Hello, and let me be the first to welcome you to the Admin's Council. Ideally, this is a page that would be used for the admins and bureaucrats of this wiki to discuss important matters, such as blocks that are not so clear-cut. Or for important changes to this wiki.

Hello friends, and welcome to the Admin's Council.

Code of ConductEdit

Essentially, this is a place of important discussion between the admins and bureaucrats. These users of all people do not need to be lectured in good behavior. Nonetheless, here are the rules.

  • Speak civilly at all times.
  • Off-topic items will be deleted.
  • This is a place of serious business. While it should be light-hearted, this page covers some of the more serious aspects of the wiki and should be taken seriously at all times.
  • Only admins or bureaucrats will have access to editing of this page.

When filing a report, please make it descriptive, so as not to confuse people. For instance, if asking for comments on a block, put "Block review of (Insert username here)" by (Insert username here). This way, all of the admins can be notified of its urgency and detail.

Current users with access to this page:

Block review of User:The Joke Master by InsurgenceEdit

Recently, I have blocked The Joke Master for the act of being a troll. The Joke Master, (previously User:Ghostytreat) has been a problem user on many wikis, daNASCAT evidences this [1]. I have blocked Ghosty's new account for trolling, as evidenced on User talk:Mac.buz52 and more recently, here. I hope you will review this block and give comments and advice accordingly. Thank you, Lord Phoenix at your service 02:02, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps it is due to rollbacks and the like, but all I'm seeing in the contributions sections of both Ghostytreat and Joke Master are pages for Planet 51, which is definitely all well and good. You say other wikis have stated him as a troll though, and I certainly won't contest that. My Internet where I live now is really, really bad and it can sometimes take upwards of four hours to load one page successfully so I cannot delve extremely deeply into the contributions and such myself as I would really like to be able to until I am next around a better connection but I definitely wanted to contribute to the discussion -- can you perhaps list some examples of trolling that has been done by Ghosty McJokemastreater that you've noticed taking place? I did notice a "You seem to have the picture off. Lets leave it on but good adding that picture though." as a description for an edit on Roger from American Dad, which is a bit confusing to me without my full wireless capabilities.
Edit: Then again, after seeing this...I don't remember much about that movie, but I don't believe perhaps any of what is written there is actually true. Can anyone confirm? -- Somarinoa 01:15, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

If i mat chime in it seems that User:The Joke Master is a troll so I support the block 100% and if he is envolved in trolling across wikia I think we should request a global block I will speakk with him --Owen1983 14:46, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Speculation PolicyEdit

I recommend a change on the speculation policy, I think it should be allowed on talk pages and blogs (and talk pages should be allowed for the discussion of the pages content, I dont know why so many wikis forbid this) but I dont think that speculation that falls outside of the laws and attributes of the universe should be allowed (speculating that it is an established power source in the universe is okay, but not creating a new idea). I do not think speculation is wrong, but putting it on the main pages for content is because . . . people may mistake it for canon. ralok (talk) 00:47, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is: we tend to take some liberties with our texts that other wikis would frown upon. That is a positive thing IMO. Whenever we mention something in fiction that relates to real life science, we usually take a comment as to whether or not this is plausible and why, and if it's not plausible, we tend to speculate to provide possible in-universe explanations for said occurrences. I think this practice increases exponentially how much out articles can be interesting AND informative. Sometimes, when I write about an alien creature I come across a certain aspect of it that is not properly explained in canon: why is this alien blue? How can it have such an acidic interior? Why does it have an instinct that seemingly goes against self-preservation? In some cases, there is a perfectly good potential explanation that is never addressed in the media but doesn't in any way contradict what we know about this creature. As long as it's explicitly stated as speculation ("it is possible that..."; "one likely idea would be that...") I don't see anything wrong with writing it down. On the opposite, we only improve the article that way. On a more philosophical level it invites the reader to think about what they see in fiction; which is ultimately one of the great things about sci-fi. Sure, sci-fi stories require suspension of disbelief, but they do have a promise in them of being a fantasy that makes sense, that is internally consistent at least. There's no such think as over-thinking it. I've seen people saying that when you examine a work, you spoil all the fun. To me, it has always been the opposite. The more I think about a work, the more I explore it's inconsistencies, the more I find ways to come across these inconsistencies and make them coherent, and I always find myself enjoying the work much more at the end of it, for I find new interpretations, new ways of thinking about these works. Of course, here we're entering the realm of fanon theories and what TV Tropes calls "wild mass guessing", I'm not saying we should promote those in articles (we definitely should not), but a small level of speculation can do no harm, and there's potential for we to state some things that readers could find really interesting or even helpful. PS: Sorry for the extraordinarily long answer... -- BlueFrackle (talk) 03:21, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
After thought: just not to say I reject this proposal entirely; I would have no problem with the idea of limiting speculation to the "behind the scenes" section or adding sections solely for speculation on the articles. I also enjoy the idea of using blogs for that purpose, if the blogs are successful and well written we could even start providing links for them in the main articles perhaps. It's something to keep in mind -- BlueFrackle (talk) 03:25, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
But by putting that speulation in the article itself . . . you are ruining that experience for other people. That is ultimately my problem with any speculation here is that. . . speculating is fun, and putting in speculation ruins it for other people. As well it creates a problem, when "speculation" gets out of hand and is passed off as real information . . . then people dont search for the information within the published, licensed, and distributed works of the franchise in question . . . and thus the answer may not be found. If any speculation is to be had within an article, it must be after all of the information ahs been properly gathered . . . and it must fall completely within the confines of the universe (in-universe characters speculations should be allowed unconditionally of course, but it should be stated which character speculated it). ralok (talk) 03:29, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Speculation Policy

