Forum:Blogging solutions

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Forums: Index → War Room → Blogging solutions

Blogging has recently seen a large spike again, as a result of the Black Ops info coming in. While blogging is generally liked by the community, it has major flaws which are largely ignored. It seems to me that most blogs have some sort of flame war in it, which often ends badly and cannot be kept clean of spam or abusive messages. Yes, even the "OMGWTFBBQSAUCE" which seems to be spamposted on like, every blog (which, in my opinion is just annoying) is spam. There's also the problem of it spamming the Recent Changes to hell and back, which makes it harder for editors who actually want to help out to do so.

So, I give you 4 solutions:

1. We disable blogging completely. This has been done on the RuneScape wiki, without any bad repercussions. They have a very strong community without blogs, so I don't see why that can't be the case here. The whole feature can be taken out without a problem.
2. We make blogs admin-only. This has been done on the SpongeBob Wiki, to great effect. Any non-admins seen posting a blog will have their blog deleted and be strictly warned. Repeat offenses result in a very long block. This doesn't seem like a bad idea whatsoever, as commenting will still be allowed on these blogs.
3. We restrict blogs to being CoD-related only. This isn't a social site where you come to socialize. This is a Wikia wiki, where people come for information. This will eliminate the problem of fan fiction, which shouldn't be on this wiki.
4. We disallow commenting of any sort. Blogs would still be allowed, but comments wouldn't be.

Blogs are turning this wiki from an informative database to a social site. This cannot be happening, and I urge you to think about this subject hard and ask yourself if there is any real benefit of having blogs.

Discuss below, and if you have any more solutions, feel free to post them.

Thanks.      22:15, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

All we need to do is get rid of off-topic comments, because the vast majority of the spam from blog posts are idiots trying to be funny by copy and pasting four year old jokes and spamming "hilarious" image macros that sucked then and suck now. Darkman 4 22:22, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer no blogs whatsoever; as said in the original forum, other wikis have implemented such measures without a negative reaction. Also, recently I've found it difficult scrolling through MyHome (don't slate me for this, I don't like RC) and find it constantly spammed with blog comments. - 22:27, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

If you think My Home is bad, check out the Recent Edits page. Good luck trying to find an actual edit! Darkman 4 22:29, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. - 22:32, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worth considering that, just perhaps, it's harder to find actual edits because there is less editing going on in general? --Scottie theNerd 15:56, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Blogging is something that spams recent changes and the activity page, both are used greatly throughout the wiki and help with reverting vandalism/spam, finding spam pages, and anything else that is mused in an attempt to make the wiki ruined.

We have a wiki for socializing and a fan fiction wiki for stuff most commonly used in blogs (that aren't news). And blogs are also used to spam and etc. Posting comments like "LOLWTFBBQSAUSE" or "TEH LULZ" is really just annoying and is only filling the wiki's activity with spam.

I know we don't have to read blogs, but with them clogging up the wiki's activity, this has been going on for too long already. Why use blogs when you can use other social sites? We are not a place to socialize, we are an encyclopedia made to inform readers about Call of Duty - do we really need blogs to socialize, and not do anything to actually help the wiki? No. We need clean up, more mainspace editing, expanded articles, and to prepare for the release of the new video game, Call of Duty: Black Ops.

News, however, should be kept, as it informs users and others of the changes happening on the wiki, how to prepare for it, etc, and also are informing readers of Call of Duty: Black Ops news, and news for other games as well.

Blogs in general are just something made to make a wiki anything but what it is at it's heart: an encyclopedia. I would vote strong support to making blogging restrictions so that only Call of Duty news, wiki news, and etc will be allowed. --<choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 22:32, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

The actual blogs aren't the problem; its the comments. I wouldn't mind a complete perma-freeze on commenting, because it is the real problem, not blogs. Darkman 4 22:34, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not entirely true. Remember TheManOfIron's "Favorite sandwich?" blog? That blog was the top of the wiki activity for a while until it was deleted. There are also many blogs out there that are considered spam as well. --<choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 22:36, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Do you know why it became so popular? It's because of commenting. If nobody could comment on it then it wouldn't have a lot of activity related to it. See what I mean? Darkman 4 22:38, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

IWell if the blog wasn't made, people wouldn't have commented. If we were to have no and commenting and just blogs, that would just be unneeded and should really just end up having the blog deleted anyway. --<choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 22:42, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

So we should just get rid of user's being allowed to express their opinions period? I mean, I don't mind prohibiting certian types of blogs (like "omg my life sux"), but getting rid of everything is not a good idea. I mean, is there any real harm in someone posting a blog about how they got cheated out of a nuke? Darkman 4 22:45, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

As I said, we do have a wiki for stuff like that. If some user wants to make a blog about how they got toobed from across the map or w/e, they can simply go there. --<choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 22:48, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was for OT stuff like "my life sux", not discussion of the CoD games. Darkman 4 22:50, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

It is a social wiki, so any user there who wants to post something about getting teebagged by some 11 year old could go there instead of here along with anything else dealing with socialism. --<choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 22:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

So the main wiki should just be dedicated to mindlessly editing the wiki? That what it sounds like you're proposing. Darkman 4 22:56, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

By no means am I trying to promote stupid edits. I am saying that there is a wiki for blogs, and that blogs in general are just plain unnecessary.

