# Blogs moderation

2,834pages on
this wiki

## Forum page

Forums: Index > Policy > Blogs moderation

This page is for discussing a policy related to the Mass Effect Wiki that may or may not be passed by the community. The Form below serves to describe the Policy and what it is about, or what it will modify.

## Policy: Edit

Description of Policy: Since the release of Mass Effect 3 there is a rising usage of the user blogs platform to form hate mail. The wiki platform should not be used for this purpose.

Notes:

## Other Notes Edit

There is a rising use of the user blogs platform to pass judgement on BioWare handling of the game ending and their response to the fan base. In some cases those posts are tasteful and could be thought as a review while giving the poster a place to write his own point of view and feelings. In other cases, users try to convince visitors and editors of the wiki to take part in banning the company whilst using slander against said company.

Although the blogs are thought as user space which is not an actual part of the wiki content, some moderation of the user blogs should be considered. In the same way we moderate the use of language on talk pages and in user space, we should consider what is a proper use of the blogs.

I personally will limit my visits to the wiki as the current use of the user blogs annoy and demoralize my stay. --silverstrike 14:50, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

### Update Edit

Adding specific guidelines to the current proposal based on Commdor suggestions:

1. Any contributor can notify an admin or senior editor when encountering an inappropriate post or comment. If two or more admins or senior editors agree with the contributor claim, an admin can either alert the poster that the post or comment is inappropriate and allow the poster to edit the post, or delete it outright based on that admin's judgement of the post.
2. Espousing violent action against a real-life person or organization, inciting against them, or directing offensive language against them in blogs or blog comments is prohibited. Blogs or blog comments in violation of this can be deleted on sight.
3. Additionally, if a blog or blog comment is found in violation of any other wiki policy regardless of there being a user complaint against it, it can be deleted without admins and senior editors agreement.
4. In each case the poster will be notified of the deletion and the reasoning behind it.

## Voting Edit

### For Edit

1. Support, now that proposal has been outlined. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:44, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
2. Support, same as Commdor. Bluegear93 19:37, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. (funny I forgot to vote for my own proposal...) --silverstrike 19:53, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. Commdor and silverstrike lay out a compelling case, while the opposition does not. It is interesting though to see SlayerEGO1342 agree with Lancer. Could be a sign of the apocalypse... SpartHawg948 00:24, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

### Neutral Edit

1. See my comment below. -- Commdor (Talk) 15:34, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
2. See Commdor's comment. Bluegear93 15:43, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
3. i had other ideas. Temporaryeditor78 16:20, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
4. Need proper definition. — Teugene (Talk) 16:36, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
5. BeoW0lfe 16:37, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
6. See comment below. Lancer1289 23:50, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
7. As per Lancer. I have several blogs criticising BioWare, but we need a properly defined policy. Also, a warning would be good. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 18:28, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

### Against Edit

1. Per Lancer1289.--Legionwrex 21:02, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
2. for the same reason as Lancer1289 wrote but a future policy may be a good idea. -- 23:38, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
3. Down with Big Government! SlayerEGO1342 17:48, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
4. Defeats the purpose of blogs altogether. Never, ever. $G \alpha m \epsilon m \alpha \kappa \theta$ 22:53, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
5. There is no need for moderation if the Code of Conduct is not broken. Either completely turn off the blog feature or leave it as it is. --ShardofTruth 12:35, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that something must be done to rein in the more inappropriate blogs, I'm uncomfortable voting in this proposal in its current form because it's somewhat vague. What I propose that we consider for a blog moderation policy is the following:
1. Any user can complain to an admin and/or senior editor if they believe a blog or blog comment is inappropriate and should be deleted. If a total of two or more admins and/or senior editors find the complaint reasonable and concur with it, then the blog or blog comment can be deleted. The blog's creator is to be informed of the deletion and the complaint against it.
2. Espousing violent action against a real-life person or organization or directing offensive language against them in blogs or blog comments is prohibited. Blogs or blog comments in violation of this can be deleted on sight.
3. Additionally, if a blog or blog comment is found in violation of any other wiki policy regardless of there being a user complaint against it, it can be deleted and the user notified about the policy that was violated.

