Talk:Administrators/Archive 1

New Administrator
As you know we will be having a new administrator coming in but I'm proposing some probation time thing for the admin. They will not be able to use their powers for a month and they must remain active for that month. If they do remain fairly active during that month (2-3 days per week) then they keep their powers, if not they will demoted and the power will go the candidate that had the second highest votes. Oh yeah and make sure when you reply you put this ":" like Pacheco's reply. If you want to post a reply to a reply put two colons. Thank you Omnicube1 21:51, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * i think this is a perfect idea Omni, the last admin we promoted were'nt always on all the time, we this kind of probation it will show how imprtant it is to be an admin. MrPacheco101 21:57, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable, and is proably a good idea to make sure someone doesn't get elected and just flake on there duty.User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 04:16, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Very much true Omnicube1 22:07, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

New Rule
I propose a new rule, for people who know that they will be inactive for more than a month must notify an admin and then that admin will notify all sysops. This will help prevent confusion and innocent people being blocked. Omnicube1 23:55, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * [[File:Yes.png]] I support this because I proposed it Omnicube1 23:59, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * [[File:Yes.png]] i support it because it keeps blocking at a minimum.MrPacheco101 00:01, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * [[File:No.png]] I don't support, because why would someone be blocked for inactivity? If someone's hacked an account and is flaming on that account, the account should still be banned. Useless rule. - Leo Lab 00:14, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can change it so it only applies to admins because I made this rule mainly due to Astro's inactivity and he is a bureaucrat Omnicube1 00:17, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how it relates to being banned. - Leo Lab 00:25, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The post can be filled by someone who is actually more active and will actually take their job seriously. Omnicube1 00:50, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I get that an inactive admin needs to be replaced. If it was that, I'd change the [[File:No.png]] to a [[File:Yes.png]]. What I'm looking for is an explanatin of why blocking is relevent.- Leo Lab 00:56, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at, blocking would just make them more inactive. I'll take that out too, so bottom line is: tell us if you're going to be inactive or you'll lose your post Omnicube1 00:59, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. That works. Now it's a [[File:Yes.png]]. - Leo Lab 14:33, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd say ban them unless they give notice. If a regular user goes dark then whatever. But once you have responsibility you're expected to stick around, going dark without notice is unacceptable for an Admin.User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 20:36, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will add this rule only for admins but there will be a compromise! Omnicube1 03:27, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Return
Well on Thursday, Mexican spider block will be removed. I want you guys on your full alert, I predict he might get his revenge some way either by vandalism or spamming. Be on the lookout! Omnicube1 01:04, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude the guy said he was leaving the wiki so who cares he might not even return.MrPacheco101 04:49, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * If he doesn't, I'll be happy. If he does, and if he causes trouble, I may slap him with a permaban. I'm in no mood for his bullshit. - Leo Lab 14:33, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * He's coming back tomorrow and if he does return those on his Those I have lost respect for list might be the target of his vandalism Omnicube1 00:33, December 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * the last thing that i want are my most recent articles i made be marked with vandalism those things took me hours to do and alot of information to garner up, if he does something to it there will be hell to pay.MrPacheco101 01:48, December 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * So far so good, nothing terrible Omnicube1 05:23, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * no need to worry i think he changed his way, i mean the guy send me an apology and named a video game character after me MrPacheco101 05:31, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * He hasn't for me I think he's personally attacking me on the DW Wiki like this: "Ignorance as in people acting like jackasses and douches.The average douch(in my mind) listenst to rap, is a jackass, and plays CoD" he knows I listen to rap and play Call of Duty I'm just going to ignore him if he apologizes cause I know he's just doing it for the sake of it and he's not being sincere. Omnicube1 05:44, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well whats done i done im already out of my anger stage.MrPacheco101 05:46, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

New Rule 2
I propose a new rule: Articles that contain a large amount of grammatical/writing mistakes will be deleted. I suggest that the "expiration date" would be 2 1/2 months-or around 75 days. Because Swg66 won't be active and seems like Death'sapprentice77 doesn't seem to take his admin responsibilities serious I'll probably only past this rule by a 3/4 of all sysops. I thank The Deadliest Warrior for suggesting this. Omnicube1 03:35, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't cleaned up by that timeframe, it should be deleted. - Leo Lab 04:01, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a reasonable suggestion. I'm for it, as long as the folks making the articles are given a warning and given a chance to improve. CuchulainSetanta 05:08, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey you voted for your first proposal as an admin! Omnicube1 05:25, December 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * [[File:Yes.png]] I support this as well, as long as they get a warning as CS said. Death&#39;sapprentice77 19:54, December 29, 2010 (UTC) Ps sorry for not really taking my duties seriously.


