Board Thread:Special Admin Messages/@comment-26533608-20200112211153/@comment-35072152-20200113064949

Bella&#039;s Sword wrote: I absolutely agree with Henriot. Same here. Bella and Henriot's arguments are very well stated. A couple of points, however, I disagree with, but most I agree with. Here's what I disagree with:


 * 1) Allowing sockpuppets to use the wiki. Whenever being punished, it doesn't matter if this is online or offline, people need to learn that there are always consequences for their actions. I disagree with allowing someone who has been banned to use a sockpuppet on the wiki simply because they're "following the rules" on the account at the moment. That's basically showing people on this wiki that they can break the rules, get banned, and use a new account until their ban expires as long as they abide by the rules. Doesn't serve much as a punishment, does it?
 * 2) Allowing users to minimod. Think about that argument, because it doesn't make much sense. Again, whether this is online or offline, learning about the importance of authority is significant to the health of the wiki. It is out of place for a person to try take authority of a staff role they do not acquire. If everyone without a staff role were to try to be "above" the other by minimodding, that could contribute to heated arguments.
 * 3) As I've said over and over again, the drama on the wiki is what others make it. I've seen people endlessly label every argument or dramatic moment as a "war", and events "eras". While I can agree that some people feed off of negative energy whenever shit happens here, drama is magnified onto this wiki because of perception. If you choose to view every situation politically and spend more time worrying about one incident, the same outcome is to be expected every time something happens. Oh, and looking into the history within the past few months of the wiki, I haven't seen any major drama happen.
 * 4) Banning durations/instructions. I have mixed feeling about this, it could cause some issues. Every situation is dealt with discretion on a case by case basis. Two people could be banned for breaking the same rule, but how it was broken and what happened during the time the rule was broken could be different. We should let people appeal or try to have their ban shortened by working within reason with the admin who blocked them. There should be rules about admins giving banned users a fair chance to discuss with them.

I agree with all their other points. I feel like us being teenagers and running the wiki isn't really of relevance, and mental maturity varies from person to person. You should have thought about that before promoting a lot of other people to staff role. Demote users who clearly seem to be interested in getting a staff role just for status, and be selective of who you choose as staff. Next time don't promote users who aren't suitable for staff role just because we need more people on our staff list.

I say that leaving the wiki if you can't find potential in it would be the best option, because clearly most people here don't seem to like the idea of their safe space being deleted. If the Creepypasta genre was truly dead, then am I seeing edits on pastas from a few hours and a few minutes ago?

Learning to accept that there have been times where we weren't so mature and could have handled situations differently is a step to building maturity into our own community. No wiki will ever be perfect, and the same applies for this wiki. I'd like to let it be clear again that I oppose the deletion, as I see no reason in deleting the wiki mainly because of exaggerated community issues that can be resolved with effort.