As for the codsocial wiki being only OT only, why would it be called the Call of Duty social wiki? --<choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:06, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was called the CoD Social Wiki because its for members of our wiki to go OT and shitpost without clogging up the main page, not so they can do stuff like share stories about how they pwned some dude. Basically it's supposed to be a moron quarantine. Darkman 4 23:11, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well in fairness half teh blogs do just end up flamebaiting, even the genuine ones. Plus there's alot of BUMPing going on now. Smuff 22:47, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's usually caused by users in the comments, not the actual blog post. Look at our BO news blogs; almost all of them have at least one discussion about how Treyarch is totally ripping off Wii players. However, the actual blog doesn't mention the Wii version. Darkman 4 22:49, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah see? Instead of making a new blog they plague another one. I don't mind if the blog is related to CoD, it's when people completely change the subject. Smuff 22:52, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Even if you make it something like COD-only blogs, you're still going to get spam like some kid saying that his parents won't let him get BO until Christmas. Just shut down commenting and it'll go away. Darkman 4 22:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

All I want to see is a Home page with actual edits in it, speaking of which is IRC working for anywone? Smuff 22:57, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Same here. I've become a bit less active just because there's so much comment spam that I find it hard to see if there is vandalism going on. Darkman 4 22:58, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Shame IRC is down, it would be alot easier to discuss. But Yes, I try to get vandals and I can't get the damn 8 year old when 12 10 year old are arguing over the FAMAS or the M16. Smuff 23:02, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

To connect to IRC, try using webchat. --<choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 23:07, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think that stricter rules should be enforced just to discourage some editors from making off-topic blogs Darkraider09 Talk / Blog 22:35, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I am all for disabling blogs because they cause more harm than good. The only blogs that are worthwhile are the news blogs that keep us updated on Black Ops. Therefore, I think we should restrict blogs for admins only, to keep away off topic blogging. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 22:37, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Can we just get rid of it? Almost every blog is made by editors with > 500 and it gives people who should only have 200 edits 1000 edits. Plus the blogs are begionning to attract Anon spam which is a big distraction also. I try to get the vandals and this just takes attention away from that and the War Room. yes, I admit they are getting better but it's the same people posting the same crap on a different blog. Do one or the other, make it so they have to be approved by an admin or just shoot 'em in the head. Blogging is a luxary we can't seem to afford anymore, not a right. Smuff 22:38, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that after reading the optoins these are my thoughts:

1. 1 to just outright ban blogging. I have seen some nasty fights happen on blogs which would never had happened if there were no blogs to begin with. If that will not pass the I am open to having #2 proposition put in place. As stated, it would be open to only Admins. #3 has always been the option I have advocated. Off topic blogs have no place on the wiki in my opinion. #4 if we dont allow commenting on blogs then there's no sense in having them in the first place.

That's just my opinions Talk 23:31, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, back in the good ol' days, people who wanted to voice their opinions just made a user subpage to do so. Blogging is simply that upgraded, but it's not a worthy one. It's too user-friendly, and that tends to attract the low-lives. bibliomaniac15 02:26, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I recall a similar thread, which was also made when blogging saw an increase in popularity. Seeing as how we have news blogs, and Black Ops is a much-anticipated game, it's only natural we'd get so many comments. Many comments (the majority left by anons) are off-topic, belittling others' opinions, or flamebait. Now, looking at the solutions people suggested. Removing the ability to comment on blogs denies users to express their opinion on them. Restricting to admin-only would eliminate all hateful comments, since admins are required to be civil, but other users would start to see this as unfair (though not a violation of AEAE). I agree with points above saying that the wiki is not a social site. That's why it's called a wiki. Though since this isn't a social site, we wouldn't have forums, roleplay, usergroups and blogs (some exceptions). Yet we still have them on the wiki. There's even a social wiki, though some users either are unaware of its existence or don't care. The social wiki was meant to solve the problem of the blogging tantrum brought up by the Halt Blogging thread, though said thread eventually died down as users lost interest in the issue. I believe eventually this complaining in blogging presently will eventually blow over. LITE992 04:13, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that Recent Changes can be filtered by namespace, so a surge in blogging shouldn't severely impact on patrollers who actually do it properly. Again, when a new wave of users signs up on release of Black Ops, we'll get massive numbers of userspace edits and requests for signatures that will flood Recent Changes. The moment the game comes out, the main character's article will get fifty edits a day, and that will flood Recent Changes, and in fact would be harder to patrol if that were the case. However, we don't disable editing on particular namespaces because they're used more often than others. I disagree with Callofduty4's statement that blogs are turning the wiki into a social site rather than an informative site. We haven't lost any of our database of information. Readers still mostly come for the reference material. Unfortunately, Call of Duty is a static franchise and the material we cover is limited and is already covered better in FAQs and Walkthroughs from other sites.

In short, don't hate on blogs because people like using them. Yes, there are bad comments; but there are bad edits on mainspace articles. When Black Ops comes out, there will be a surge in bad edits. Will we restrict editing because of the number of people who will rage over whether or not a particular trivia point should be included? If users abuse editing privileges, they get blocked accordingly and their privileges are removed. The same should be happening with users who abuse blogging and commenting features. Why can't bad blogs be stopped? If there are too many, then we need more admins to deal with these cases instead of disallowing their use. --Scottie theNerd 04:50, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

You state "Will we restrict editing because of the number of people who will rage over whether or not a particular trivia point should be added?". Well that's why we have to protect pages sometimes, to restrict bad editing and edit warring on a specific page.      11:17, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

And when a blog draws flak, it too should be protected or deleted to restrict bad comments and flame warring. We don't stop people from editing when a few people edit war; we likewise shouldn't stop users from blogging because a few aren't responsible bloggers. --Scottie theNerd 12:59, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm also disappointed at the proposal that I have to be an admin in order to blog. Not all bloggers are off-topic posters, and admins in general don't blog. But if that goes through, I guess I'll put in an RFA for the sake of being allowed to blog. --Scottie theNerd 04:52, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

That's only one solution, and is probably the least desirable of the four. I only put that one in because it is used by another wiki.      11:12, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would not miss blogs verry much if they were eliminated. I use them to see what a group of people says before bringing it to a forum. Also, my blogs generally don't recieve much attention. Another thing is that Mainspace editing has gone down so much that there is a new edit every 15-30 minutes. That is absolutely unnacceptable. Well there's my $0.02 for today on this subject. Rambo362

A low "quantity" of mainspace edits isn't "unacceptable". As I raised above, the content of Call of Duty is rather static and doesn't require a lot of maintenance. While there are still things to do, we're not going to spike in edits until Black Ops is released. Older games need to be covered in more depth, but few people are up for working on them. --Scottie theNerd 12:59, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the bloggers having a low mainspace edit count. Editing is completely optional, and forcing people to edit is anything but good.      13:14, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ya'know, Scottie, I love how you always have an answer to everything I say. Not that it's a bad thing or anything, but you always counter my argument with a good point. Great job. Rambo362