 * It's fine I was just worried that we would have another inactive admin Omnicube1 20:51, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Layout Builder
Wikia is introducing a new tool called Layout Builder. As the name suggests it will help make pages easier to make. It seems that it is very easy to use. I have signed up for it but at this point I do not know whether our wiki will be able to test it. The main reason why I signed up for this is because our articles are not similar looking and in order to be a productive and professional wiki our articles must look atleast 90% similar. So post your ideas/opinions below. Thank you

FINALLY SOMEHING HAT MAKES IT WASIER!!!!!MrPacheco101 23:44, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

This is good. Now I just have to get off my lazy AP-laden ass and make those articles similar. - Leo Lab 00:44, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Lol AP classes, I need to take some next year I have no honors this year Omnicube1 00:48, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Why are all the replies in small print? I don't see a tag anywhere. - Leo Lab 01:22, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Probably my new sig thats messing everything up I have to look for a fix Omnicube1 01:38, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Ok I fixed it I didn't close the bracket thing

Layout Builder has been activated! Search Special:LayoutBuilder!

Good! :D Death&#39;sapprentice77 04:24, January 15, 2011 (UTC)

Perm-Ban MS
Ok I don't know about you but Mexican spider sure isn't learning after the two previous blocks. He continues to flame people and after the new year I have zero-tolerance for flaming or any disrespect toward another user. I believe we should permenantly ban him because if he keeps this up our wiki will look so unprofessional. Plus, if we are to have a total content revamp, he is lessening our chances of getting that.


 * [[File:Yes.png]]. Please. I was about to do this myself before you put this up. EDIT: It's also more effort than it's worth to respond to him without flaming. He's the type of person no wiki wants.- LeoLab 18:01, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just ban him i tried my best to change the way he treats people but it wasnt working. my heart goes out to him thoughMrPacheco101 18:36, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah this sounds pretty bad. We have no other choice. Death&#39;sapprentice77 20:23, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright can't wait to do this
 * I haven't actually seen any of his handiwork, and I'm reluctant to ban a contender from my DF Championships, but if the rest of you feel it must be done, I won't object. CuchulainSetanta 23:38, January 16, 2011 (UTC)Yes.png
 * I haven't actually seen any of his handiwork, and I'm reluctant to ban a contender from my DF Championships, but if the rest of you feel it must be done, I won't object. CuchulainSetanta 23:38, January 16, 2011 (UTC)Yes.png

Warrior Definition
I was thinking that we need a solid definition for what (or who) can be classified as a warrior, so that in the future we can avoid arguments over whether a person qualify s as a warrior, and so that people don't end up using someone who isn't a warrior.

For the sake of this wiki the strictest definition of a warrior is one who is engaged in or experienced in battle.

But I think we also need to identify what a warrior is not.

For example just because someone is in the military they aren't necessarily a warrior, there are many non-combat positions in the military, a working knowledge of fire-arms a warrior does not make. This would apply more to an individual person than a group of people.

These are some ideas I have for a definition for this wiki, but it needs more input.--User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 02:38, January 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * On this topic, I'd define a warrior as a person who fights regularly and proficiently, if not for a living then at the very least in the scope of his/her/their particular media. Examples from the Mistborn series: Vin fights regularly, but not for a living. She fights often enough to be good at it, therefore she is a warrior. Hazekillers fight for a living, therefore they are warriors. Elend occasionally fights, but his principal role is that of a diplomat/king. He has fought and kicked some serious ass on occasion, but his role in the story is more negotiatory (is that a word? and is it spelled right?) rather than combative. He is not a warrior. Dockson has never fought, even though he is part of the military, so he cannot be a warrior. That, ladies and gentlemen, was my opinion. - LeoLab 02:53, January 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Vigilantes allowed? For example, Erica Bain from The Brave One or Nick Hume from Death Sentence?

I think that the major requirement to meet the idea of warrior is that they have experience fighting in life or death situations. When the show talks about someone like a Spartan or Ninja, I'm assuming there talking about one that isn't in the first fight. So if someone is say a mob enforcer, they could be considered a warrior because there going to be pretty used to fighting and killing, some goes for vigilantes or anyone who is actively fighting as either profession or it's a major part of there life. Training is all well and good but, unless they actually have experience in some form of real combat, I wouldn't classify them as a warrior.--User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 20:31, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Another definition, at least in my opinion, is that a warrior is someone who fights against other warriors of equal skill on a regular basis. Of course, this may not apply to all warriors, and some might stretch this rule quite a bit, but a great deal of warriors fall under this category. CuchulainSetanta 23:40, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

So this is basically what I think we're coming to define a warrior as, but please correct anything I miss understood.

A Warrior Is. Someone who on a fairly regular basis, fights in and is experience combat, regardless of true profession. This can include military professionals but also criminal, vigilantes, terrorists etc.