So that's my two cents. I must agree with silverstrike that the prevailing trend of user blogs has also made contributing here a less pleasant activity than it used to be for me. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing blog comments saying "**** you, BioWare!" or "BioWare needs to die/burn/etc." clog up Recent Changes. If these blogs and others are having a deleterious effect on the community and are encouraging violence or harassment, they should be regulated. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:05, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the proposal is a little vague, but what you are suggesting, Commdor is clear and has justifiable reasons to delete blogs of just pure hate to Bioware, which everyone can agree to (Although some are going to be ticked off if their blog posts are deleted). Either way something needs to be done about this, and until we have a clear plan on how to this, I'm neutral. Bluegear93 15:42, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
I've expanded my original proposal, adding point #2 and specifying the policy would affect both blogs and blog comments. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:05, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict): The proposal is somewhat vague because I wasn't sure about how to go about managing mentioned blogs. I also wanted to get some feedback regarding the idea itself and if other contributors feel as I do. I plan on updating the proposal and more ideas will help in formulating a clear policy.
I do agree with your additions to the policy (I wish wikia had a "flag as inappropriate" button), but would also like to form a guideline (your recent addition seems to cover this) of what is appropriate use of the user blogs platform. --silverstrike 16:37, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
After reading it over again, I'm a little more favourable to Commdor's proposed policy. I have a suggestion in mind: Would it be a good idea to give the blog owner a chance for self-moderation after a valid complain/warning instead of deleting outright? This may assuage any ill feelings from an outright deletion or help users understand what is inappropriate. If it's not self-moderated after a period (48 hours?) or followed by second valid complain, will the blog be deleted without warning. — Teugene (Talk) 03:43, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

we have comedy gold on one hand, and quality control on the other. puerile raging of the types prevalent in recent blogs and comments can only be so much amusing as to be a somewhat reliable gauge of people's online (and offline) intellectual disposition, but at some point the mirth slowly dissipates into cynicism renewed that demands restitution for the time wasted reading useless recycled and boring tirades. it's still fun looking at childish posts though. Temporaryeditor78 16:21, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

While moderating content sets a dangerous percedent, we need to be able to control the recent activity feed. As a user, albeit not a admin, i still believe it to be the job of myself and others like me to check every new edit for incorrect information/vandalism. If this 'die bioware/ea die' rampage doesnt cool, another example like the 'kasumi sideways v**ina' could slip by unnoticed until it is brought to our attention. This is too vauge for my support, but should it be specified, i will fight on the front lines for it to be passed. BeoW0lfe 16:30, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm slightly hesitant with the idea of moderating when current policies already exist to limit unruly behaviours. If moderation were to take place, there must a limit of what moderation should encompass. Assuming that blog and blog comments do not violate current policies, moderation should not be used against differing or dissenting opinions/ideas/expression. A blog or a comment may differ from your opinions but it is not grounds for inappropriate complain. There are some ideas for moderation that can be adapted from Fallout wiki's chat rules or to expand the community guidelines to include some definition as listed from wikipedia's article on hate mail.

On a separate note, if you find the blog comments are disturbing, I had them filtered out from the Recent Changes by excluding the "User blog comment" namespace. This may not be helpful for admins who will need to monitor the blogs and comments though. For other users though, it is enough to keep comments from flooding your Recent Changes. — Teugene (Talk) 16:36, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with people having different opinions. On the contrary This is the reason I like the the wiki platform, in the past few years I collaborated with various editors regarding changes, various proposals, and implementation of various projects - in many times my opinions and view points were in the minority and I went along with the ideas and viewpoint of other editors. In some cases I saw the merits of their ideas and came to agree with them.
Filtering out the user blogs can help me avoid many annoying posts, but I will also miss some interesting or relevant ones. I can live without those, but if I do, I'll feel we failed somewhere in the maintaining a guideline, and after all, I didn't propose this change (only) for my benefit. --silverstrike 20:34, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

