipulation" for this character's profile, that should be fine as it's pretty clear he makes a wall of fire with his sickles in the video.

I'm with Damage on this. Allowing anyone to edit a profile and add powers because they view it as clear is just a bad precedent to set. If it's self evident then just lower the amount of people needed to approve of it rather than give carte-blanche to people editing a profile.

This is fine and what I'm about to say may just count as nitpicking, but I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be in the "Offsite Rules" section, because even though it focuses on someone posting a link to a malicious site, it's still posted/seen within the bounds of the wiki/forum.

This is true. It would be an on-site rule about editing rather than a off-site rule.

This probably shouldn't be in the Offsite Rules section either (or even in the rules at all), and I'll tell you why:

I get it, but I don't know. The point about these is more about general harassment. If someone is going out of their way to make another user feel bad on another site but does nothing here is still a form of bullying that will ultimately effect the site imo.

But I get where you're coming from.

I'm not sure why this is even still a Discussion Rule.

Can't comment much because I'm not a Kirby guy.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

I'm with Damage on this. Allowing anyone to edit a profile and add powers because they view it as clear is just a bad precedent to set. If it's self evident then just lower the amount of people needed to approve of it rather than give carte-blanche to people editing a profile.

I guess that's fair, my views on it are basically what Antvasima said on it, just above your comment.

Can't comment much because I'm not a Kirby guy.

Also fair, but this was more of me just saying I don't really see many CRTs trying to downgrade it, especially for the reasons that were blacklisted.

 

[Qawsedf234]

If there hasn't been any in awhile, then yeah I can see the Kirby thing being removed.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If you're adding a new ability to the profile, then it doesn't matter how self-evident it is, it still needs some evaluation. Likewise if you think it's self-evident that a characters doesn't have an ability and you try to remove one from the profiles.

I agree with this tbh. And sometimes, even things that look blatant one day could suddenly be disproven later on.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway:

1) I agree with Damage3245 and Qawsedf234 about that the first suggestion would set a very bad precedent.

2) The rule about not linking to scams or dangerous URLs should preferably be moved to another section, yes.

@Just_a_Random_Butler @ImmortalDread

Are you willing to take a look at this please?

3) We need some prevention of serious off-site harrassment, so that rule should remain.

4) The Kirby discussion rule can probably be removed, but it depends on what @Eficiente thinks.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

@ImmortalDread

Not tryna be rude but I don't want that user in this thread honestly.
I mean if it's imperative that she is here, then alright, that's your call, but I kind of prefer that she isn't.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Anyway:

1) I agree with Damage3245 and Qawsedf234 about that the first suggestion would set a very bad precedent.

2) The rule about not linking to scams or dangerous URLs should preferably be moved to another section, yes.

@Just_a_Random_Butler @ImmortalDread

Are you willing to take a look at this please?

3) We need some prevention of serious off-site harrassment, so that rule should remain.

4) The Kirby discussion rule can probably be removed, but it depends on what @Eficiente thinks.

I agree with Ant here.

 

[Antvasima]

Not tryna be rude but I don't want that user in this thread honestly.
I mean if it's imperative that she is here, then alright, that's your call, but I kind of prefer that she isn't.

She helped with organising the structure in our current rule pages.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I would rather not touch off-site rules for now, since higher-up ranks staff members (and specially human resources) and I discussed regarding creating a new sensitive staff thread in modifying about it (which is ready to be launched; since I created the draft for it)

Do not link to or promote anything illegal within the Wiki. Linking to scams of any sorts is obviously strongly forbidden and will lead to an immediate ban.

This is fine for me; we can replace it in “Be Appropriate” section

Also, we should preferably wait for a staff moderator who support Kirby verse before removing the discussion rule.

As for CRT approval setting; I think I inclined to agree with Damage3245 and Qawsedf234.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

She helped with organising the structure in our current rule pages.

Whoop dee doo

I agree with Ant here.

Btw do we count her as a valuable vote?
I mean she's listed as staff but she's a translation helper so...

 

[GarrixianXD]

Whoop dee doo

Btw do we count her as a valuable vote?
I mean she's listed as staff but she's a translation helper so...

Most likely not.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

Well sorry but y'all probably gotta get out lol I really don't want regular people here sorry

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Dread at least seems to have permission to comment from Ant.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

Dread at least seems to have permission to comment from Ant.

Well, to get back on topic, how do you feel about the OP?

 

[Eficiente]

4) The Kirby discussion rule can probably be removed, but it depends on what @Eficiente thinks.

Sure.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright; I can apply the accepted parts of the thread if a content moderator unlocked the page for me.

Edit: Handled; I only added the accepted changes + offsite rules are preferably be handled in a separate sensitive restricted staff only thread.

The thread can be closed.

Thanks everyone for helping out.