A Warrior is not Necessarily and assassin (would depend on the individual) Necessarily in the military. Someone who had some form of fighting skill, but doesn't use them in actual life threatening combat. This would included a non-combatant member of the armed forces.--User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 18:54, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Another Website
I was googling stuff when it came to my attention of the existence of a youtube channel 'DeadliestFictionalWarriors'. I went to their website and found that not only do they have same ideas as us but basing off the information, started it around summer (in america). And whats even worse, another wiki has also done this and they started up in Octob. so I ask, did we start before them? and What should we do about it? 09:02, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

DeadliestFictionalWarrior coming out this summer just like us is mere quicidence, but the other wiki is a mere copy of us, thay look like s---t and completly unorganizd, forget abot the VsWikiMrPacheco101 15:48, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it was mere coincidence but there is also another wikia wiki (because this Deadliest Fictional Wiki isn't supported by Wiki) called VS Battles Wiki. They do have a right to keep their's (but ours is way better ;)

There goes my hopes of a youtube channel.. although their one would have been better so its all good. besides, once we go independent we dont need to worry about all that. -- 23:49, February 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Youtube channel? For the DF Wiki?

Image Troubles
I'm trying to add the articles for my final Season 2 warriors, but I cannot upload any new images onto the site. When I try, it doesn't even act like the "Upload" button has even been pressed. Has anyone else been having this problem? And for those who have recently uploaded new images without problems, do you have any solutions?

CuchulainSetanta 23:59, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

There was a community message a while ago that said that image uploading would be disabled due to maintanence. - LeoLab 00:42, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know how long this is going to last? And new images are obviously being uploaded. What's the secret there? CuchulainSetanta 00:39, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * You still can't upload images properly? Maybe something wrong with your Java because I believe the problem has been resolved
 * The normal uploading is still broken for me at least (i.e Add a Photo in the toolbar, and the image placeholder in new articles), but I have figured out adding a new photo to the sidebar you see next to articles works fine. If anyone else is experiencing trouble, try this. CuchulainSetanta 01:53, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Templates
Ive just been going around to various wikis and such, just doing the usuall stuf that I do. I saw a lot of themed templates and all that sort of thing and thought how our current template scheme is a little.. disorganised and basic. I was thinking maybe we could revamp our templates by giving them our own little touch. The army thing is good but maybe we could be a bit more fictional. Like the admins only template. instead of saying 'This is for admins eyes only', we could say 'The Gods have protected this article from mortal editing'. and things like that. just give it a more fictional feel. Is it just me? opinions please --Astrotorical 07:02, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry I couldn't get to this topic sooner. I'll be planning to also redesigned all of our templates to be red and black, our wiki colors. I'll also edit the messages. Next time if you post a question I would send a message to all sysops. 02:38, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Case 1: Gru vs. Megamind
ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED, DO NOT POST ANY RESPONSES TO THIS SUBJECT

We are here to decide of The Deadliest Warrior's battle, Gru from Despicable Me vs. Megamind from Megamind. What we are here to decide is whether this battle meets criteria and is considered "legal" on the wiki.

The Deadliest Warrior presents his case:

We've seen and we've deleted battles that, on the surface, appeared to be similar to my "Gru (Despicable me) vs. Megamind (Megamind)" battle (namely Dexter vs. someone else and Dr. Doofenshmirtz vs. Swiper). However, those deleted battles are of either completely incompetent "warriors" or of child (and possibly still incompetent) warriors.

In my mind, Gru and Megamind are neither of the two. Yes, they derive from children's movies. However, they have an arsenal of weapons and an ego to match. Gru has ingenious devices like freeze rays, shrink rays, and he even has high-tech rocket ships. His minions are armed with even RPG's and chainsaws. Although meant for comic relief, in the real world, when unleashed, this would cause havoc.

Megamind also has devices like the dehydration gun and the invisibile car, plus little hover brain-bots that can lethally do his bidding - and Megamind has shown his ruthlessness in his movie, if not on a lethal basis (again, since it is a children's movie).

For those of you who would still say no, I promise I can handle this well. The two "warriors" will have weapons they truly used and I will try to work it as best I can. The only danger I can see is of other less... grammatically and spelling and formatting-literate users screwing things up in the spots where I could gently work it.

If you say no, I understand. It wouldn't be fair to tell me yes but someone else no. I still hope you'd let me make the battle however. Gru and Megamind are no Scooby-Doo or Daffy Duck.

Please consider my request. Thank you,

The Deadliest Warrior05:25, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Please post whether or not this battle should go through, please carefully consider the policies

Use  to allow this battle to through

Use  to stop this battle from going through

As always, please list your reasoning also. Post under the bar.


