FANDOM

BertH

aka Bert

Staff
  • My occupation is Movies/TV Wiki Team Lead
  • I am Male
  • Bio I think way too much about Star Trek and Marvel. I also love TV comedy, 90s pop culture and anything Amy Sedaris does.
  • [Show More]
(Difference between revisions) | User:BertH
(Response: new section)
m (RE:RE:Your Message: fixed sig)
Line 81: Line 81:
   
   
{{Signatures/DBD Abyss}}{{Signatures/DBD Abyss}} 00:26, May 26, 2017 (UTC)
+
{{Signatures/DBD Abyss}} 00:26, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:26, May 26, 2017

Discussions and check user

Hey Bert. We are currently facing an issue on discussions where a user keeps creating alternate accounts to bypass a block. Normally I would block the range by now, however my CU rights do not allow me to check the IPs of users that only have discussions edits. I was wondering if there was anything you could do to help. 09:58, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Bert. I get the sensation this was likely a one-off occurrence (especially with that many alternate accounts involved). But if anything else like this crops up I'll contact you or Sactage. 20:40, January 6, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Moving forward with Discussions

I've read your message, and I can already see a few issues.

Firstly is the matter of moderation. For the first few months I moderated discussions by myself. In that time I found no users active enough, or trustworthy enough to give moderator rights to else I'd have done so myself a long time ago. Branching on from this, we've yet to gain any users to the wiki from Discussions. In the first few months we had some people talking about editing to the wiki, yet never followed through with anything on wiki. In fact, we posted the forum on to the Discussions app so the users of that site. One person responded but when asked to post their input on the forum they decided not to. The users we are getting simply aren't active enough to care if that feature remains active. And if users are only there for one or two comments what hope do we have that they will become wiki editors? In fact we've had it active since November and not gained a single editor.

Secondly in regards to the users you've asked to bring in sounds like too much of a temporary fix. I moderated myself for about 3-4 months and that hardly made it any different and like stated above I was unable to find any users active enough to create moderators. We simply aren't bringing in any users for long term editing, so mods brought in to 2-3 months wouldn't solve the issues we are having. Unless you plan to bring in some moderators permanently there's not a fix for that regard. Not to mention I simply don't feel moderation is the issue with longevity. Like I said above, I moderated the app for about 3-4 months and that did not yield any long-term users. I simply don't think the app is working as it was advertised and active moderation will have little effect on its popularity.

Thirdly, and the most important to us, is the fact this forum is the first vote we've had on if we even want discussions. Back in November it was turned on without any of our admins consent, and this is the first real vote our community has had on if we want it or not. And this time we're informed enough from it being on for 7 months to gauge how effective it really is. If we'd been allowed to discuss it in the first place, and the community actually wanted it then maybe we would be putting more effort in to trying to kick it off. But due to the way it was handled in the first place, many of us simply don't like it. While it's good to hear you have a plan to try and keep it going, I have to consider our community first, and if our community doesn't want it then I have to turn it down and ask it be shut down. If the community does want but doesn't want to use it, then I can accept your offer, but I cannot force anyone to try and moderate it if they don't want to.

I understand WW2 is coming out later this year, but this app was launched at the same time as another CoD release, and frankly I don't feel it has been much of a success.

For now, we will continue the forum and see how the community feels about the app because like I said, this is the first time the community has had a chance to discuss the app and how much we actually want it and I cannot go against what the community wants. Something I hope you will consider when this forum comes to its end. 18:05, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that you should come on the forum and defend your point. At the end of the day you forced this on the wiki with no input from us, you can clearly see it's been a spam-filled trainwreck and it's really hurt our trust in Wikia, this whole series of events. If it does stay up, me and Sam are looking after it to make sure it's in a good state for when whoever takes over takes over. However we will not let it go to some random user, that will be made clear now.

Hopefully you can see our point and if we vote to take it down you will do the right thing and get rid of discussions. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  17:06, May 20, 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a recent user

Hi Bert. Recently while promoting our forum on the Discussions app to ensure it was fairly seen by everyone, we've had a councillor by the name of "ChristopherLeeGallant" commenting in an attempt to get us more engaged in Discussions. So far I have found his conduct rude towards myself and the community purely because we are not at this stage tryign to take his advice due to the on-going forum. We have asked him to put forward his views on to our forum so they can be fairly reviewed and debated, but has chosen to not do so. Instead remaining on the comment thread just trign ton constantly ask us to accept his help.

This is help we did not ask for, and given his user role his timing seems quite suspicious. As such I would like to ask if you, or another Staff member, contacted him purely to come on to our discussions app to try and promote the app? I would like to know because so far his attitude in doing so has been quite rude and persistent and if his attitude continues he may be subject to a block due to our local polices as telling us things such as "your wiki is going to die" is very rude to not only myself, but our community here.