I personally think 1 or 3 are good ideas. I also think 2 but that would cause people to moan about AEAE... Helljumper "Noble Team ready for combat insertion." I personally think we get rid of blogging altogether. It's quite pointless, and just promotes spam and off-topic comments. Or, we could make them admin only. Other that that, no options are really viable. Sactage DILLAGAF? ^{Editcount Contribs Want a sig?} 16:47, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

And userpages and talk pages don't? Again, just as many people spend dubious amounts of time adding pointless random content onto user pages, making social comments on talk pages and divert time and effort into making colourful signatures. Unless something has radically changed, this is the exact same debate as last time, and these points are going to be raised again each time. --Scottie theNerd 02:34, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Scottie, those activities don't take much time. If people want to spend a a day editing when they could be improving the already-at-its-peak-at-this-point mainspace, so be it. My userpage wasn't built in one day and i'm almost certain that anyone else's wasn't either. Also, making signatures "colourful signatures" does not take much time if you know what your doing and most people don't know how exactly how to make them. Dunn made me mine in about 2 minutes and altered the color of mine in about 30 seconds. Rambo362

I see no major problems with the current blogging setup. 02:40, September 13, 2010 (UTC) I think that the biggest problem with blogs are the comments. Many blogs have had commenting disabled because users were flaming, trolling, and going off-topic. I think if we were to put a notice saying that comments with the aforementioned properties would not be tolerated, and would result in the comment being deleted in order to keep the blog clean. If we were to leave a troll's comment up, some users would start replying to the comment; and if it escalates, commenting would be disabled, which dissapoints the users who wanted to comment on the blog. Now, I don't know if comments could be deleted, but if they can, it would make blogging a lot better than it is. LITE992 02:51, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, here we go again. Some users are making blogs out to be a huge problem that needs to be gotten rid of NOW, and making a molehill into a damn huge mountain. A point I'd like to raise: the most common complaint about blogs appears to be that they spam the recent changes. Talk page messages, forums, and userpage edits are other non-mainspace edits that spam the RC. How, pray tell, is blogging worse than any of that? Sgt. S.S. 19:54, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Also, some users used to spam blogs with comments like "OFF TOPIC BLOG IS OFF TOPIC". So tell me, lads, what is the definition of an "on-topic" blog? Hmm? Sgt. S.S. 19:59, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

^, an on topic blog is something that relates to Call of Duty or the wiki. A blog that is irrelevant to CoD or the wiki or just plain stupid is not on topic. i.e. a blog about how so-and-so's brother almost got killed is not really nessesary, although being a serious matter. Also, a stupid blog would be: what are you eating? 3 sound like reasonable solution, although an Off Topic blogs can be made like: if you could have a CoD gun glued to your hand what gun whould it be? so I think #3 whould include not needed blogs as well.Sergeant Price25

Well that was an easy question to answer, I don't see why it was in bold :S --Callofduty4 (Talk) 17:44, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

So, if I only blogged about CoD, it would be OK? Sgt. S.S. 20:16, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

As an extension, off-topic blogs are not okay, but off-topic wiki edits are? Until someone distinguishes between them, we're exactly where we were in the last blogging thread and it's pointless to continue. It's the same people complaining about the same thing they don't use because they:

1. Can't be bothered reporting problematic comments and instead want a blanket ban.
2. Don't know how to filter the recent changes list.

I'm not a proponent of free speech and democracy. I am, however, pushing to identify the core reason why a blog restriction needs to be in place. If the majority want blogging toned down because it's "annoying" and "stupid", we're going to have massive problems with other annoying and stupid things in the future. --Scottie theNerd 23:29, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if blogging really couldn't be allowd to stay as it is (and I still think it could), I think I could live with #3. Oh, and per Scottie just above me. Sgt. S.S. 16:04, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

There are so many problematic comments, the RC would be spammed with deletions. For some stupid reason, the deletion of blog comments aren't grouped, and will still spam the recent changes. Also, reporting every single problematic comment is very time consuming, and without the availability of links to link to the individual comment without going through more trouble it is incredibly monotonous and it would be better if a blanket ban were put in place. I don't want my talk page spammed and my time as an administrator taken up by deleting blog comments. There are more important things to do than go around seeking out and reporting bad comments. Either we live with it as it is, or we remove the problem altogether. Edits to userpages can be considered off-topic. But they do not possess the same problems that blogs do. The only other major off-topic stuff would be recreational user groups, none of which do anything to help, but aren't as widely used as blogs. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 17:44, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

"Out of sight, out of mind" - The latter option sounds like more fun. On another subject, has anyone noticed the games pages suck? Smuff 17:56, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the SpongeBob Wiki did that? Amazing. And blogging has spiralled out of control with the recent Black Ops info. It's TWO months before release so tons of info about multiplayer and singleplayer will be coming in. I bet the Halo Wiki has had more visitors than any with the release of Halo: Reach today. People have moaned recently about AEAE not being fair too. But blogs being made admin-only is an excellent idea but as long as the admins don't start posting stupid stuff too (Not to be insulting you or anything). DevilWarrior112^{Talk Edits}18:07, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

The only way this problem will only ever be fixed is if you could filter the RC and My Home. But till then I do think Admins should be only allowed to make blogs, however this fixture is not permanent, I would like things going back to normal by let's say February. If someone has news about Black Ops they should put it on a talk page, or ask an admin to put it into a blog.AdvancedRookie 18:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

You can filter RC, although only by selecting one namespace or excluding one namespace. However, if blog comments are the problem, in three clicks you can filter blog comments from RC. Ironically, most edits that are left over are userpage edits. --Scottie theNerd 03:33, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