 * I approve, even though they may come from kids movies, they still have a s--t loads of weaponry to cause havoc.MrPacheco101 05:38, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also give this a . These two villians come from a childrens movie but this doesn't mean they should be seen this way. Warriors, in my opinion, are people (or otherwise) who have the capability of fighting and/or have weapons to aid them. Basically Im saying we have seen both Gru and Megamind use their respective weapons to defeat anyone before them and as MrP said, if they were put in a real life situation (not like a comedical type one seen in the films) they could certainly hold their ground. An army of loyal minions or a horde of robotic hovering brains-things, what ever the case I, Astrotorical, strongly believe that these to warriors should very much be alowed to fight. However, I dont want any deaths from either of them, instead have them thrown in jail or make a quick escape, that sort of thing. They are still from childrens comedies so I think killing them is a little harsh.
 * 05:55, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I approve this battle as well. It seems to be quite similar to my Koopa Troop vs. Kremling Krew. It's the fighting mindset that really makes a warrior, not what medium they come from. CuchulainSetanta 15:38, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I approve this battle as well. It seems to be quite similar to my Koopa Troop vs. Kremling Krew. It's the fighting mindset that really makes a warrior, not what medium they come from. CuchulainSetanta 15:38, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I approve this battle as well. It seems to be quite similar to my Koopa Troop vs. Kremling Krew. It's the fighting mindset that really makes a warrior, not what medium they come from. CuchulainSetanta 15:38, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * , I'm a little shaky on this one but I'll let it go through considering they are adults and do have the technology to kill. 19:03, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED, DO NOT POST ANY RESPONSES TO THIS SUBJECT

Case 2: Deadliest Fiction Wiki v./ The Deadliest Warrior
Due to recent incidents, it is unknown whether or not The Deadliest Warrior should be blocked for 45 days for creating a sock-puppet account. As you know this is a major offense, but we must provide TDW a fair trial. Please do not use your relationship with him as a factor in making your decision, rather your mind and brain.

He presents his case:

Apparently there’s been this crazy mix-up and I’m in hot water. I could be banned, I might not be banned, but here I am pledging my case for truthful justice and understanding.

My friend made an account on the Deadliest Fiction under the name Masedoggie and for some reason it has the same I.P. as me. Omnicube won’t listen to me and keeps pointing out the evidence – which I must admit, seems pretty incriminating against me. However, machines make mistakes. I am not Masedoggie. I do not use sockpuppets. I see no reason why that would be a need or a want for me. I only hope you’d see reason and believe me. I’ve been on the Wiki for nearly a year and I wouldn’t betray all you guys over one extra vote per battle.

Please have mercy. My word may not be convincing but it’s all the evidence I can give.

Respectfully,

 01:12, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

The evidence:

PLEASE POST YOUR VERDICT AND YOUR REASON WHY YOU HAVE DECIDED THAT WAY

Look I'm merely following our rules here. You have a sock-puppet that's an instant block, but we decided to make trial of this. I'll probably look like the bad guy here and this would probably ruin my relationship with TDW, but I have stick with what Wikia says is wrong. Plus we admins would be hypocrites if we allowed one man go and another charged with a permanent ban (Mexican spider). Look in all reality why would a grown man ("Mase") who probably has a job and maybe a family spend his time here? Plus there is no way that you can share an IP. I have to stand by with what is right. Omnicube1 01:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see this being extremly strong one way or the other. I don't think he would do this, it may be a misunderstanding but I really can't see one's points being much stronger than the other. 01:56, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see it with this evidence. TDW has been here for far to long to pull a stupid stunt like this and is the oldest amongst us users to know what is right and wrong. Sure The battles are smilar but they are both very different. TDW uses a Heading 2 when sectioning both warriors weapons, makes the battle as fair as possible, and writes a proportional battle sim. It may be possible that Mase was influenced by watching TDW write the battle at TDW's own house(since they are good friends) or he just observed the battle via as an anon. It is also quite possible that Mase wrote his battle on TDW's very own computer when he comes over and writes his battles, and logs off when he is finished. Therefore TDW is not guiltyMrPacheco101 02:08, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm not sure where to stand on this point. I'm pretty sure that TDW would not create a sock-puppet nor do I know what he would gain from it. But the evidence does seem pretty incriminating and Omnicube1 does have a point. Anyway until I see something that really tips the scales either way, I'm going to wait for now. Death&#39;sapprentice77 02:16, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

well... after i have reviewed the evidence put forward, both physical/digital (omnicubes case) and pyschological (TDW's case). this will probably be the hardest thing ive ever done... in the way of wiki's..

So. I believe TDW as ive known him for a while, my earliest memory being something about the logo, back when we had no decernable theme. I think he would never do such a thing. but then here comes the contrasting statement. Everyone says they didn't do something until we can prove they did it. Innocent untill proven guilty. it is a stupid thing to do and logically TDW doesnt seem like the person who would do this. but then again, Wailen Smithers didnt seem like the person to shoot Mr. Burns (this is a really bad example and im sorry). So now comes the part when i go to Omincubes side. The evidence put forward by Uberfuzzy himself, and the similarites between both users are pretty compelling (the image with the '2 IP's things doesnt work for me). I can see the things that they appear the same. and the WHOIS thing. Well yes machines make mistakes. but then why haven't they picked up on that? "type in google RED and it comes up with GREEN, hopefully they notice the mistake".