As it stands now, the proposal is way to open. I do like Commdor's plan, but even that could use refinement. I've been looking at this all day, and I have to say, that I cannot even vote neutral without some form of definition. Lancer1289 20:58, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't even really like Commdor's plan. Unless i'm wrong user blog's like User Pages, belong to the user. Unless there is a direct violation of site policy(Language, Insulting other users) people will just have to deal with it.--Legionwrex 21:06, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I understand the issue posed by the proposal, but the current use of the user blogs is to undermine the game, the company that created it, and by extent the wiki itself - we as a wiki community should not allow use of the platform for slander and or inciting rage against the company and the product which is the focus of this wiki. It also deters visitors from contributing to the wiki and those that do stay and try to contribute need to filter out half of the edits listed in the recent activities.
There are sometimes interesting topics and comments that get posted on the blogs and that don't include rage and/or frustration, I hate to miss those. Even on user and user talk pages we don't allow content that contradict with the wiki policy, this is just an addendum to those rules (albeit, one that is targeted specifically at the user blogs). --silverstrike 20:09, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
Funny, there was no proposal like this when everyone was slamming Mass Effect Deception and William Dietz. As I said, User blogs belong to the user, and unless a major site policy is broken they should not be deleted, just because some whiners got there feelings hurt so they ruin it for everyone else.--Legionwrex 22:36, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
Except the Deception protest never caused so many problems for us as the ongoing protests against ME3's ending, which have gotten progressively more vitriolic. Making blogs/comments about the endings wouldn't be an issue but for that. Furthermore, we're a wiki first and foremost; the dramatic increase in inappropriate blogs/comments is not only directing attention away from our core purpose, but it's taking a noticeable toll on the community's morale. If users are being alienated or feel uncomfortable in contributing here because of these blogs, then we have a problem. We need to address it and restore a positive environment. I believe moderating blogs, especially to stop the death threats and other inexcusable disruptive behavior, will help achieve that. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:11, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
Then just delete the comments, not the blog. If the blog is seriously offensive, then you request the user change it, and if they don't delete it. However when I say offensive I mean a community vote, not some users (most of them only showed up after the endings) who complain. I have yet to see the blogs affect the this wiki's "Core Purpose", and the fact the morale is low is BioWares and the persons fault. As to death threats, come on Commdor, sure you can tell the people don't do that, but don't make a big deal about it. I mean seriously I highly doubt someone will throw their lives away because of the ending to the game.--Legionwrex 00:18, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

While I do agree that given recent events we need some more regulation on this, we cannot go overboard. BSN and other sites are flooded with everything from angry comments to actual threats. This is something we cannot tolerate under any circumstances. When I look at the proposed regulations, I see that this is no more or less than an extension on what is already done. We don't tolerate language, we don't tolerate threats, and we don't tolerate personal attacks. This is really again, no more or less than what is being done already, but the fact we need to outline this really shows just how big the problem really is.

However, I still cannot completely support the proposal for personal reasons and possible abuse if the right admins and senior editors are online at the same time. I would say that at least three would have to agree before action is taken on this level. However, I will say this now, even if that is changed, I probably still won't vote for the proposal because of personal reasons. I don't like the proposal itself, but again given how big the problem is, having something like this is a necessary evil. I don't like it, but I can live with it.

Given everything that I have said, I am left with little option but to vote Neutral.