in theory it could work and it should be implemented becus i means wwe are more relaxed most wikis label something as canon thats its and its not are way IMV having an informative wiki that is also open is a bonus for us.--Owen1983 (talk) 19:16, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

You guys really arent getting it, there is a difference between canon lines . . . and fanon. Star trek for some reason wants none of its books canon, but those are still officially licensed, developed, and distributed materials. Fanon is just stuff that fans make, and the fun of it is making your own fanon. My concern here is based on two things 1. Providing ACCURATE information 2. Not ruining anyone elses fun. There is two kinds of fun that can be ruined by allowing "unbound speculation" (that is to say, out of universe speculation or speculation not grounded in the universes logic . . .) first people will recieve innacurate information, which can be a humiliating and disappointing experience, second it ruins the fun of creating your OWN SPECULATION. I myself have made a few blogs here and elsewhere that are nothing but speculation (my Prey 2 races blog, and my sims 2 blogs) . . . and I can tell you, I dont want that ruined by someone elses speculation. And that leads to a third problem here . . . SPECULATION CAN CAUSE EDIT WARRING, if two users disagree over speculative content . . . then there is a problem. So I request that the policy be changed so that "unbound speculation" is meant for blogs and talk pages, and that we define terminology for different kinds of speculation. ralok (talk) 21:42, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Unpublished WorksEdit

Editing conventions and policy pages don't currently make this observation, but it's generally understood that by our decision to not allow fanon we mean that only aliens appearing in officially published works have a place on this wiki. What then should we do with content such as Snaiad, Sagan IV and Epona? These are exobiology projects and only exist on the web (at least AFAIK); I presume that is the reason the recently created page on the Blumbomeniformes (which come from Snaiad) has been deleted. Yet other pages related to these works remain. We need to decide what to do with them: allow them because they are original content relevant to exobiology speculation; or disallow them because they are ultimately indistinguishable from regular fanon? I don't know... -- BlueFrackle (talk) 18:38, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say it . . . because I actually really like these exobiology projects, especially teh Snaiad stuff, but ultimately it is just fanon (granted fanon for the real world, but fanon nonetheless) and while the work has quality, it cannot be included because . . . its unfair to the people with lower quality works, and I think it is rude to play favorites. . . so they have to be deleted. ralok (talk) 19:50, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Deep Future & Deep Past species (Creatures from Alien Earths)Edit

Normally we dont allow species from earth on this wiki, but I feel that we should make an exception for species that have evolved on a "sufficiently alien earth" or who have had their evolution affected by a change on earth. For example the various creatures from Defiance unique to the post-terraformed earth, and species from Thundarr the Barbaian or The Time Machine where they are from futures that can only be described as hypothetical. Same with species that are from a rediculously distant past. ralok (talk) 18:15, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

If I may: you could also add in species from "alternative" versions of Earth (ex: Ferocious Planet, The Sound of Thunder) and those which evolved from Earth creatures but continued their evolution in space by natural or unnatural means (ex: Voth). I take it lots of creatures from Primeval and The Future is Wild would be valid under your proposal as well? I only think there could be a more specific definition for distant past (Precambrian and backwards? Or would Paleozoic/Mesozoic be OK?). -- BlueFrackle (talk) 18:58, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, Primeval and The future is wild are more than viable for my proposal. I think for "distant past" the definition is much looser. But I would be inclined to think end of cretaceous era downwards. I wouldnt include the Dragons from Reign of Fire though because they are an earthly creature used to explain earthly events that seemingly have interacted with humanity throughout its history. I think "Distant PAst" could best be described as "fantasy past" I only included the "distant past' thing because of the voth . . . although they are valid no matter what because of they have had sufficient time off earth to evolve (if only slightly) ralok (talk) 22:40, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.