You may not understand my reasoning, you may never forgive me but sadly i must infact vote

I really don't see a smoking gun in this case. Yes, their writing style is similar, but this isn't a personal signature: it's typed up on a computer. Just about anyone could have forged those for whatever purpose. TDW has always struck me as a man who knows the rules by heart, and sticks to them all the time. This seems completely out of character for him. CuchulainSetanta 20:21, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

So far we have 2 for Approve, 2 for Unapprove, and 3 for netrual. So far this case is undecided


 * That's bad. But seriously why mention now that your friend made the account before? He only brought it up when I warned him, isn't that pretty fishy? 21:46, May 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * And should we go Supreme Court procedures since there's a tie? Omnicube1 21:57, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Okay currently we are at a hung trial, all admins can you please vote again (particularly the neutral ones) Omnicube1 01:18, May 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted an answer to your request. 04:35, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Sadly i must stick with my original statement, once again putting the

Like I said I don't see the evidenice being very strong either way. So I'm taking the innocent till proven guilty approch. Sense, at least to me, I don't see it being particuarly sreong either way, If this was a court case with the evidence presented I would would at least be left with reasonable doubt. So I say innococent 20:12, May 17, 2011 (UTC)



I still need some more responses from the neutral admins.

Suspcious, yes. But not to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd stay neutral but in a real court case if you have reasonable doubt the defendant is presumed innocent.

Move to the Forums?
I was just wondering if instead of posting messages here on the talk page, we post them on the forums? Let me know what you think. Again, use the approve/disapprove templates. Omnicube1 04:50, May 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure go ahead. As moderator i approve this. allthough i dont really have to moderate the forums it much so it doesn't matter. any way yeah


 * Well you can moderate the regular side of the forums if you want (I assume you are Astro). Omnicube1 23:27, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * oh, sorry, yes it is. im still not used to writing more then one template in a page.

Badges and the New Edit System
Well, i recently got a message about the new editing system. I tested it out for about 10 minutes to see if its any good. I thought it made things pretty easy but will take time to get used to. I have also discovered how to turn the Badges on. So basically i wanted to see if the rest of the DFW Staff wanted to turn them on. Do we want to convert to the new edit system as well as turn badges on? remember to use the, , templates

get back to me

I support this, it may help out a lot for newer users and badges would be nice. [img]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101214235853/deadliestfiction/images/7/77/Yes.png[/img]

Death&#39;sapprentice77 23:22, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Badges are cool I guess but I don't really know how to edit the requirements for them all you can really change about them is the picture. Also people will just do random stuff just to get the badges and not really put in any real effort towards making our wiki better. So that's a for the badges. For the editing I really don't care. It definitely will take some time adjusting, but for me it took only a quick glance at it and I got it. So 23:27, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

well i looked at the new editing system and i must say it's really nice, but it'll take some time ofr me to get used to it✅. As for badges I really don't care 00:06, June 22, 2011 (UTC)~

for the badges, I think there more trouble than there worth. for the editing system.

Ok, so i think we wont turn badges on then, but editing system is a go. Ill edit the front page to let everyone know whats up. this topic is till open while we wait for one more admin to have an input. although i dont think it will tip the scales i think its poite. all good?

Sock Puppets
So yeah the suspicions of other users and of mine were correct, ReyesRebels was using three different sock-puppet accounts. Be on the look out for any other users you might think are sock-puppets. The user will receive no warning, but you can must ask them beforehand to be honest. The proposed block system in this case will be:


 * 1) 1st time of committing "crime": 45 day block, infinite block for sock-puppet accounts
 * 2) 2nd time of committing "crime": 100 day block, convicted user cannot vote or post comments on other users' battles 10 days after block, infinite block for sock-puppet accounts
 * 3) 3rd time of committing "crime": Infinite block

Please use the approve, disapprove, and neutral templates. 01:47, June 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean by when they come back. It's kind of like a probation. 02:56, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ok I changed it to must 04:26, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Don't need to tell me twice, what's done needs to be done

I also agree with this, so many times have i seen this happen on here as well as other websites (forums and what not). Its not fun.

I approve also, don't need to say anything here. --Death&#39;sapprentice77 14:14, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Colour awards
Well, a couple of users have come up with this idea that Users who joined before a certain date should get their username changed colours. Admins are blue, Beuros are green, Chatmods are yellow and the suggested colour for these "Pre-joiners" was purple. And no, it wasnt me who came up with purple.The date was basically before christmas, As in "If you joined the wiki before christmas we make you feel special by getting a different coloured name.". Thoughts? Comments? Opinions? Suggestions?

