So, I was perusing "Random page" when I came across this page, which dates back to 2006. A user named Spacetear has been editing it since December, though the page technically belongs to Locksmithjones, who no longer appears to be active. Should I revert all of Spacetear's edits or leave them, seeing as the OP was last active in 2007 and has not authorized Spacetear's contributions to the project?
I corrected an article attributed to Vulture Droid for syntactic tense mistakes, only to have the user revert my edits and chastise me for editing his work, despite the fact that my edits were a "good faith" attempt to make the article in question abide by Article guidelines. Please deal with him appropriately.
I feel I must apologize for the abrupt manner with which I sought to handle this. I guess I'm still getting used to the fact that this isn't Wikipedia and most users don't appreciate or understand the finer points of policy as I do. I shall endeavor to assume good faith from now on.
Thanks, glad to hear it. The policies here are very deliberately designed to be lax, and I try to approach enforcement of them from a level-handed and fairly laid back place. Most people don't mean any harm, and generally giving people some room to make mistakes and then learn from them is a good thing. That's something Wikipedia, for example, very much lacks, so I can see why it would be an adjustment.
This user has been vandalizing Kvothe krieger repeatedly, reverting my attempts to reverse his vandalism. Also, while we're on the subject, I noticed we don't have an "Ongoing Vandalism" page like Wookieepedia or Wikipedia for users to report offenders. Would you mind if I created one, under the title of Star Wars Fanon:Vandalism in Progress?
I've noticed an upswing in vandalism lately as well. Is there any way to just go the whole hog and require a user to have and log in to an account before he can make any edits? I know it goes a bit against the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" spirit of Wikipedia, but it seems like it's getting ridiculous.
I would be all for that. An admin from The Bleach Fanon actually asked Brandon the same question back in March, according to Bac's talk page archive, though I got the impression he would consider such a method a last resort.
A "Vandalism in Progress" page works on Wookieepedia where there are 15 administrations, but wouldn't really be effective here. It's actually more effective for you to post on my wall.
I also think that the issue here is being overblown. Kvothe krieger was edited twice, and I would not consider those edits vandalism. I would consider them to be good faith attempts to add ideas to the page, from an IP user who is not aware of our editing guidelines. No big deal.
I would not support disabling anonymous contributors. I disagree that there's any sort of ridiculous uptick in vandalism that would require such a heavy-handed measure. Vandalism is very easy to fix. You just need to have the patience for it.
The page in question was edited twice, true, though at the time of this initial posting on your wall, I believed we had another issue at hand like the previous edit war. From my perspective at the time, it seemed like a repeat incident, which thankfully fizzled out.
Of course, I'm new here, so I don't have a vast depth of experiences to choose from, but there does seem to be a great deal of vandalism as Sakaros stated, and most comes from anonymous users. I can really only think of two anonymous users who have contributed "good faith" content thus far, and I convinced one of them to make an account today.
On a Wikia like this one, where, excepting the free-edit articles, everything is unique to the author who posted it, I suppose I don't see the purpose in allowing unregistered users to edit others' articles. They aren't allowed to make substantive changes, and as far as formatting, grammar, and other changes anyone can make are concerned, I have difficulty envisioning a good faith user who comes, fixes grammar, and never bothers to make an account; it brings to mind an image of someone dressed up in a superhero outfit, "CG" (for "Captain Grammar") on his chest, who says in a Dudley Do-Right voice, "Rest easy, friend, for your article is grammatically correct for another day! And now I must go; the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Wikia has need of me!"
I'm all for more users and writers, but allowing them to edit doesn't really seem like it would be vital to bringing them in. Thoughts?
I agree with both points made here: pro-freedom to edit for everyone and there being no point on this sort of wiki to allow anon users to edit since they are so limited as it is. However, I have to side with Brandon. It is better to be all-inclusive rather than exclusive of a demographic of editors. Sure they can vandalize and make edits we don't for all intents and purposes allow, but they may also do the implausible and make constructive grammar edits and formatting. I think we just have to deal with the negative when we see it and give everyone freedom to edit. If they are particularly problematic we can just temp ban that IP or give warnings.
SWFanon isn't Wookieepedia, it doesn't see hundreds or thousands of edits a day by dozens of users where vandalism COULD run rampant or bad faith (or good faith) edits to articles can happen frequently. We have enough RC patrollers and wiki activity patrollers around here we can catch the vast majority and reverse the damage and it isn't overwhelming to the user base to do.
I don't see the need for allowing anons to edit BUT I don't see the necessity to change the site's years old policy given this site has vastly improved to decent respectability on this front. 'Sides this place is based in MURICA! Freedom to edit for all!!!! My 1.5 cents.
I generally agree with ITCO. I don't agree that there's a lot of vandalism. And any time there is vandalism, it's simple to fix. It's not a big deal, and eventually the ideal scenario would be that there's more active administrators here (heck, most of the changes I've been making around here are to prepare for that eventuality). So if there were more active administrators, legitimate vandals—amongst whom I do not count those who make story edits without permission, because I think those are good faith contributors who just don't know the policy—would theoretically be blocked sooner.
And to be honest with you, I think you three could easily become admins here some day to help with that. Firedance with a bit more time, SWFanon-specific experience, and patience; and Sakaros and ITCO with more regular activity.
Regarding the purpose of anonymous editors, I don't see it as being a matter of what someone is and is not allowed to edit. It's a matter of creating an experience where anyone can try their hand at editing; there are plenty of people across Wikia who dip their toes into the water by contributing anonymously, and then create an account.
If we were going to take the stance on SWFanon that we don't need anonymous editing because they can't make story edits to other peoples' pages, then we might as well take that to the next logical point and say that no one on SWFanon can edit anything except pages that they themselves create. Which obviously doesn't make any sense either.
This user has been vandalizing a variety of pages, including one of yours, and he refused to stop editing Ben Starkiller despite my attempts to revert his edits. It might be wise to block his IP address if he keeps this up.
Hate to continually bother you, but I wondered what official policy is regarding parody/joke articles. I noted the existence of a Joke template, but I didn't want to publish my article on the wiki without first clearing up policy concerns. If they're not permitted, I'll just publish mine on a subsection of my userpage. Firedance 13:42, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
"Fanon articles that are solely intended as a joke are not allowed. However, pages and stories with humorous content are allowed. Because there can be significant ambiguity here, if there is ever a question as to what constitutes a joke article, it will be determined in a community deletion discussion."
What kind of page are you looking to write? As in, specifics. There's leeway in that policy, since it's purposefully vague.
The aforementioned article can be found here. I can just publish it on a subpage of my userpage if need be. It's got a Darthipedia vibe to it, so I wasn't sure it'd be appropriate. Firedance 21:28, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
Are Featured and Good Articles still a thing? I've been perusing the lists looking for well-crafted examples to study, but there doesn't seem to be much activity regarding these two (as well as user of the month, incidentally, which looks to be a relic of the past from my perspective). Firedance 00:34, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
They're not much of a thing anymore. I find them not only a relic of the past, but also something too similar to encyclopedic projects like Wikipedia and Wookieepedia. I don't think the FA/GA system, which focuses almost exclusively on technical aspects of an encyclopedic page, really works here. At some point I'd like to create something new called Featured Fanon (just like we have Featured Fiction), with a greater emphasis on reviewing the story of a page.