How about we do nothing about it? I don't see the issue with blogging here. LITE992 02:27, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing is that there is nothing to do besides blog. Doing something like making the "drastic" edits people want others to do takes too much effort for little payoff. I mean, we could make level walkthroughs for the MW2 Sp levels, but why should we do that when we could link to a Youtube video that does a much better job than a text one? Even our cutise "projects" have people putting in minimum effort. Look at the RL places project; people were supposed to remove RL info and replace it with CoD-related info, but everybody just ripped out the RL info and patted themselves on the back. Darkman 4 19:06, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Per LITE992. Sgt. S.S. 16:20, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that you don't see any problem with blogging. Explain how you think blogging is fine as it is. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 17:56, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I say that blogging isn't a problem because, even if there are users who do nothing but blog, we have more than enough good mainspace editors to make up for that. Also, as for the complaint "They clog up the RC", you realise that you can filter the RC to just show mainspace edits? Simply go the "Namespace" bar, click it, click on (Main), and click "Go". Simple as that. So, that's my two-hundreths of a dollar regarding the RC complaints. Sgt. S.S. 19:03, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I knew how to filter the recent changes before you even joined wikia. I really can't be bothered to do that every single time I visit the RC, or make a separate bookmark for it. Also, if blogs are to be kept, I might as well see if there are any good ones worth commenting on. (i.e. Black Ops news). That's not even the main reason. The fact that more than half of blogs end up with some sort of war and that they massively distract users matters more than spamming the RC. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 20:00, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Distract users from what, may I ask? --Scottie theNerd 06:56, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Per Sgt S.S.. If we removed blogs because they are a social feature, then we would also have to remove forums, usergroups, etc., because they are also social features. That would be a stupid idea, and besides, no users comes to the wiki just to blog. I don't think blogs are the problem; the real problem is the flame and spam in the comments. LITE992 19:27, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

You say no users come to blog, but you are actually completely incorrect. Just look around you. Also, if the problem is flame and spam in the comments, solution #4 takes care of it, as it is for the complete disabling of all comments. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 20:00, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

And disabling editing removes the problem of bad edits and vandalism. Should we push through with that too? --Scottie theNerd 06:56, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also don't think we need to pay this much attention to blogs anyway. Just because they don't help improve the wiki's content? The same goes to usergroups and so forth but there are no threads about those. LITE992 11:22, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

You agree with a senseless point. Blogging is not what makes wikis. Editing is. Removing editing does nothing but remove this website's status as a wiki. Removing blog commenting will only make things better, while keeping the website a wiki. I wouldn't mind getting rid of recreational user groups too, but they don't pose that great a problem, like blogs do. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 17:31, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Since when does blogging directly impact the wiki's status? LITE992 18:34, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Eh? --Callofduty4 (Talk) 21:39, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Blogging doesn't make a wiki; true. However, blogging doesn't "unmake" a wiki either. I have not been and still am not convinced that blogging is a problem. If users are abusing blogging features, it is the users that should be looked at, not the blogs. Blocking blogs would be, to use a cliché, throwing the baby out with the bath water. --Scottie theNerd 14:41, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

We could go all year discussing the finer points of blogging. How about instead we have a trial run of the four suggestions from the beginning of the forum (or any other suggestions you guys may have come up with)? Week 1 blogs would be disabled, Week 2 it would be admins only, etc. etc. When it's over we can vote on which one would be most appropriate for the wiki. Seriously, all this talk and no action. Chief z 22:02, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

There's no way we can objectively gather feedback if we trialed all four. Seriously, if there's anything we need to trial, it's either blogs or no blogs. We can't set up an environment where we can trial all four. --Scottie theNerd 14:41, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Anything is better than a drawn-out discussion. While I do recognize the need for a forum, this is the second, maybe third, proposal about restricting blogs, and from what I can tell, we still haven't made that much progress. I for one have no problem with the blogs; edit counts have lost their meaning on the wiki and belligerant bloggers are dealt with on the spot. But if no action is taken from this discussion, then it will be forgotten about again, and the same proposal will be brought up again, until someone snaps and we'll have another crapstorm about blogs. Chief z 22:40, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

The debate is centred on whether action is needed. It's not clear whether blogging is a problem. What action do you want to take that could determine that? --Scottie theNerd 02:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I've already laid out my suggestion above; I'm a bit uncertain about how we cannot gather feedback from trial runs, but I know it wouldn't hurt to try. With that said, if I were to pinpoint the cause for all this, I'd say that this site tends to attract a younger age group as opposed to say, the Fallout Wiki, whose blogs manage to stay civil, including the main page news. Chief z 04:38, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I believe blogs should have major restrictions placed upon them. - Dk0 23:29, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think that admins should be able to hide comments, not just the creater of the blog. Tha Beast ^{Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy!!} 01:43, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

It isn't possible to hide comments any more, only delete them. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 17:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Lets just forget the latter three proposals and just vote to disabled blogs. Blogs are not needed, cause flame wars (not all but a lot), serve no purpose to better the wiki, and are often times used for topics other than CoD. We have forums for anything that needs to be discussed. We have talk pages that allows for communications between users. We have IRC to allow for instantaneous communications. I see no valid reason for keeping blogs enabled. Getting rid of the blogging feature will not impact the wiki in any negative way whatsoever. IMHO. Talk 00:13, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well think of it like this, how many generally good users have been banned over flamewars in blogs? Anyone who blogs to hell and back on this needs to realise this, this is a wiki, NOT a forum. Getting rid of this would not only reinforce this, it would show us who is here for constructive reasons and those who are here just for the blogs. Think of it as a cleansing of sorts. Smuff 16:53, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

How many have been banned? So what if this is a wiki? We have our wiki as well as our forums and our blogs. Having a blogging feature does not in any way make the wiki any less a wiki. We have no right whatsoever to dictate to users what to do with their spare time. If a user choses not to contribute to the wiki, that's their choice. I can tell you that most visitors to the wiki do not contribute to the wiki. What do they do? They read it. Are you suggesting that we draw a lien between those who contribute and those who don't? Is the wiki so corrupt, derelict and dysfunctional that we have to "cleanse" the userbase? Editing isn't a requirement when joining the wiki. It takes up no resources for users to create accounts. We're not a utilitarian community.

I again challenge the reasoning behind banning or restricting blogs. The core of the issue is to implement a solution that properly addresses what the community wants. In short, the following is my stance and response to various arguments made.