I shouldnt have to tell you what icons to use if you agree, disagree or neutral. >End of Line

I disapprove mainly because why? The colors are really for users who have more of a task on this wiki other than writing battles and commenting and stuff. I see what you're getting at, plus I really don't want to go back to the Wikia.css and plug in all these names to get their names colored. I'm not saying that they're not special, it's just that I want to reward those actually when out there to apply themselves toward these special positions. 18:15, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

It Is Time.
We all know of the controversy surrounding Masterchief. Flame, Sockpuppets, Bias votes, the wiki just cant handle it. It happens every time. When he wins, its Bias. When he loses, people flame and sockpuppet to get him more votes. or vice versa, when he wins etc.

I propose a Ban of all battles involving him in an effort to reduce this.Two users (who wish to remain anon) support this idea, and I am going to write up a poll to see what the public decides. Below is a statement from one of them:

"as you may know there is a very large master chief and anti master chief bias on this wiki. thoughts?
 * Every fight he is in is won by bias or anti chief bias.
 * At least 3 fights on this wiki with the Chief have had sock puppets such as Master Chief vs Nomad had 17 sock puppets against the chief
 * anyways aside from the sock puppeting whihc breaks Internet laws.
 * or 3 fights he was in were won by flaming
 * i mean
 * had flaming in them
 * basically every fight with him gets more bias with it and results in worse stuff"
 * Now, I can see where they are coming from. But even if you dont like it, I suggest at the LEAST moderating Masterchief battles. Only allow them when they have been aproved by admins

I approve of this idea MrPacheco101 06:12, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing because all Master Chief on this wiki really does is generate controversy and problems. I was actually thinking about a temporary ban on battles involving the Chief, like a one year deal. It's sad that things have to come to this. 06:13, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

So thats basically 4 approvals. Who else are we wating for? I will also put a poll up on the main page. Mainly because if Mastercheif made us money, he would be a major revenue stream if you get my meaning

Updates to the battle policy
As many people are aware, there is some level of outdation to the battle policy. While some revisions have already taken place, the process has not yet completed. I would like to gather your opinions on the current policies.

1) The very first sentence of the rematch section of the battle policy states, "If the original author of a battle is inactive, then a rematch can be done without his permission." I, persoanlly, would like to keep this rule. Though it seems that others disagree. Please use the, , , or templates to state your opinion on the subject.

2) Leo told me at one point that you were allowed to rewrite someone else's battle without redoing it altogether (I. E., if you're satisfied with the victor, but feel that the simulation or lack thereof was poor) with the author's permission. I think it's quite silly to have a rule, but not have it written in the policies, so with that, I would like to gather your opinions on whether or not to add this to the battle policy:

" ==Rewriting Without Redoing==

If someone is satisfied with the outcome of a battle, but is dissappointed in the poor simulation or lack thereof, he is allowed to rewrite the simulation with the author's permission. If the original author is inactive, the user must get the permission from at least one other administrator to rewrite it. If the original author disapproves, then the same principle of three supporters overriding the author's disapproval for a rematch is applied to rewriting simulations."

Suggested revisions to this are encouraged. Please use the, , , or templates to state your opinion on the subject.

HaydenStudios 19:26, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

For number I, I find this statement unesseccary for the battle policy.

For Number 2 I this and it should be a formal rule.

20:08, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

First time, let's hope I do this right. --Drayco90 20:31, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1-, I only agree that this should be allowed to happen if there's a few users who want the battle rematched, and there's not a large group of users who oppose the concept of the battle being rematched.
 * 2-, this is something that should probably be in the battle policy just to solidify it. After Leo pointed out some additional wording in the last sentence of this rule, I have to change to a until it's changed from One Admin's decision to one OTHER (as in, not the person wanting the change) Admin, and I feel like having additional users decide that a battle should be overwritten regardless of the Author's permission is nonsense as well, and should be left without that.

So, 1) I think it's safe to say that most admins say rematches should not automatically be done without anyone's consent. Even though not everyone has offered up their opinions, I foresee more disapprovals coming in the future. With that, would we like rematches for which the author is inactive to require permission from one other admin, or do we want to make him get three supporters? I, personally, am for only requiring permission from one other admin. 2) Looks like most people support this. That is, after I changed "one administrator," to "one other administrator," at the request of Leolab and Drayco. I'm going to keep this up for voting a little longer. Although Drayco, I am still for overriding simulations with three supporters. It's pretty much like overriding the author's disapproval of rematches. Cause the only reason Darth Vader vs. Voldemort was redone was not because of the outcome, but because the simulation didn't live up to the amount of hype it generated. HaydenStudios 00:22, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

On second thought revoked, i disapprove with the change.

