Forum:CT:Banning requests to help with other wikis

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. 1358 ^(Talk) 11:54, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Users from other wikis occasionally come here to request that other users come help them with their other wiki. Sometimes this takes the form of a brief ad on their userpage (e.g. "Come help me on OtherWiki!"), which is generally OK if not overdone. However, this also commonly takes the form of posting to the user talk pages of multiple established users asking them to come help, which is very annoying. However, from what I can tell, we don't actually have a policy that explicitly bans this.

Already located in Wookieepedia:Vandalism is the following bullet point defining vandalism:

I propose to add a sub-bullet point to that explicitly banning this practice, as follows:

This would formally ban this practice and make it a blockable offense.

Support

1. As proposer. —MJ— (Training Room) Sunday, January 1, 2012, 18:39 UTC
2. I agree.<-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 18:42, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
3. Spam it is. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:44, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
4. Makes sense. 1358 ^(Talk) 18:45, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
5. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 19:14, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
6. Per Toprawa.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 19:26, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
7. Oh dear Lord yes. We've been far too lenient on this. People still get blocked for it, but it always seems to take a pile of redundant warnings first. Having it prohibited explicitly will save a lot of annoyance. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 19:55, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
8. This has come way too late, IMO. We could have used this a long time ago. A big support.--Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 21:43, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
9. Per Tope, Culator, and Cal. Yes, I think we should try to be a bit more welcoming to new users, but I don't think the point as worded above is offensive or imposing at all. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 23:33, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
10. Meh, I'm willing to support in hopes that it won't be taken offensively. I think most people are smart enough to know the difference between spam and a simple suggestion. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:19, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

    Imperialles 06:45, January 3, 2012 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: User blocked -- —MJ— _{Council Chambers} Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 21:35 UTC)

11. Nostradamus predicted this would happen. DD97^{Which bear is best?} 14:31, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
12. Jinzler 21:01, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
13. ToRsO bOy 02:19, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
14. graestan^(talk) 18:15, January 20, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seems overly harsh. We're one of the most popular and professional wikis there is, and it doesn't hurt to be humble about it. Menkooroo 20:07, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
   • I like the general idea, but per Menk. The current wording is a little too restricting. And besides, this isn't gonna stop people from asking for help on other wikis. It's just gonna give us a reason to block them for it. I don't think this will do much in the way of actually stopping the problem, but rather it will just make us look snooty and egotistical. MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:13, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
2. Partially per Menk. But I think this is too targeted. Perhaps other forms of this sort of spam aren't as common, but the bullet point could be worded in such a way to ban all such mass-talk-page messaging. For instance, if someone's up for admin or something, they might decide to post a message asking for votes on dozens of talk pages. It'd be highly frowned upon, but currently, there's nothing to keep them from doing so. ~Savage 04:37, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
   • I tend to agree with you, but the problem is that there are legitimate reasons to send out mass talk page notifications, such as WookieeProject and barn-burner notices. I'm at a loss as to how I could word it to exclude stuff like that and still ban the actual spam. An exception for "Wookieepedia-related" stuff would still allow the RFA canvassing you described. However, the current proposal is at least a step in the right direction. Master Jonathan ^Holocomm Tuesday, January 3, 2012, 05:48 UTC
3. I support the sentiment but this rule is already accounted for by existing words. Talk pages are pages; besides, brevity is essential in constitutional documents. Karohalva 05:56, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
4. Per Karo. If the person is spamming, they're spamming, be it other wiki-related or otherwise. jSarek 23:16, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Karo. This could be handled with a simple "Requests on User Talk Pages for assistance on other wikis outside the realm of technical guidance—such as importing our JavaScript, CSS, and templates—is prohibited as spam." I don't see the addendum on adverting on their user pages as essential. NaruHina ^Talk 09:32, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
6. Also per Karo. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 22:45, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
7. I'm going to oppose as long as it does not include the language JMAS brought up below. I find beggars and attention-seekers to be as annoying as the rest of you, but we need to some clear language in the policy as to what is acceptable and what is not. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 11:21, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
8. Seems like instruction creep to me. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 19:49, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
9. Entirely per Menkooroo and JMAS. We're capable of telling users "no," and even though seeing users mass-message people is annoying, we shouldn't be discouraging users from making what are usually simple, honest requests for help. I do agree that mass messages for site activity should be considered spam, but they need to be treated on a case-by-case basis to avoid us overusing the block button. "Spam" in the current wording satisfies that. CC7567 ^(talk) 05:54, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
10. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 05:56, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
11. I support the idea somewhat, but I really don't see the problem being so large that it needs this (wording), making it bannable behaviour. I honestly believe our current policies cover excessive spamming/annoyance well enough. – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:~$ 07:25, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
12. Per above. We don't need to spell out everything, and this is covered already. Spam is spam, and the user will be dealt with appropriately on a case-by-case basis. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 07:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
13. Per all of the above. Bella'Mia 07:54, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
14. While I might initially be drawn to vote for this measure, as pointed out previously, the language is too restrictive for me, and then there is the definition of what spam actually is. I figure we should react on a case-by-case basis, and if an user requests on a talk page to help their little 10-article wiki, as they have towards me, then you just tell them no and don't have to punish them for asking. Repeated pleads are another story though. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:04, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure on this. I personally advertised my wiki a lot here, but I didn't spam user talk pages, IMO. If I ran across a user who I thought might be interested (in my case, Christian with an interest in music, as the wiki is about Christian music), I would invite them to WP:RWM, and then invite them to check out my wiki. Of course, I never asked them to help the wiki. I just suggested it as a site they might be interested in. No one ever showed any annoyance, and oftentimes the focus of the message was on WP:RWM, which is Wookieepedia-related. If this would be seen as bannable, I don't know if I really support it. However, if we're mainly speaking of the general random shout-outs for help we get from users who don't really do anything here, then I'm for it. MasterFred^(Whatever) 19:44, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