• If blogs are "annoying", tolerate them. You don't have to read blogs. You can filter recent changes. There are dozens of things that annoy people. A wiki is a collaborative project, and that means we have to learn how to work with each other. I've spent my entire time on the wiki in complete ignorance to blogs and I'm honestly not bothered.
• If users get out of hand, block them. Same rules apply to bloggers as to the rest of the wiki. If users don't change, take a zero tolerance stand. Within a month, most of the bad bloggers will be blocked. If we have to, make a specific clause in COD:BLOCK.
• If users are "wasting time", that's not your concern. We have free choice over how to spend our time. We aren't contracted to be productive on the wiki for x hours a day. Choosing to blog over editing is no different from me choosing to play StarCraft II over making mainspace edits.
• If blogging is interfering with recent changes, then we should think about whether we can improve the filter. So far, I'm having the most success with excluding "User blog comment" space. But you know what I'm stuck with? Frivulous avatar changes, userspace edits, file uploads that have nothing to do with the game and non-productive user talk comments. If we truly want an optimised RC list, we need to get rid of those too. Or, we could be logical and think about changing the filter instead of removing parts of the wiki.

Point? Blogging is the least of our concerns. Most arguments in favour of banning blogs seem to be using blogs as a scapegoat for wider wiki issues. There are better ways to approach the issues being raised without eliminating a popular element of the wiki. --Scottie theNerd 02:56, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well if we are not going to remove them, it is necessary we start becoming stricter on offensive comments and the like. That's probably one of the main problems with blogging, and if we can eliminate the problems blogging has, then we're all happy. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 02:59, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't we becoming stricter? Offensive, flaming and trolling comments are the easiest to identify and remove. After all this talk about blogs, we'd think it'd be a sign that our stance on comments should be reaffirmed through action? --Scottie theNerd 03:02, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Just remove the blogs altogether. No blogs = No action needs to be taken. Simple. Give me five GOOD reasons why we need to keep blogs. Five good reasons not to keep them:

1. Blogs are off topic and unnecessary most of the time.
2. A lot of innocent blogs turn to flame wars or trolling incidences.
3. This is not supposed to be a socaial site, the wiki is for information.
4. A lot of users get caught up in trolling because they dont know better and then get into trouble.
5. We have forums and talk pages that can serve the same purpose, if not better than blogs.

Why do the admins need to patrol blogs to keep order and civility? There's way to many blogs to be patrolling. Our time is better spent doing janitorial work than babysitting bloggers that cant be civil or on topic. Talk 03:59, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Blogging was bound to see an increase as soon as Black Ops info started rolling in. If the admins could collaberate and finally have the nuts to disable blocking, at least for a while, then this wiki would go back to being a wiki. 04:04, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

You do recall what happened the last time the admins "had the nuts" to disable blogging, don't you? Chief z 04:19, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of people had a cranial meltdown....they'll get over it. Talk 04:24, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

That was an expression... But yes, people will find a way to deal with it. It's the internet... What can they do about it? Start a riot? 04:34, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

And yet we had to do some major damage control. Now, how did they deal with it? Let's see: they contacted wikia staff, made assumptions about the wiki's founder (which deluded their minds even further), and created a boycott wiki, which goes beyond the realm of ridiculousness, not to mention the slew of blog posts and petty threats. Just be prepared to deal with the fallout if we do something drastic. Chief z 09:10, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

I would say optons 3 or 4 because I do like commenting on blogs but even for the eye in the sky trailer Armyguy created a blog war or flame war I dont know or care which one it is about which nationalty ha the strongest military. You could also always do what they do on the RvB wiki and make i so only registered users can edit pages but don't disable blogs completly. They help spread info and hav e people disscuss about it. Although I will agree that blogging on this wiki has gotten out of control and many of the blogs are pointless or are filled with nothing but spam but you have to realize that will happen on a wiki everytime a new thing comes out wehter it be a game or movie. And you can always delete blogs right.Sniperteam82308 04:32, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'll entertain you, Whiskey:

1. Lots of things on the wiki are off-topic and unnecessary, such as fanfics, user-made characters and roleplays, social comments, avatars, recreational usergroups, signature designs -- even forums are "unnecessary". Blogs are no different in that regard.
2. A lot of articles turn into edit wars, trolling and off-topic discussions; which inevitably leads to user talk page harassment. Blogs are no different in that regard.
3. Nowhere does it state that the wiki cannot have social elements. In fact, Wikia's model is centred on community and collaboration, and blogs are a fitting part of that model.
4. Users will get into trouble with or without blogs. We had huge problematic users before blogs seemingly got out of hand; problems that were aggravated by poor handling by administrators on the wiki side.
5. Blogs are a more intuitive and user-friendly method of spreading news, information and other stuff. Forums and talk pages are limited, unwieldy and often difficult to navigate through; as well as lacking the post-response form and format that bloggers and readers are familiar with. Relatively few editors know the conventions of formatting a forum page or talk page (using indents and headers, for example); whereas blogs have ready-made comment forms that can individually be deleted should an admin see it necessary.

Of course it's unreasonable to patrol blogs, just as it's unreasonable to patrol the entire wiki. That's why the system is (or should be) reliant on users to report rule infractions for admins to handle. There's no need to babysit bloggers just as there is no need to keep tabs on editors. Restrict the nature of the content if you will, but blogging itself is not the problem. If users aren't using blogs properly, deal with the users.

I'll even go as far as to say that we need a social element to the wiki. Why? Because we're not that great as a wiki. The nature of our content is easily covered in a single FAQ/Walkthrough; we're not widely recognised or sourced in other forums and communities; and as we can see in this lull between game releases, there's no appeal for users to join the wiki and contribute. Think beyond, "This site is only for information". We don't need a wiki to provide information. A wiki is based on its community of contributors. Our appeal is in the idea of having a site that does provide accessible information as well as social space where users can talk about the games without direct relation to the articles. If maintain and regulate social elements (such as blogs), we attract more users -- and these users will contribute to the wiki whenever it's clear that content can be added. --Scottie theNerd 04:52, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