Lol, No, hayden. F--k these rules. Your not in charge so stop acting like you are: 1) Pretty much agree with dray.

2) This goes against what the wiki stands for and makes me sick that you would even think of it. Someone made a battle, and if you think it's crap you can just re-write it? No, f--k that! Here's what i think this essentially is... "OH HAI PACH, THE SIM ON SHADOWHAWK VS SKULL-MAN, SUCKED ASS!" "SO I'MMA RE-WRITE IT, I HAVE SUPPORT FROM URBANCOMMANDO, TOMAHAWK, AND SPORT SHOUTING, K? BYE! Yeaaah, F--K THAT!  00:56, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Policy changes
I for these changes to be made. 19:30, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

--Drayco90 19:40, May 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1.).
 * 2.) "Disregarding the votes of the audience toward a particular warrior is not allowed.", what if the votes are just plain nonsense, biased to an obscene level or meaningless? I think voting should be case-by-case and should be specified by the author, not governed by a universal policy. Besides, as worded votes like "Batman cuz he's awesome" would be recognzied, unless I'm completely misreading the purpose of this. (Which I'm sure I am.) I do agree on the case of Author Votes leading to ties..
 * 3.) - this also seems to negate my previous problem. The way this is worded, is it still considered reviving to comment on the actual battle or to discuss something on an old blog if it's not a vote? Because I'd doubley-approve of that.
 * 4.).
 * 5.).
 * 6.)
 * 6a.).
 * 6b.).
 * 6c.).

I think these changes are an excellent idea. --User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 00:51, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Badges
A recent idea was bringing back Badges/Achievements to the wiki, little treats that reward the user for something smal lor prestigious, such as getting a certain amount of edits or getting Battle of the Month. A recent controversy was whether we should use Wikia badges, simple and easy to make achievements that has it's own ranking system for the wiki, or Classic badges which Omnicube101 used to make as templates and rewards the user on they're page. So, I have 4 plans on what we should do with badges, you can approve, disagree, or become neutral on multiple of these plans, I will knock each plan off the radar until the admins come to an agreement. User input will be included after Admin Input. I'd like all the admins to decide soon. I will also give my own imput in the future. 17:39, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Plan 1 is to bring back Wikia badges and Wikia badges only, labeled as Achievements in the Wiki Features section. Badges are simple to make, but can be considered less prestigious.
 * 2) Plan 2 is to bring back Classic badges that Omni made, they do not have a ranking system unlike Wikia badges and are less simple to make, although can be considered more prestigious and "cooler" looking.
 * 3) Plan 3 is a simple plan to combine both Plan 1 and Plan 2 by bringing back both Wikia and Classic badges.
 * 4) Plan 4 is to ignore badges all together and not bring them back.


 * 1. -These achievements can be an interesting way to make wikis more interactive, however the nature of this wiki is itself already interactive and as Leo puts it " they encourage bad editing". I won't stand in the way of them but I don't outright support them. I will support the addition if the majority does however.  After giving it more thought, I think these achievements don't really fit DF like they do for wikis used as databases and such. They are designed for making wikis more interactive not as awards really, DF is by its own nature interactive. So these aren't really needed, not to mention the points Leo brought up.
 * 2. -These badges would be more prestigious as Las puts it and are more customizable. As for making them as Leo states, its fairly simple actually. Pach Drayco and myself already came up with a draft idea for a Battle of the Month Award see award below
 * 3. see 1 ^ especcially having both
 * 4. I think a nice thing to bring back, or at least attempt like Omni did, and if multiple awards don't work, or are to cumbersome to track, we could always limit them.

▬▬Arrow▬► 01:52, June 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. - While I'm a fan of these types of achievements on other wikis, I've thought about it and I'd prefer to keep them off of Deadliest Fiction. They're not really all the prestigious and the rewards would end up going mostly to people like Hawk who make 500 comments that read "yhe" and shit. I'd be fine if they were added, because I'm a filthy achievement whore, but I'd also not mind if they stayed away from here.
 * 2. - What's not to love here? It's prestigious, more notable award that I'd love to see added to the wiki. Plus it's a throwback to a classic idea that was in place long ago, so it has that going for it as well.
 * 3. - Both is kind of overkill. I think we should just have one, or the other- having both seems to take away from them.
 * 4. - I'd like to see this feature return.--Drayco90 03:32, July 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. - I take a similar stance to this a Leo, these encourage people just to edit to get the badges.
 * 2. - I honestly don't really care on this.
 * 3. - Bringing both back will be a to much, and would encourage similar problems as with the first one
 * 4. - While I disapprove of bring in the Wikia badges, I still have a neutral stance on Omni's classic badges.

