Forum:User Talk Conversation

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > User Talk Conversation

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 07:52, January 24, 2010 (UTC) As I have noticed in the past month from watching over the Recent Changes, our policy for no socializing or non-wiki conversation on users' talk pages has been completely ignored. This is why we set up the IRC Channel; although it now is the common place of socialization for the community, the amount of conversation that takes place on users' talk pages is still far too much. In fact, any at all is too much if the user knows the policy, yet is deliberately going against it. Since there has been no reason to uplift this policy from the time that it originated and that this is not just being done by new users who are unfamiliar with our policy, I am going to start slapping warnings on users who continue to use users' talk pages for socialization and conversations not related to matters dealing with the wiki in the future. However, since a user should most certainly not be permanently banned immediately for this matter, I would like for the following bulleted system to be used when dealing with a user who was received all of their warnings due to conversation on users' talk pages. I also think it would be best if a warning for conversation on a user's talk page could only be given x time after the last one, so that a user isn't bombarded with three warnings after three messages, and ends up with a ban due to posting three messages. Banning First need of a ban: blocked from the wiki for one day Second occurrence: blocked from the wiki for three days Third occurrence: blocked from the wiki for five days Fourth occurrence: blocked from the wiki for one week or permanent ban I run into a problem here, since I am not sure if the pattern should continue after the fourth occurrence or if it should just be plainly obvious that the user is going to continue conversing on users' talk pages and should just be permanently banned. Please leave your input here, so that this may be immediately put into action. I'm pretty darn tired of seeing so many edits to users' talk pages crowding up the Recent Changes, and I want this to be where it stops.

Discussion

Show puzzle
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Sounds pretty fair to me, assuming that there is a normal warning (i.e. a warning from one user to another, not a warining using the template) first, just in case the person is un aware.

LotsoBearLover - Welcome to sunnyside! TALK - You've got a playdate with destiny!" That's a stupid and unfair idea!

HeartofOblivion Talk to me! — There was something important... Oh yes! I've decided on the pancakes. Blueberry! Can you get me some cotton candy? Blue, not PINK !!!! — 15:49, January 24, 2010 (UTC) Although you think he's being mean, DTN is right. The talk pages are meant for talking to other users about projects, help or questions. Didn't you Malevolence Crystalised just bring this up here? From what I'm reading on that, is you basically restated what we said the first time we agreed that talk pages should not be used for random idle chat. The problem is although we keep saying that's what the pages are for, we have never really enforced it. DTN merely came up with a solution so people spend more time on here adding to the Wiki instead of just talking about Kingdom Hearts or whatnot. I would also like to point out that any user, new or old, can give warnings to users as long as it is justified. DTN is not targeting anyone specifically like he said. There are people who have been around when we first created the rule that still only edit on talk pages. I myself used the talk pages to talk about Dissidia once or twice. And going to the Admins and asking for DTN to be de-modded is very rude. DTN has put in more work on this Wiki than many users combined. He put this up here so there could be feedback from the community especially from the Admins who are in charge of banning users. That and he, like many others, are tired of having to look through all the talk page edits on the Recent Changes page to find actual work being done.

SUPER SWORD-CHUCKS Talk Page, yo! — I like swords! Sword-Chucks, yo!— 16:42, January 24, 2010 (UTC) This sounds fair enough.

Eternal Nothingness XIII - Ven, Aqua... I'll find some way to make things right. TALK - This light... it's so warm. — 17:11, January 24, 2010 (UTC) I find myself surprised to say that I'm in favor of DTN in this matter. The purpose of the IRC Channel, as we all know, was to reduce the RC clog. From what I've seen, people merely use this as a sort of convenience, a "part 2" to the chatting, if you will, rather than the intended purpose. I find the "warn/block" idea a tad harsh, though. If this is what we decide to do, it should be the person starting the chat that faces the punishment, not the victim. I know a few users who come to me (as well as others) and start talking away, and it is my (and others) obligation not to be rude and respond. The decent editor shouldn't be punished for a simple matter like this. When one doesn't know the policy, I could see where this makes sense. I know that I, along with a few others, have attempted to reduce the amount of chit-chat on his or her talk page by placing "talk page rules." If warnings/blockings are necessary, by all means, they should be used. We need to be fair about this, however. It will be a matter of enforcing the policy this time, and sticking to it. Attempting to cease this chatting and the difficulty resulting is inevitable. What are we to do if we receive issues of chit-chat, however? I thought it was also against the policy to remove messages? Would it be a simple "meet me on the IRC ordeal?" Then again, that would also open up the issue of some not having IRC access, to which I'm not sure a "well tough" is the best response...