While there are many social mechanics of a wiki, it seems that blogging has become the easiest means of flaming/trolling for the average anon/new user. While they may be easier to navigate than forums and talk pages, they provide, essentially, an easy target for vandals to... Well, vandalise. Yes, a wiki is a community of editors, but when it gets to the point that users make accounts just to flame others and make pointless and repetitave comments about their own opinions, then the time comes to put a cap on the social aspect of it. While there are obvious upsides to blogging, I feel there are many more cons that outweigh any of the pros. If we really want a system for revealing news, then a forum will work just fine. 05:04, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Refer to my fifth point above. Forums are difficult to work with, functionally being limited by the fact that they're nothign more than articles with "Forum" on top. If we want to reveal news, we just have a newsfeed on the main page much like we do now. However, I didn't say that revealing news was the only thing blogs could be used for, and I reaffirm my statement that blogs are the best option for a community to convey thoughts, ideas, news and information. And what about vandals? We get more people making accounts (and anons especially) just to vandalise articles on the wiki, and that's even easier than vandalising a blog. Apart from exceptional circumstances in which we protect pages, we don't remove editing from the wiki because people vandalise. Anyone can edit a wiki, which means that there will be people abuse that function; just as how some poeple will abuse blog comments. That's why you deal with the users rather than removing features that are abused. I present the scenario clearly to you: if a user harasses another user on a talk page, do you block the user or do you remove the ability to post on talk pages? --Scottie theNerd 05:20, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your "Entertainment" speech Scottie.
You have your opinions about this matter as do I.

1. Sure lots of things are off topic the way you state, blogs just add to the matter.
2. Articles do turn into edit wars but then again anything else can turn into an edit war. It's just more stuff to deal with.
3. Having blogs gives users one more element to use/abuse to get into trouble.
4. I do agree with you about the fact that blogs are easy and intuitive for all users.
5. Although we are not "that great of a wiki" we are still in the top five. Thats not too shabby if you ask me. I don't think being, even in the top ten can be attributed to blogs.

I am of the opinion that if we don't get rid of blogs but restrict the content of the blogs as you say then I could be alright with it. Talk 05:35, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

If we become much stricter on stupid/offensive/off-topic comments, then I don't see why blogging can't be kept. Cracking down on bad comments eliminates pretty much the main problem with blogging. I often come across as someone who doesn't like blogs, this is mostly true but I'm happy to keep them if we're allowed to crack down much harder on bad comments and those who post them. The reason I'm hesitant to do that is because I'm likely to be accused of "power abuse" for deleting comments. They are a popular aspect of the wiki and it's what attracts a lot of traffic which is why we're in the top 5 gaming wikis. I just wish they were grouped in the Recent Changes, like they used to be. --Callofduty4 (Talk) 11:07, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Per CoD4. LITE992 13:21, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Relating to Scottie above these could be some options:

1. Not let anons or new users comment on blogs,
2. Disable comments on all blogs not relating to Call of Duty,
3. Turn them into a sort of "news updates" system where, similar to what's on the main page, people can post stuff about upcoming releases, DLCs and other major events. An example being the Black Ops Multiplayer Reveal. A lot of blogs were created and a few were spammed.

If comments were removed then the recent changes would become less crowded. Also, I know that AEAE, but the vast majority of spam is from anons and new users, and that is why I agree with Callofduty4's original point 2, which was to make blogs admin only. Eltomo85 ^talk 15:53, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

The system cannot distinguish between CoD and non-CoD blogs. Either we disable on all or we don't disable. Additionally, if blog comments are the #1 problem in Recent Changes, the RC page filter can already deal with that. --Scottie theNerd 15:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

About what I said earlier, I hate o do this, but I have to. Remember TMOI? He got banned for constantly promoting Communism on every single one of the blogs. Without blogging, that wouldn't have even had a chance of happening. Smuff 17:04, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

And the admins blocked him for it. What's the problem? TMOI got into trouble everywhere. Again, if the problem is the user, then we deal with the user. Again, if you're going to bring up a case of someone abusing blogs as an argument in favour of banning blogs, I'm going to remind you of the daily flaming and harassment that occurs on the wiki and ask why we shouldn't ban editing. If users weren't allowed to edit on talk pages, there would be no harassment. --Scottie theNerd 17:48, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

And Smuff, being selective in your memory isn't going to strengthen your point. TMOI got banned on many occasions for many infractions. Not having blogs would not have magically averted a troublemaker case then nor would it do so now. --Scottie theNerd 17:50, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm actually with Scottie on this. Blogging is a much-liked part of the wiki, and I don't want to lose a lot of traffic because we've taken out. I think cracking down on comments much more harshly and using the admin's ability to freeze commenting on blogs more widely will do the trick. Also, we cannot prevent new users or anons from commenting on blogs. It's not part of the system functionality to do that. --Callofduty4 17:54, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well if you actively went vandal hunting with the My Home page being filled with people complaining the Wii gets worse treatment than the PS3 and Xbox because of the memory problems of the DVD you'd have a slightly different view on the matter. And I wasn't being selectve, I don't like telling people this but my family has slight tradition of memory problems and other problems, so sorry for being selective with a user I don't have much experience with, that was just one experience I had. Smuff 19:40, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it is that if what Scottie said was realevant, we would've seen it in action already; If the admins plan on simply "cracking down" on vandalism, flames, and the like, then why hasn't it been done before? In my experience I've come to believe that most people are pretty lazy, and the admins are no exeption. There won't always be admins on guard watching each and every blog; Why work around a problem if you can get rid of it? 04:27, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

We can get rid of the problem by cracking down harder on offending blogs/comments. The reason this hasn't been done is because there's the inherent risk of being accused of "power abuse" (which I have been accused of in the past for deleting blogs). --Callofduty4 11:39, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

One pretty small, yet major point I thought of just now is that, if we did get rid of blogging, there would be close to nothing to do for most of the time. We would most certainly lose a lot of traffic, which would knock us off the top 5 gaming wikis list. If we use the admin's ability to delete comments and blogs, and freeze commenting on blogs, (which is what Scottie theNerd has been suggesting) then most of the problems with blogging will be eliminated. --Callofduty4 11:43, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