Furthermore, one of his comments claimed you were planning on shutting down our forums. 19:05, May 21, 2017 (UTC)
As much as I would like to consider his comments, our wiki works on a consensus via the forums. This means any comments, whether for or against Discussions need to go there to be considered. This is why I kept trying to point him there so that his points could be logged appropriately and considered as part of the consensus. Anything said off the forum is not part of it. And I wouldn't want him to put forward effort telling us how to better use an app that we're currently voting on, with the "remove" vote winning. Most of the users that dislike Discussions don't go there very often because they used it for a bit when it first came out and did not like it and have not returned.
Also YellowLucario has been spoken to about his behaviour. However most of the outburst of because of Chris's comment of "and the mature thing to do is find a way to make it work for the community", because it comes off as very rude. While I don't condone how aggressive the response was, I also do not condone the community of the wiki being called "immature" simply because we do not want to use the feature. 10:03, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Forum outcome

Hey Bert. Our forum has come to an end. And with as much advertising as we could give it to ensure as many people could have the chance to vote on it, we have a 75% vote for shutting down discussions.

Given this is in beta, and that I have seen on another wiki that Discussions can be turned off, I'd like to ask that you follow our community's consensus and begin the removal of Discussions. I understand you have been trying to help us with Discussions, which I am grateful for, however it seems none of the other users want Discussions. And I wouldn't want to see you wasting effort on trying to help us when the community has voted against having it.

I understand this is a new feature that Fandom greatly wants to capitalise on, but it likely isn't for all wikis. This is why I believe that when the app comes out of beta it should be implemented in to Wiki features rather than being mandatory, lest you have Wikis with Discussions pages that aren't moderated or are simply left unused.

Furthermore, while I understand that you likely have to keep it up here for whatever reason, I'd very much like to stress that when the app first came to this wiki, we did not get given a vote or anything on the matter. It was simply activated without any of our consent, so as such this has been the wikis first vote on if we want it, and we've had the ability to watch the app in action to make our vote.

For these reasons, I'm asking that you can shut down Discussions for us as soon as is possible. 20:22, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
Bert. Our forum operates on a consensus (COD:CON). And we had 75% of the vote turn out saying they didn't want the app. We did all we could to promote the forum to ensure anyone and everyone could vote accordingly. If they had been a complete outurn of supports coming fromt he Discussions app, then I would of happily agreed to keep the app. But that did not happen.
Now you've told me you'll "keep the plan you outlined". Yet you were also the one to enable the app on our wiki without asking. Now you can see why this is a major breach of trust. You've enabled something on our wiki without asking, then when we voted to get rid of it, you've said no. In fact, this could even be seen as a bit of power abuse, because no discussions was granted to us in the first place and you're refusing to acknowledge the consensus of the community, which everyone was allowed to partake in, and that we advertised the best we could to ensure they could all get involved. 20:02, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
Bert. It's always been a rule that forum related matters have to stay on the forum. When you go to vote for which political party you want do you go "I voted on a piece of paper at work, so my vote counts"? All the community consensus comes from a forum. Even if Chris hasn't put his comments on the forum, he also didn't vote. If people don't vote, with or without commenting, we can't consider it. Otherwise we'd have to count votes from about 10 different sources just so we could make that consensus.
But it's clear that 'Fandom', which I'm writing like that because sine your rebranding seems to talk to the community 'less', now only wants to force applications on its members regardless of it wants them or not. I've used that app, and I get an ad pop-up nearly every time I do. So it's obvious that you only want to keep it up so it gets more views and therefore ad revenue.
It's clear we were never going to get editors from this app, only views. As its clear you won't back down I'd like you to supply me with the email address of either your manager or corporate headquarters, as it seems civil discussion with you will lead nowhere despite the community consensus we have. In fact, the reaction you have given has caused many of the users to be greatly upset, and some have even put forward the idea of forking. I don't want it to reach that stage, but when the company starts putting its interests in front of the consumers, then there is an issue. 21:10, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
To be frank, you have annoyed a lot of the community with this. The core community all talk every day and to be honest everybody's really upset by this. It feels like you're alienating our community and we just don't know what to do any more. I know why you want to keep Discussions but it's going against the wishes of all of us. YELLOWLUCARIO TALK  21:19, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
". If you really do want to revitalize this community, be bold and try some new things." Yet, From easily what we have seen, It is only bringing in people to Discussions. Not active editors, Which was one of the main points brought up about having it in the first place. Hell, This is all too similar to the old forum system (Speaking of the style of Neogaf) that was removed years back. Discussions can work on different Wikis, such as FNAF or MLP, However they will not work on different Wikis as it would primarily be people spamming the thing looking for people to play with or "friends". Which doesn't help the Wiki at all. Twig (Talk) wNJ2zkL.png 21:28, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if we could follow through on our Wiki communities consensus. We've not seen any benefit or gain, yet we're still tied to something we obviously do not wish to have. GhKJh.pngP90DeathmanuceaHlB.png21:32, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
I'm with the guys, the decision was made and it was chosen to be shut down. The elected choice has to be followed. I'm sure the others have said many things to explain why we don't want it, but this is me voicing support for the removal.  QVw9GKe.pngTimelessPeople  22:05, May 25, 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I usually stay out of this but as a whole wiki issue I feel I need to get involved. I've noticed a pattern that users who post in discussions tend to not move over to editing the wiki, which by your own words was to generate interest and editing on the wiki. Just a cursory glance through the most recent posts (Sam not included as he's a veteran users) all are new users with little to no main wiki editing. Between 10 users they have 150 discussions and 2 main edits between them. I'm not trying to come off as rude. I've been around Wikia long enough to meet lots of staff and have made a great deal of friends with them. But over 7 months there is a lack of interest from actual discussion users themselves. Discussions started get little to no responses. Using the same sample for the recent posts (Sam included this time) the highest number of comments belongs to Sam's post regarding the forum outcome and there was no actual discussion going on in it at all. It was a user just speaking to Sam over what it actually meant.
The potential "benefits" of Discussions, as mentioned were getting new users in but looking back towards march, there's no users who comment in discussions and then actively go on to edit the wiki, they maintain their presence in discussions to no benefit to the wiki, having to maintain the wiki and the discussions seems detrimental to the Wikia moderators/admins/crats abilities as their titles represent they have. I noticed in your statement to Sam this section
"And he didn't post anything. You know why? Because it is inconvenient for a new person, who's never edited a wiki page and is using their phone." while I know this is true blame does not solely lie on us, but Wikia too. I've seen universal agreement the mobile layout needs adjusting not just on Wikia but on Reddit. r/Yugioh uses the Yugioh wiki as a database for cards, ruling and images and the mobile layout is critically panned and laughed at. Making editing from a wiki from mobile should rest with Wikia to make it as fluid as possible, because individual wikis, As far as i'm aware can't create a layout specifically for mobile. As someone who did used to visit the wiki a lot i understand this problem personally, but Discussions app hasn't (from what I've gathered) given people the ability to edit the wiki from mobile. Moving forward as planned just gets more push back in my opinion, forcing it upon us when we don't want something is something that kills wiki communities. Example being the hunger games wiki, where i used to frequent. Continuous Wikia changes we had no choice in forced people who used to chat and edit away from the wiki, effectively driving it and the people who met on it apart.
Fusion Enforcer DBD AbyssxVfyPws.png

