Hi, I'm an admin for the Coronation Street Wiki community. Welcome and thank you for your edit to [[:Category:Killers]]! If you need help getting started, check out our help pages or contact me or another admin here. For general help, you could also stop by Community Central to explore the forums and blogs.
Please leave me a message if I can help with anything. Enjoy your time at Coronation Street Wiki!
H3mh7b (talk) 00:34, March 31, 2017 (UTC) Thank-you for your warm welcome. I was just wondering why the my category page was deleted. It seemed out of the blue to me.H3mh7b (talk) 00:34, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
- We've recently deleted a 'Murderers' category for reasons I won't go into here, hence my deletion of 'Killers' which is the same category by another name.
- Please don't create any new categories unless either there's a clear precedent for it or it meets with the approval of at least one admin. David (talk) 00:40, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
H3mh7b (talk) 02:37, March 31, 2017 (UTC)I see. I was merely following in the footsteps of other soap-opera wikis, as they often have a "killers" category. I will adhere to your request, however, can I ask that you notify me when these things happen?H3mh7b (talk) 02:37, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
H3mh7b (talk) 00:01, April 8, 2017 (UTC)That's quite alright. I mean that if you do decide to delete or alter pages with my name attached to them, I would like to be aware of it, as well as the reasons for your actions.H3mh7b (talk) 00:01, April 8, 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there, we always give a reason for an alteration to a page in the update summary but we'll try to advise you fof deletions. Have a look at our Coronation Street Wiki:Manual of style which pretty much explains eveything--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:56, April 8, 2017 (UTC)
- H3mh7b (talk) 02:42, April 9, 2017 (UTC)Sorry, but your blocking policy seems a bit draconian to me. Maybe it isn't my place to make such criticisms, but five or more English errors doesn't strike me as a warrant for blocking. Blocking to me, at least, has always existed to be limit harassment and vandalism, things of that sort. It just seems unjust to block people for making errors, especially when they can be fixed.H3mh7b (talk) 02:42, April 9, 2017 (UTC)
- It's a "rule" that we can quote if we have consistent problems with an editor whose contributions cause problems for us but we rarely use it. You say something interesting above: "It just seems unjust to block people for making errors, especially when they can be fixed" (my emphasis). We have been really surprised over the past nine years at the paucity of new editors on the site who can contribute edits which are to an acceptable standard of written English and which are in the format and style of the many thousands of other pages on the site. If they are someone new, then fine. They need that help and assistance, but we have had experience of people who ignore the latter and continuously contribute highly sub-standard work before we take the sad decision to block them. Now I emphasised your sentence because anyway on the site can improve a page but 99% of the poor edits end up being fixed by the administrators and no one else seems to be bothered to do so. If we just left these pages untouched, we would be letting down the wikia corporation who have entrusted us to maintain high standards so we do correct and improve but that, in turn, stops us adding the pages that we want to. Many a time we have signed on to the site with an hour to spare and good intentions and found that our time has been eaten up clearing up recent sub-standard edits. All three of us work full-time so our editing time is constrained. It’s further eaten into by the fact that there are five new episodes a week which need documenting with all their associated pages (well over fifty of them) which also require updating. Another point to consider: the latest edits are emphasised in the “recent activity” box which new readers gravitate towards. If they see that a recent edit is of a very poor quality, then they lose faith in what we do and again we let the wikia corporation down. We have to have standards and we have to have rules we can quote and enforce. If more people contributed timely corrections and cleared up the errors, we would be fine but they simply don’t or won't.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:12, April 10, 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid the manual of style clearly states: "No new categories should be created unless they have first been discussed on the forum pages." Please may I ask why you made the changes first before the discussion had taken place?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 10:57, December 9, 2017 (UTC)
- H3mh7b (talk) 13:17, December 9, 2017 (UTC)I thought that since I had already asked for permission, it would be more productive to continue doing this work. Also, with all due respect, this rule seems a bit counter-productive to me. How is this wiki made to expand if we must first spend time asking for permission, and then despite our efforts to grow this wiki to it's potential size, one of you administrators can just come along and delete all of our progress, no questions asked. I've done a bit of research, and in the past, when people ask reasonable questions about why their work as been deleted, you simply reply that you are administrators and therefore, you are in control. When they continue to protest, you block them. This doesn't seem like the most efficient way of doing things.
- That isn't to say that my page should not have been deleted, but to do without question, especially as it seems to be following in a similar "approved" page, ([[Suicides]]) does not seem reasonable, as the page I created helps readers to navigate. It isn't something that could stir up counter-productive debate as in the case of [[Murderers]] as the rules are extremely straight forward. I am as ready as the next person to dedicate my time to growing this wiki to the height of its potential, but I don't see how deleting pages, simply because they weren't "approved" prior to their creation helps to do this. I have no choice but to conclude that you simply like to be in control.