We're in the top five list? How are we so bad compared to WoWWiki then!?!?!? But if we freeze commenting what's the point in making blogs? All I can suggest is we have admins devoted to patrolling blogs in that case who go around and delete useless blogs. Smuff 17:18, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling is unfeasible. We need way too many people to watch over blogs, just as we don't have admins watching every single article. The system works when there are people who keep eyes out for the wiki (like a neighbourhood watch) and report incidents to admins to deal with (a similar example is how people who watch a page can catch vandalism rather than relying on admins to do so). Case in reference: GameFAQs is a site with millions of users, millions of posts and tens of thousands of boards. How many moderators does the site maintain? Around 90. The core of any community is for the community to patrol itself and only rely on admins for mediation or arbitration. --Scottie theNerd 17:58, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Proportionally, that makes sense. But there's a difference between the two, they have 90 admins, we don't have a quarter of that. There's a big difference in terms of the amount of admins online, even if there's more users on that, and generally their users have a brain and don't make blogs about apples being better than a pear. The way I see it, unless we come up with a sensible solution we'll just ave to stop the whole thing, cause when Black Ops comes there's going to be a lot of crap posted. Plus, I hate to mention this, but the majority of the CoDWiki users are lazy as hell and won't make an edit to a page, let alone a complaint. Smuff 18:23, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, GameFAQs only has, effectively, one admin. The moderators provide the coverage, but have limited control in what they can actually do with users. If we're lacking in admins, the solution is, naturally, get more admins. However, we're in a bit of a drought when it comes to people who the community sees as suitable. And trust me, the general GameFAQs userbase is far worse than CoDwiki. You don't get posts about apples being better than pears; you get posts about apples being better than Tifa's chest. You get CoDwiki's characteristics across a broader spectrum, and more. The options are fairly clear as presented by Callofduty4 though, if admin numbers is truly a problem: get more admins or restrict blogging --Scottie theNerd 06:18, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scottie's idea, but this would require a lot of work on the admins part. I also think that if we made blogs admins only the admins talk pages would be flooded with blog requests. I propose this soultion, it may seem a little harsh but I think it may just work. What if there were penalty's for creating off topic blogs, IE: one off topic blog or a few off topic comments, a warning and if you repeat you get blocked? I know it is harsh but at the moment it is all I can think off ^{T C E B} 13:00, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we been through Forum discussions like this one many times over already? Can we just come to a conclusion of some kindand be done with this? Blogs cause flame wars. Blogs cause an overflow on the MyHome. Blogs are a general distraction from why this wiki even exists. There are your main points against blogs being stated over and over by users when a new fourm about restricting/banning blogs. Work from those points to reach a decision about blogs. "Its quite simple really. Either we do something about blogs and their negatives or we wont recognize the wiki tomorrow." - Rambo362's play on Captain Price's quote from Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Rambo362

And the same points are refuted over and over again. Blogs don't cause flame wars; users cause flame wars. Many other things flood MyHome and Recent Changes that are more difficult to filter out. Users are distracted by many other things than blogs. Ultimately, you have absolutely no right to declare that a particular feature is distraction when there is absolutely no obligation for any visitor, be they guest, anon or admin, to contribute. We get a large portion of our visitors for both our community and our content, and banning blogs is effectively telling part of our community, "piss off, you're not wanted because you're not helping". Instead of being a community that welcomes new users and enlarges its userbase, we become a site that declares boldly: "We only want you to stay here if you edit mainspace frequently." Think carefully about what the actual problem is and what message we send across by branding our own community in this sort of light.

I again raise my challenge: if blogs are "distracting" users, what are they being distracted from? Will we get more edits if blogs were removed? No. RC is being flooded with blog comments because, frankly, there isn't much left for the masses to edit, so proportionally there will be more blog edits than article/forum edits. If users are being distracted, it's because there's nothing for them to do until the next game is released. Yes, I'm aware that there are plenty of maintenance tasks to do -- but tell that to the general userbase instead of blaming them for doing something else with their own time. --Scottie theNerd 06:18, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

"Blogs don't cause flame wars; users cause flame wars" on the blogs. What are blogs distracting users from? War Room proposals, Improvement drive articles. Again, we know the reasons. We have a few solutions. Lets do something. Rambo362

Users cause flame wars anywhere. Users have flame wars on talk pages. Do we block talk pages? Additionally, what's to say that removing blogs would suddenly increase activity in the War Room and other parts of the wiki? There is no direct relationship between blogging and editing. Removing one will not have an effect on the other. It is ridiculous and insulting to demand that users spend their time editing. It is baseless and invalid. You might as well kick users off the wiki for spending time on Facebook or actually playing Call of Duty instead of spending their time editing the wiki. Again, we have many users who dedicate a large portion of their time in chatting on IRC and editing their own userpage instead of making constructive edits to articles. Are we so short-handed and under-resourced that we have to remove anything that doesn't produce information for the wiki? --Scottie theNerd 16:09, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well in fairness WoWWiki doesn't have blogs and still maintains the top Gaming Wiki on the internet, it's in the top 100 websites in the world and it still keeps that. And the idea of more admins is ridiculous, the wiki demands perfection from a userbase that can't make an edit themselves, there's being practical and there's being conservative, and I can't see keeping t with BO coming out a viable option. The Smuff 17:10, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft is a much more popular game than CoD. WoWWiki is at the top because the Warcraft series is more popular than CoD. Blogs have nothing to do with it. LITE992 18:38, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with this comment. You have what is probably the largest gaming community with the most centralised content available on the internet. It's going to get far more traffic than an FPS series. --Scottie theNerd 06:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with number 3. The Vault has it the same way, and it is working wonders for them. Plus, no user would have room to argue, they can still talk about random shit at the social wiki. Dolten Let's Talk 19:22, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the majority of them are about that anyway, half the problem is they're poorly spelt, whinny and constantly asking the same questions. The Smuff 19:30, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

But if the admins are the only ones that can make blogs it doesn't matter does it? Dolten Let's Talk 19:36, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Do others agree that we need more admins? 20:13, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this topic. Dolten Let's Talk 23:50, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

It has plenty to do with it; Scottie suggested that if the admins were to patrol the blogs/be available for reported blogs, then more of them would be needed. 23:53, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Scottie can be wrong (although this is rare), seeing as all admins can do with blogs with the "new look" is make them and delete them the number of admins we have is irelevent. Dolten Let's Talk 23:55, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

The more admins we have, the easier it is to keep the peace (obviously). There are probably plenty of times during the day when no admins are logged on, and I think that should be changed. 23:59, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yet the reason I can't be one is because we have enough?