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 18:03, January 24, 2010 (UTC) HeartOfOblivion: Thank you very much for that compliment, and I think that according to this discussion, only staffers can place warning templates. Other editors should leave a polite, non-aggressive text warning on the "vandal"'s talk page, and then contact a staffer to have a warning template placed. EternalNothingnessXIII: This should eventually "slow down" or even cease once users can receive warnings for such conversation. After all, it is just a warning; when you have three warnings and therefore are right on the edge of a block/ban, then it is something that is definitely serious. To answer your question, what should be done if a user does try to chat away on your talk page is to reply kindly, but then remind them of the policy and invite them to the IRC Channel if you and/or they wish to continue the conversation. However, when a user continuously posts socialization-intended messages on your talk page after having been reminded by the talk page's user, then they need a warning from a staffer. So, in the future, just reply to their message, and tell them that (if tyou and/or they want to continue chatting) need to move the conversation to the IRC Channel in a private Query. Also, if an Admin wouldn't mind putting this back into the site notice, that would be great. Thanks!

I'm gonna save some time here and just copy/paste what I wrote on a previous discussion about this. This is for all users who disagree with the current policy: I strongly agree to keep this policy. The IRC channel was created exactly for this reason; we've discussed this topic numerous times. Many users were using the Wiki as a MySpace/Facebook and talking about irrelevant topics that didn't pertain to Kingdom Hearts. Problems with this were that users were moving up in the community list and such due to talk page edits. This differs from the mission Wikis/Wikias have! Also, you couldn't even look at the Recent Changes without having to search through the flood of talk page/blog edits. Socializing is a nice and fun thing to do, but it should be kept on the IRC channel. Past Discussions User:BebopKate/Sandbox :"User Talk Pages are, as the name indicates, for communicating directly with a specific user. It should be used to ask questions about wiki subjects only and relating to that user, such as their recent edits, ongoing projects, current uploads, or similar questions. It can also be used to ask a specific user for assistance. User Talk Pages are not discussion pages! Conversations of a non-wiki nature belong in the Twilight Town Library Forum or IRC. You may leave a brief message on a User Talk page asking someone to join you in either." Kingdom Hearts Wiki:IRC :"The Kingdom Hearts Wiki's IRC channel is the wiki's main mode of socializing. It is used for chit-chat and is also a different and quicker way to notify a staff about a problem with the wiki." Past Forum Posts Forum:KHWiki IRC Forum:Blog removal petetion This is the same reason we removed the blogs- they were very trivial and unnecessary. This is a wiki, not a Facebook/MySpace/blog! Granted some users cannot get into the IRC channel. With some persistance they might, a few users here once had problems getting into the IRC, now they're able to get on. (Example: Andie). Also, if safety is a concern for parents (I know mine were -_-) the KH Wiki IRC channel is one of the safest internet chatrooms. We have numerous Ops who are on most of the day who keep the behavior in check. No major problems have been reported or verbal bashings/degradation from other users in months. Don't believe the past problems with talkpages? Go here and type in a few usernames, I'm not going to name names but THIS is why we removed blogs and created the IRC channel. One user had 2,937 edits to talk pages and 543 edits to the mainspace! If users want to talk about irrelevant topics that differ from Kingdom Hearts/editing help/invitation to the IRC they can do so through e-mail, online social networking sites, blogs or even through on-line games; this is not the place for it! To conclude my speech, asking for DTN to be de-mod/de-oped was indeed rude. Even if you don't like the user, you must respect him for his relevant and numerous contributions to the wiki. Also, saying he's "rude, harsh, annoying, mean", etc. take a moment and reflect on yourself. Everyone can be found to be all of the listed traits above at somepoint during their time on the wiki, be it here or the IRC; I know I have. Finally, wanting to degrade a person just because you don't like them is an ignorant and egotistical move. And from what I've seen so far, DTN has not abused his "powers" (yay rollback!) as a moderator. Done, thank you. *steps off soapbox* Xion4ever Who am I? — 19:12, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oh right. I completely forgot about that. My bad. But yes, even though I have had some unnecessary conversations on my talk page myself I agree with this. I need to tone it down a bit now that I remember this. I don't really come on here to chat anyway. Randomnessity Looks like you're already prepared.