- I am willing to hear your side of the story, but bear in mind that I do have my limits. I want to work with you, not against you, but at the moment, you are forcing me to do the latter. I hope we can work this out, but if I feel that this model has not been approved, I want you to understand that I will contact the appropriate channels.H3mh7b (talk) 13:17, December 9, 2017 (UTC)
Why This Wiki is Broken: An Open Letter to Administrators Edit
We have read and noted the questions asked under the heading of "Why This Wiki is Broken: An Open Letter to Administrators" and the three administrators jointly and openly reply as follows:
This wiki celebrates its 10th anniversary next year. In that time, it has grown from nothing to over 21,000 articles and has garnered considerable critical acclaim from our readers and other commentators as well as a large amount of support from ITV themselves. 15,838 images have been uploaded with 290,506 edits. The number of words contained within it aren't known but are easily several million and we know that it contains main carefully researched facts which have never been seen in print before about the programme.
This does not sound like a "broken wiki". It has had this considerable achievement because it has rules and standards.
Nothing gets built or made by the full agreement of all parties. Rules and guidelines exist in life for all circumstances. If a road is to be built, a plan is signed off by a small number of people before a larger number of people actually lay down the tarmac. They mix it as instructed, lay it where instructed and lay it when instructed. They have no say in the matter, even if they disagree. Ultimately, almost all of us have two choices in our work - accept the rules or leave.
David founded this wiki and John and Karen joined in quick succession becoming administrators by his consent. Lots of the templates and standards were copied from other wikis because they worked and they were quickly added to in the formative years. By January 2009, just eight months into this open project, a basic page existed for every episode and work has continued to expand and improve ever since. Most of the templates, layouts and categories were decided on in the first months and have rarely needed adjustment since then. Some people have come along, suggested changes and some have been accepted as filling a logical gap. Others have been rejected - they are open to far too much interpretation, as have been some suggestions for inclusion within a category. A recent classic case was a reader insisting that because Jez Quigley died when attacking Steve McDonald, that means Steve McDonald should have the category of "Murderer" attached to him. We said no, We did this because it had no basis in common sense to make that claim and we could say no because we are the administrators. That's the way it works.
This is our site: we founded it, we have put by far the lion's share of the work into it and we have spent literally thousands of pounds researching it - viewing time at the BFI is not free and is not cheap. This means we set the rules. Without rules, there would be chaos.
Three important points to make about your actions and statement:
1) You were specifically told by David on 31st March this year not to create new categories unless you had the approval of one administrator. This backs up a rule in the seventh section of the Manual of Style. There is a thread in the forum for category suggestions, which David has used himself. This establishes the clear procedure for creating new categories AND establishes that the rule applies to administrators as well. Today you took the sole decision to ignore that twice-stated rule. The irony is that two of the three signatories to this letter actually think your suggestions this morning have some real merit. If only you'd asked...
2) Stylistically, the wording you created was wrong in that almost every word was capitalised. Our other categories are not and once amended cannot be re-directed - only deleted and re-created. This would have been pointed out to you, if only you'd asked...
3) You threaten to take this matter with "the appropriate channels". Just a few months ago, another editor did that, reporting one of us to wikia central. They were told by Jenburton of wikia central that "Staff doesn't interfere with local wiki decisions. You'll need to discuss the situation with the admins on the wiki." You will be told the same should you report us.
Everyone is welcome to edit here provided that they follow the the rules that we ourselves have to follow and users like Pascal11 and NewtonAndRidley are making a valuable contribution in accepting this constraint, and we hope, enjoying themselves in the process! You have chosen to ignore the rules and to threaten us.
Signed David, John and Karen
H3mh7b (talk) 23:48, December 9, 2017 (UTC)My intent was not to threaten, it was to warn and to make my case clear. I hope that I am understood. I thought that I had asked appropriately, clearly I hadn't. David said "without approval or clear precedent" I thought that I had the latter, and when I did ask for permission, no response was recieved.
When I say "broken", I mean in recent times. I am glad to hear of your success, I just thought that you knew your responsibility.
Your rules appear to serve no clear purpose other than that of control. This is an oligarchy, don't pretend it isn't. "All parties". Is it not telling that more than one editor has had complaints? The appropriate channels may not do anything, but they shouldn't have to. This is your wiki, do you honestly want it to stand for what is seen as a facist counter-productive model that is only helpful if you are an administrator or bureaucrat? The only way to make significant progress in expanding this wiki is if you are one of the higher-ups, so to speak.
All that I ask is that you take this into consideration. I have spoken with many other editors, and they feel the same. I would like to work with you, but this is going to be difficult if things do not change.H3mh7b (talk) 23:48, December 9, 2017 (UTC)