Forum:User Blog Policy?

Forums: Index →

Administration

→ User Blog Policy?

I've noticed a lot of blogs which are completely off-topic, or just pure spam recently, such as "User_blog:Cublikefoot/hi" (deleted), User_blog:Dylmo989/Hi (deleted), User_blog:Delta75/Hi (deleted) and "User blog:Firehawx2010/Sup" (deleted). So, I was wondering if we should have some sort of loose guidelines for user blogs. I don't really have any ideas on specifics, but I just don't think people should having blogs like this, and adding to their editcount (and getting achievement badges) for such pointless edits. Anyway, just wanted to see what other people thought of this. Thanks, NightblazeSaber 01:20, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree the "Hi" blogs should not be allowed, but we shouldn't really limit the blogs that have a purpose (other than trolling), but the other ones, sure, we'll keep! Its another way to get the community to know each other, and is like the purpose for our IRC, but isn't live :P --Lcawte 06:05, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think that is needed. Anyway, we don't have to make a long policy oit of this. A short one would be enough. And we could mention the blog comments there too, e.g. posting multiple times on a blog when you could put it all in one post, or answering to your own question like "How r u?" and "I'm fine" (just an idea).  Samdo994 talk contribs  10:28, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

How about just having something like "Any user blogs or user blog comments interpreted as spam by an administrator will be subject to deletion." That way if an admin sees something along the lines of a "hi blog", or some other blog or comment which is purely spam they just delete it. NightblazeSaber 01:33, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

"interpreted as spam by an administrator" rephrase that to nonsense/pointless.. Spam <--- --Lcawte 06:32, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yeah that :P NightblazeSaber 06:54, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing about blogs is for bogus points. BobaFett

 Talk  MOCPages Group (Click)  14:14, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to see what people thought of some other rules which some wikis have in place, usually titled something like "Your blog is not your primary contribution to this wiki". This is basically where the number of user blogs (and comments) must be below a certain percentage of the user's overall contributions. Thought this could also help to cut down on any pointless blogs, and encourage mainspace edits. NightblazeSaber 12:46, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds okay, but I won't really calculate how many blogs I am allowed to create... :P By the way, when creating the policy, please mention that the same thing counts for blog comments too.  Samdo994 talk contribs  14:53, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think it sounds good! Some rules should be enforced when it comes to blog posts, comments, etc. -Nerfblasterpro: Can you believe it's only been a year? 15:13, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

So, what percentage should we have? I've seen 15% used a lot, would that be ok? @Samdo: Special:Editcount gives you a percentage, so if someone sees a percentage greater than whataver's been set, a warning template can be sent out then. NightblazeSaber 00:16, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

It can't be so high that we ruin any sort of community interaction here. 15% sounds fine to me. ajr 01:29, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

So 15% for blogs and 15% for blog comments? Or 15% for both together?  Samdo994 talk contribs  11:37, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Blog comments don't matter, since you stop gaining points for those after like 15 posts. ajr 13:39, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well, creating blogs shouldn't matter too, since you only get one badge for them, and this discussion would be not needed. :P  Samdo994 talk contribs  13:48, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

:o, they have changed it! There used to be a lot of blog things. Since this is the case, this policy isn't needed. We should not be discouraging community interaction. ajr 13:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Reviving this- we never really finished discussing whether to put a 15% thing in place NightblazeSaber 01:46, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • I support it, per everyone.

SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 05:00, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

• • • Agreed, needs revival. So many blogs, can we get some moderation or something? More Blogs than articles I think... :P Okee, maybe not. Point is, there needs to be some guidelines on Blog creations/comments. And personal attacks are a big NO NO NO! -Nerfblasterpro: Always supplying the boomsauce... 17:34, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
      • What are we going to do if people have more than 15% contribs on blogs? Jag 19:59, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • The libertarian says disagree. If they want to be stuck to their precious userpages, they can, as long as they aren't posting personal attacks, obscenities, etc. If we want to encourage more mainspace edits, adding more rules is not the way to do it. FB100Z • talk • contribs 00:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • I do agree with this, especially since we have the ridiculous voting rule in place. I honestly do not see how this is a problem. As FB100Z says, if they cause any disruption, block them... but as I said above, there is no reason why we should discourage community interaction here. We are a fansite as well as an encyclopedia, believe it or not - we need some interactive community for us to be anything. ajr 00:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • In addition, as Captain Jag pointed out, how do we prevent violations of this proposed policy? Warn/block them? The whole purpose is to increase mainspace activity, and biting everyone in the ankle will just make them leave. FB100Z • talk • contribs 00:42, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

• Haven't read half of the comments, as I'm tired and they seem boring :P. But blogs are for all the stuff we don't want on the mainspace. -- stercus accidit -- cjc 14:50, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the exact reason we need a blog policy: User blog:1999bug/Stupid Lego Theme Ideas -Nerfblasterpro: Always supplying the boomsauce... 15:22, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
    • If you mean racist comments should be deleted, that is a given, regardless of policy. -- stercus accidit -- cjc 15:56, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
      • That helps a bit, but a policy would still be good. Just in case people don't realize it's a given... -Nerfblasterpro: Always supplying the boomsauce... 19:47, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
        • Wait, we have to tell people not to be racist? FB100Z • talk • contribs 21:41, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
          • Apparently. *fail* -Nerfblasterpro: Always supplying the boomsauce... 20:28, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
• @Jag: I guess eventually if they continue to not pay attention and keep blogging and only blogging, I think it should eventually lead to a block (there wouldn't really be any way to do it), however, I think they should have at least two warnings before this. And obviously this couldn't really be enforced for existing users for some time- there would be users who are way above 15% at the moment, and we'd have to give them ample time to get below the limit. But it could theoretically be done for any new users NightblazeSaber 04:14, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Have a 15% rule