• Except you don't have to message them here on Wookieepedia. You can send them a message on their talk page on your own wiki, and they will still receive a notification that they have messages waiting on another wiki with a link to that message. Therefore, you spare Wookieepedia of this type of thing and you can still recruit interested people to your project. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:48, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
  • But if the post is mainly Wookieepedia-related with just a note at the end suggesting the site, I don't see the harm. If the message is just about the external wiki, then yeah, message them on your own wiki. But I don't see why suggesting a potentially helpful and interesting site to someone should be completely forbidden here, as long as it's not getting in the way. To sum it up, I don't mind it if people suggest sites to users that have nothing to do with Wookieepedia or even Star Wars, as long as the message in general is relative to this site in some manner. MasterFred^(Whatever) 19:58, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
    • Obviously, you aren't the main instigator of this, Fred, and your type of message isn't exactly the type of thing we're aiming to restrict here, but I think the growing trend in this CT demonstrates that people nonetheless find this general practice annoying and unproductive. You find this problematic because it restricts your personal ability to advertise your music site here on Wookieepedia, which is kind of the point. As much as you might embed your advertisement in a Wookieepedia-related message, your music site in itself has nothing to do with Wookieepedia. Considering you do have a very simple solution available to you, I would think you could find it within you to respect the apparent will of the community. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:09, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
      • My motives are in no way personal. I simply used myself as an example. I don't even advertise my wiki anymore, and it's been that way for a very long time. I only opposed because I feel the current wording gives off a message that is rude and kinda selfish in itself. I don't know exactly how to reword it, but I just don't feel this is the right way. MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:37, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
• I mainly support this. But one part of the wording could be acted upon very legalistically. That part states This does not apply to users posting to a single talk page to request specific technical assistance such as importing our JavaScript, CSS, and templates. It's the "single talk page" part that I'm not fond of. There might be an admin at another wiki who hears that UserA, UserB and UserC at Wookieepedia are particularly knowledgeable regarding CSS and may be able to offer suggestions for CSS on said admin's wiki. I wouldn't consider posting to 2 or 3 talk pages as being spam either. Yet the wording as it is now, could have someone blocked for posting to more than a single talk page. It could be as simple as adjusting it to state This does not apply to users posting to a few talk pages (no more than 3) to request specific technical assistance such as importing our JavaScript, CSS, and templates. This way it's still a set policy for those who do spam, but not as rigid for those who are honestly just seeking some technical assistance. Loosen the wording a bit, and this has my support vote. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 04:32, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, you have a point, but at this point with so many votes cast, I think it's better to let this run its course and amend it later if needed. If it was a case where noobs could exploit the problem and game the system, I'd change it right now, but this falls purely on the admin deciding whether to block, and in the meantime, I think our admins are smart enough to recognize the difference and enforce the spirit of the rule rather than the letter. Master Jon _{Training Room} Monday, January 2, 2012, 05:49 UTC
    • That's the reason I've changed my vote. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:42, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.