KingdomKeyDarkside - So… You really do care about her. In that case, the answer is no. TALK - We don't accept resignations.02:40, January 25, 2010 (UTC) Cut people some slack! I don't think bans or blocks should be given for casual conversation at all. warnings could be given after a lot of offences, but if somebody wants to see the most recent changes(not including talk pages), that's what the sidebar is for. most of the people who are socializing on the talk pages (including me) were unaware of this rule. And another thing. It's called a talk page for a reason. it's not called a "Help page" or "Edit Discussion page". The only punishment involved should be a warning, if anything at all. If anyone sees excessive unneccesary conversation between users, they should be reminded to take it to the IRC or forums, and then if they disobey, give them warnings.

LegoAlchemist - They changed "Snipe Magnet" to "Magnet Grab"? Who's translating this game, 4kids? TALK - Friendships are in direct contravention of mercenary conduct as delineated in your contracts, and on a personal note: I am very, very, disappointed with you. Although I understand what everyone is saying about this, and how it is against the rules to post conversation on talk pages, I completely disagree with it. I need to ask, just to clarify, where exactly does it say we cannot have conversation on talk pages? Also, the link to the IRC is broken, the last time I checked, so not everyone can get on. I just got a message from someone who said that they had no idea what the IRC was, thus backing up my point. Reading KKD's post, I completely agree with him and I will back him up on this. It is not a completely serious matter to be talking to people on their talk pages, so how can we give bans or even warnings because someone asked their friend how they are doing? Plus, the IRC is way to public. Everyone on the IRC can read what someone is saying. Meanwhile the same thing is true with Talk pages, however it is much more private. And I've been on the IRC, and there isn't much seriousness there. I beleive the last time I was there, a wierd story about how people were blowing up cars and killing each other was going on. Random nonsense that is completely irrelevant. DoorToNothing was there, as was maggosh. They can prove this. If we are going to officially enforce this rule, so that people get banned if you converse on your own talk page, we should at least put it in the manuel of style or tell it to people we welcome here on the wiki. In a nutshell, I beleive warnings and bans for talk page casual conversations should be given only on article talk pages, not the user's talk page, and that the IRC isn't all that it's cracked up to be. And as you've seen for yourself, and as it will be implied in the future, it will be way to much work to stop almost every single user from talking to their friends.

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? I am curious, what if someone is not allowed to go on the IRC (i.e. their parents don't want them on)?

Yuan Salve! — 03:40, January 25, 2010 (UTC) "Days that I have held, days that I have lost / days that outgrow, like daughters, my harbouring arms" Edit conflict:I, too, would like to object to the use of warnings and blocks for socialising. The use of these conflates the act of socialising with vandalising - we are, in a sense, treating people who socialise as vandals. I feel that the two acts should remain separate and not be confused with each other. Vandalism is an act of harm to the wiki directly, while socialising is done with no ill intention, and only affects the wiki's image if done in ridiculously large quantities. The solution to the last (which appears to be the situation) should be to cut it back, not to punish all harshly (I do think a ban is far too harsh for a minor infringement). This is not to say that I disagree with having less socialising on the wiki - I do think we should focus on the mainspace - but I believe that using such stringent methods is inappropriate, and user unfriendly. A community that says "If you socialise here, we will ban you" is not one I would wish to edit. To give a personal example, one of the things that attracted me to the FF wiki was the community there. I enjoyed having a vehicle to talk to people about linguistics and mathematics, both subjects I enjoy. Both the community and the main space are important parts of a wiki. Additionally, what would be considered "socialising" and the level which would result in a warning or ban is highly subjective. Is talking about one's opinion on KH socialising? Strategies for bosses? Clarifying a plot point, or showing someone a self-created KH fanart? These are equally as likely to lead to an extensive conversation as any off-topic conversation. Also take into account why the wiki is used, and not other sites, the IRC or email. The answer is accessibility, and the wiki as a base. Obviously, the users socialising here have met each other over the wiki - and thus will use it as their main means. A discussion on the wiki is viewable to the audience which the poster wishes to affect most, and is open to participation from said audience. It also allows one to cross time zones - it is difficult for some users to discuss with others on instant chat when they live far apart, while talk pages solve this problem. Not all users will have the same accounts such as Facebook, Myspace, MSN etc. Others will have objections or computer issues to socialising sites or the IRC. Email lacks the open participation of wiki discussions. All in all, the wiki constitutes a superior form of communication for these users than the alternatives suggested above. Ideally, the solution would be self-moderation, for users to use their own discretion in having discussions. That is another reason why I disagree with the use of blocks: because I believe that self-moderation is a better choice, one which affirms one of the basic tenets of the wiki - assume good faith. We should have faith in our fellow users here, in their ability to keep their socialising in control. Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but is the solution which we should have. The issue is tangenital, but I would also like to give my hearty support to DTN as a moderator.