1. #NightblazeSaber 00:52, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

2. -Nerfblasterpro: Always supplying the boomsauce... 22:00, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

   # Not against free will, but I've been seeing crappy blogs/comments lately.:P Skdhjf^(Talk!) 22:36, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Do not have a 15% rule

1. ajr 22:37, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
2. FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:42, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
3. Blocking them isn't going to help them make mainspace edits --Jag 05:40, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
4. The enforcing of this would not really benefit the wiki in anyway, as we can't just stop them from editing a specific part, without stopping them editing everything, therefore invalidating the very point of it. -- stercus accidit -- cjc 10:41, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
5. I like the rule Jag brang up below.:P Skdhjf^(Talk!) 21:27, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Nobody answered Jag's question above. We shouldn't vote on a rule that we haven't even finished forming yet. FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:44, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least have some type of policy to refer to before making a blog post? Would make me feel a bit better... -Nerfblasterpro: Always supplying the boomsauce... 16:25, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Per Nerf, I think a guidline would be good. This is what I've thought of so far:

• Problem- Describing a problem that you have on Brickipedia, such as not being able to see images or not being able to log in.
• Admin- A "administrative dispatch" from an admin or other experienced users, telling about the state of things on Brickipedia and how it could improve.
• MOC- Describing a model that you have created.
• Rumor- Telling about rumored sets that you have discovered.
• Set- Telling about a new set that you have got, or asking people whether you should get a specific set.

Anything else? Jag 20:53, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, but I meant like rules. I know no racism/personal attacks is a given, but would it hurt anyone if we had a guideline so that everyone knows? -Nerfblasterpro: Always supplying the boomsauce... 20:59, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind something saying about no racism and stuff, but I disagree with the concept of the guidelines created above. -- stercus accidit -- cjc 21:06, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
• I likewise oppose the creation of any set rules, but guidelines might be OK. Just so long as we don't have anything that we need to stick to or die. ajr 21:59, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
• When I really thought about it, 15% is probably a bit too much to expect from many of our users. Although, I would think that something like at least 50% edits in the mainspace would be more than fair- a ratio of one edit which actually helps us to one pointless edit that just clogs up the RC would be a good one. Just my opinion though. @ above- I don't really see a point to the content guidelines- what are you going to do if they make an off-topic blog? NightblazeSaber 23:38, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

• I wasn't really making it at as a rule- you'll notice I said guideline above. They are just guidelines about what is encouraged. @Ajr, no, it's not a stick to or die thing, It's just a general idea of what is encouraged. Jag 02:19, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: edit counts suck. Edit counts are just a quick and crude way of judging the volume of a user's activity on Brickipedia. They should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be taken as absolute measures. It is out of the question to use them in rules, or even guidelines.

Instead, we should consider adopting Wikipedia's system for dealing with social butterflies. Basically, they have a little template that operates like the warning templates, but is much gentler and says something like, "It's great that you're making new friends and enjoying yourself, but please keep in our purpose as an encyclopedia." FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:58, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

• And then what do they do about it if they don't comply? And it's only your view that it's out of the question- not some sort of worldwide rule that everyone has to follow. But, I agree that if a warning template was made, at least the first one should be gentler than any of the normal templates. NightblazeSaber 05:34, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • If they don't comply, they DIE. Okay, maybe not that. But basically the rules are a given, no racism/personal attacks, can't be WAY off topic, etc. If you see any signs of these, you immediately block them. Same rules apply, but instead we have guidelines/rules for these users to go to before they write the blog. -Nerfblasterpro: Always supplying the boomsauce... 12:58, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a big confused here. You guys want more mainspace edits, fine, but is this the best way to go about it? Two things:

1. Is threatening a new user with a block if they don't start to write pages a good thing? I'd guess that most people would just leave instead of being threatened.
2. How is this helping anyways? As it is, we have lots of users who make some mainspace edits and a lot of blog edits. Note the fact that they do make some mainspace edits. And you want to block them? Forgive me, I'm not too good at my maths, but that seems to remove people who do make some mainspace edits from the wiki. How does that possibly work towards your goals?

Anyways, as usual, I'm a bit confused. I also agree with what FB100Z says above - what if a user's one article edit was creating a page that instantly got good or complete status? Is that somehow worse than someone with 50% of their edits adding categories to pages? I really don't see how, and this is why I don't want a set rule which will force us to block the exceptions. ajr 13:22, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

• What Ajr said (except the not being good at maths part) -- stercus accidit -- cjc 14:43, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Question: Is this even a problem? Is the mainspace really being neglected badly enough that we need to enforce some kind of golden rule? FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:24, May 17, 2011 (UTC)