I would say different if they could delete comments, while deleting blogs will be important it will not be urgent. Dolten Let's Talk 00:03, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my other point: There should, in an ideal world, be at least two admins online at all times. 00:08, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Point is that it should be admin only. Dolten Let's Talk 00:10, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

...are you drunk? 00:11, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

No, but my back is making me wish I was. Again, only admin use. The only reason we need them to make blogs is so they can relay news easier. If it wasn't for that I would be all for getting rid of all blogs. Dolten Let's Talk 00:14, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Did you read any of Scottie's counterarguments? 00:16, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sure users can flame anywhere but by all but eleminating blogs we cut down on flaming a unbelievable amount. Dolten Let's Talk 00:18, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

That, and half of our web traffic. We'd quickly lose our place in the Top 5 gaming wikias. 00:24, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

You think random people come here for the blogs they will never be part of? We have millions of viewers, less that 1% of them have anything to do with blogs. Dolten Let's Talk 00:26, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

False! Absolutely wrong. Many a troll have come here just to rant on blogs. 00:29, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

So, we have a million trolls? Damn, things are bad... Dolten Let's Talk 00:30, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

/Facepalm 00:38, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Really man, everything you said there was fail after fail. Dolten Let's Talk 00:41, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate. 00:48, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Around 1% of our views are from blogs, and a good prercentage of that is annons spamming. Dolten Let's Talk 00:53, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say we needed more admins; nor did I state that admins should patrol blogs. Admins shouldn't need to patrol blogs. The system is reliant on users reporting issues to admins, who can then deal with the problem appropriately. We don't need admins to be online 24/7 -- we're just a wiki, not NORAD. Very rarely does a situation demand an admin take immediate action and many issues can wait. Back when I was an admin on PvXwiki, we worked on a cycle of cleaning through site maintenance pages and whenever we were needed we were contacted via instant messaging. Effectively, an admin doesn't need to be sitting at their desk hitting refresh on their browser every minute. --Scottie theNerd 07:35, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

A New Idea

I just thought of this idea. What if we disable all blogging to prevent spam and false information from being spread for only the few months around the release of Black Ops. I'm thinking the end of October to around some time in January. What do you all think? Rambo362

False information is false information. Why do we need to disable blogging for it? --Scottie theNerd 06:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

False information can also be spread by editing as well. We wouldn't disable editing for that either; that would be silly. LITE992 20:28, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but everyone can undo an edit. Not everyone can delete a blog post. Rambo362

Agree with that, but disabling blogging goes too far to prevent a problem that may never happen. LITE992 00:53, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

All this would do is clog the B.O. talk page with theories. The "False intel" problem could be solved with a rule/ I dont remember what is called at this moment. But that rule could simple state do not post false intel or theories as fact ^{T C E B} 01:17, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

You're already unable to do that. That's why you use citations, otherwise your edit can be removed. By the way, the BO talk page is quite flooded presently (even though talk pages are not meant for discussions on the article's topic; it's intended for improvements and such).LITE992 02:50, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal and Vote

Any Off Topic blog and/or comments will be deleted on sight. Any flaming/trolling will be dealt with accordingly.

Support

Support — As nominator Talk 21:09, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support — This is, in my opinion, the only logical way to end this goddamned situation Nelo Angelo97 21:11, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support — This stops a lot of the problems the Wiki has with blogs currently. - 21:17, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Out of sight, out of mind. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 21:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Finally, some progress. Rambo362

Support — Standing by watchfully, in the shadows. -- Griever0311 07:02, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Dolten Let's Talk 22:38, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral — This is a solution that doesn't directly address the problems raised, and there is no evidence to suggest that removing blogs would improve the wiki in the ways proposed by supporters. --Scottie theNerd 08:27, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral — Per Scottie. Sgt. S.S. 12:15, October 12, 2010 (UTC)]

Neutral — To be honest there's no evidence that removing blogs of this type will solve any problems. The problems with blogs are still there if we only remove one "class" of blogs. We either remove blogs completely (something which I now don't think is feasible) or we leave them as they are. There aren't many off topic blogs, and the ones that exist die out very quickly thanks to most users not caring about anything unrelated to Call of Duty, considering they're using a Call of Duty website. --Callofduty4 17:33, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral — Per all. LITE992 18:34, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Comment — I'm also concerned that passing this motion would set a bad precedent for similar cases in the future. I have highlighted other activities that users undertake are also "guilty" of the detrimental effects allegedly brought on by blogs; and if we decide to disable or suspend blogs for the reasons provided by the proponents, then there is no justification why other frivolous and mainly social activities should also remain. --Scottie theNerd 06:32, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Problem

Deleting all off-topic blogs does not solve this. Deleting all non-news blogs would be the key. There are countless on-topic blogs that have been completly worthless on this wiki, and they are the ones that need delt with.

I will not vote support on the above nomination. Dolten Let's Talk 21:26, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Again, I request that the problem be specified. What is "this" you talk about solving? --Scottie theNerd 05:14, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

"This" meaning the problem of to many off-topic blogs, to many bad on-topic news blogs, and far to many blog comments. Dolten Let's Talk 02:48, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

So let's go into detail. We don't want non-COD related blogs? That's fine, we can get community consensus on that. Too many blog comments? Well, I imagined that's why the feature is there in the first place. Otherwise we'd be complaining about too many people editing. --Scottie theNerd 06:17, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

The problem with comments is that not so much about the flame wars that pop up, but more the recent changes getting filled with "Such and such commented on _____ blog saying:______" making anti-vandalism patrols much harder and generally annoying. Dolten Let's Talk 15:58, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

With two clicks, you can filter out all blog comments. My problem with patrolling recent changes is going through userpage and user talk edits after blog comments are filtered. --Scottie theNerd 11:02, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

That I did not know. Dolten Let's Talk 22:36, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

That's just one solution, we can implement more. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 09:25, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are really clogging up My Home (or w/e its called now). I don't know how blind I was but just know I noticed what bloging does to My home.

This pastebin shows the recent changes clogged up with blogs. N7 Talk

'Closed - due to inactivity. If you feel this topic must be discussed further, please revisit this forum in a new topic. Thanks, <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option> 20:21, January 29, 2011 (UTC)