And I think Spart needs to change his comment now. Lancer1289 23:50, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Your vote is still there. (Plus, I'm a proponent of "If you're not with us, you're against us - neutral is just as bad!) Speaking of which, deleting it instead of striking it would be preferable, as your vote still counts in the numbering. So now even though there are only five votes against, it still looks like six.
I do find the allegation of "possible abuse if the right admins and senior editors are online at the same time" rather perplexing. Am I reading it right? Are you honestly proposing that some of the admins and senior editors would engage in underhanded behavior? Which admins and senior editors do you feel can't be trusted? It's not like there are a lot of names to choose from, and there have to be at least two to make your fear legitimate. This seems like an issue that should have been brought to my attention by now. I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I trust the judgement of all the admins and senior editors on matters like this. I wouldn't have supported promoting them if I didn't trust their judgement implicitly.
So yeah. Given that a neutral vote only helps the "Against" votes at this point, I still change my comment. Your neutral vote is still working towards the same ends as SlayerEGO1342's vote against. Only a "For" vote will change my comment... :P SpartHawg948 10:12, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
Clarification. If the right people are on at the same time and handle the situation, then what one sees as "a hate blog" would be allowed to stand, or what another doesn't see as "a hate blog" would be deleted. Everyone has a different opinion on matters like this based on their personal experiences, personal beliefs, and their interpretation of the blog content. Some are just blatantly obvious and won’t much of a discussion, while others will appear to be bad, but are really just harmless or contain constructive criticism. I firmly believe and have no doubt that everyone will be honest and fair, but no matter who is on, just a few very small things could make the difference between a legit blog containing constructive criticism being deleted, or allowed to stand. Three should be the number rather than two.
And if you are going to tell me to remove my vote rather than strike it, then tell Commdor and Bluegear to do the same because, they are doing the exact same thing. Lancer1289 15:36, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
The same principle can be applied to any edit on the wiki. What one editor believe to be redundant, others might disagree and believe it is an important change/addition. There is a big difference between "I am disappointed with BioWare" and "We should band together and torch their offices". I believe every senior editor and/or admin could distinguish between opinion, trolling, and vandalism - I see the current blog posts and comments as vandalism as it lowers the quality of the wiki. --silverstrike 15:56, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
While that is true, the current proposal goes well beyond that. You are talking about a process that currently has no appeals process, and unlike most edits, has a much more lasting impact. To I believe that some currents blogs are nothing more than that, yes, but I also believe that some are done right, point out problems, and address issues. Lancer1289 16:02, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
I changed what Commdor wrote to include admin discretion on whether to delete the offending blog or post, or just notify the poster and request that he make a revision to his post. If we change it to first notify the poster and wait X hours/days before deleting the post, it will defeat the purpose of this proposal. I read some very thorough blog posts that were written with taste and that were a pleasure (although I disagreed with the poster) to read. The problem started with the comments, that progressively began to cross over to trolling and left me with a bitter taste - those should be handled and negate their effect on the community. --silverstrike 16:22, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree with silverstrike here. This is the exact same principle as admin oversight on edits and articles. The current proposal doesn't go beyond any of that. What appeals process is there for an article that an admin deletes straightaway, without the 7-day process? Admins are allowed to use their prerogative there, and it's the exact same principle. The admin can either inform the person who posted the blog, or just delete it, just like how an admin can either put an article up for deletion or just delete it, given the circumstances. It's the exact same thing.
As for making the number three rather than two, well, that would sort of defeat the entire point, wouldn't it? How often are three admins and/or senior editors on simultaneously these days? And how often are admins and senior editors, even just two, agree so uniformly on things like this? Rarely, if ever. Just look at the recent discussion on changing the language policy. I don't think any two admins or senior editors had the same opinion. Two seems adequate to me, and this policy, drafted as it was by an admin and one of our more esteemed and long-term editors, seems pretty sufficiently balanced and fleshed-out.
As for Commdor and Bluegear, given that their sticken votes don't directly mess with the way the yes and no votes appear, I didn't see the need to mention their votes. It would be preferable for them to delete the stricken votes, but again, their stricken votes are neutral votes which don't count one way or the other. SpartHawg948 20:13, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal failed 4-5-5. --silverstrike 07:18, May 6, 2012 (UTC)