--User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! 22:05, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Alright for the record, with Las and Pach's opinions being voiced on chat The final The tally is in - 4 against wikia badges, 1 nuetral and 1 for - 3 for omnibadges, 2 neutal, 1 against - 6 against both Looks like no Wiki achievements and a yes to omnibadges ▬▬Arrow▬►

For Want of A Master Chief: On the Subject of Spacey's Ban
So it's become clear that there is a clamoring for an unban to the problematic Master Chief warrior. In the past, the Chief was banned because of his over-saturation and because he seemed to draw out the worst in anons and our users, being something of a flamewar generator. While his ban was voted on, and is supposed to last until February next year, there is a clamoring to return the Chief to the wiki; so here's the proposals on how we can handle this situation-


 * 1) No more than one MC battle a month


 * 2) Each new MC battle must get the approval from one other admin


 * 3) Make sure that all MC battles have good and secure voting policies so that anyone voting for the Chief will have to provide good and strong reasons.


 * 4) If any flame wars start, block the person who started the flame war for a determined amount of time, and everything should be okay.


 * 5.) Master Chief should remain banned until his year is up, as was decided previously.

You can approve of any combination of these proposals, barring the obvious number five which negates the first four. So, let's sign off on this- Master Chief: to ban or unban? --Drayco90 (talk) 00:00, July 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's mah thoughts on the situation.


 * 1.) This seems kind of "secret policey" in the sense that I don't feel comfortable forcibly removing what could be very legitimate match ups and well written blogs because it was forgotten that someone wrote a Chief battle before hand. I feel like this is detrimental to the wiki, because for all we know we could lose a dozen good battles because of one mediocre battle being posted three weeks before it.
 * 2.) I'd like to imagine we could do this, but let's be honest- a lot of the people who over-saturated Chief to begin with, probably don't even know how to contact the admins or that there's policies in place at all. Most of them don't read the other policies- why this one? I'd like to support it, but in the end I feel this would be a very similar situation to the first one.
 * 3.) This should be in place for pretty much all battles anyway, but the way I see it, if you're accepting votes that simply read "Master Chief- he has better armor, training and is a hero to ebrrehbodeh" you're doing it wrong anyway. Even if you're only counting it as half.
 * 4.) is this not a general policy to begin with? Flame war starters should be banned or at least given a formal warning (for more minor cases), regardless of the amount of Master Chiefiness in the fight involved.
 * 5.) I still kind of feel like the Chief's ban has merit- it was voted on by the community and decided by the last leadership. It seems wrong to me that the new order decides to immediately overturn the decisions of the old. There are people clamoring for it, yes- but there are people clamoring for Injustice: Gods Among Us too, or for a sequel to Watchmen- that doesn't mean that we need to unban just because a vocal minority wants him back. Ultimately, I don't have an issue with Chief being returned, but I don't have an issue with him being where he is as well. I'll support the above  cases, and if those are followed than I would throw my hat in the support ring for bringing the Chief back. To finish the fight. Something ominous and faux-symbolic to say here to tagline another cash cow sequel trilogy. --Drayco90 (talk) 00:11, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

My much shorter edit conflict-less vote
 * 1) My thoughts are the same as Drayco's on this point. Especially with Halo 4 about to be released
 * 2) I'd like to think this might work, but there could be so much to go wrong here. Not only as Drayco mentions these type over "over-saturated" people would even bother contacting an admin, but what happens if one admin gives permission and another didn't know that and removes the battle (or any misunderstanding really) I would support if there were not a halo game about to come out
 * 3) Slightly it just seems to me that, while this is a great idea, How do we enforce it? Hw do we make sure every battle with chief uses a refined method?
 * 4) / This seems to be the simplest solution but it doesn't hit the source of the issue, to roots you might say and we pretty much have this already.
 * 5) Normally I'd disapprove, but with Halo 4 on the horizon I think we should be ready. (maybe make the notice on his page larger.) However, I think we could shorten it to the beginning of 2013 without issue. —Arrow→ 01:05, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * On your note on 3, it could tie into 2 if that was also in place- a person would be able to check voting policy with the admin during the process of gaining permission. Doesn't really fix the issues brought up on 2 or any other problem on 3, really, but I can't really think of another way to really enforce this. Also- I forget Halo 4 is coming out, you're right- if he's unbanned now, on one hand it could be tied into Halo 4 and probably make a splash, but with the side-effect of everyone and their moms rushing to make a Chief battle or give a biased vote/flame bait because of blinding hype for the new game. I may need to rethink my 5 to reflect this. --Drayco90 (talk) 01:23, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'm only Commenting on number 5


 * 5) - While I was against the Ban in the first place and really don't think it should of happened at all, and I still think it sorta ridiculous to Ban a character because Users hate having things not go there way in battle. The Ban was decided on and started in a perfectly legitimate way, it was voted on and enforced by the community, and I really don't think we should just Flip flop on the issue.--User:Swg66-Cambria ne&#39;er can yield! (talk) 18:09, July 12, 2012 (UTC)