RE:Discussions and looking ahead

Thanks for your message Bert. I will continue to put effort into Discussions as long as it is part of this wiki. That being said, however, I do want to mention that regardless of my stance on the matter, I must defer to our community's consensus on the removal of the feature. I fully agree with most of the points that you have made over the course of this conversation and I would personally like to see Discussions being used more often and with greater enthusiasm, but long has our community operated under consensus, and I don't find acting against an established one to be wise or at all beneficial to the wiki in the long run. I believe Sam is going to handle bringing this to Jen Burton as you mentioned on his talk page.

I would also like to note that I am fully aware and keen to accept the fact that Fandom/Wikia is a for-profit company that is operating in a capitalist environment and will naturally move forward with objectives that they believe will increase readership and user retention in order to create ad revenue. My assumption is that corporate wants to roll this feature out globally based on their market research providing positive numbers for a variety of communities and based on the lack of much detriment to wikis on which the feature is not heavily used: Whether this is a wise choice is not my place to say since I am not educated in the area. I also understand that you are just doing your job when debating this issue here with our community--Please understand that any vitriol you have received over this issue is wholly misplaced and not representative of how we on this wiki operate when faced with a popular topic like this. Wikia has made very clear that they value community input and would like to cater to each wiki when and where possible, and so I can see where the distrust comes from for some of our users when requests for comment on Discussions is met with silence or refusal on staff's end, but I would hope that the same users can understand that Wikia will sometimes make the move they feel is right for the entire network even when specific communities are opposed (sometimes vehemently). Some may see this as a defeatist viewpoint, but none of us here are part of Wikia corporate and thus cannot reasonably speak on whether this choice is correct for everyone across the network.

Lastly I'd like to thank you for putting in the time to lay out your side of the argument in such detail on our forums so that everyone can (hopefully) be aware of both sides, and doing so in a non-intrusive and pleasant manner. It is greatly appreciated and I hope to be able to properly reference your additions to our forum at a later date where applicable. Up until the point that Discussions may be disabled, I will do my best to work with it and our users to create an environment more welcoming and beneficial to the wiki. Joe Copp 23:28, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Response

RE:RE:Your Message

Thanks for the reply. I feel like, while your plan for the future of discussions is reasonable, it doesn't have the potential as much on this wiki. While discussions moving ahead would be good for the network and users. It's something that requires easing and to be talked out on all sides till both are happy about what it brings, what's required and if they want it. rather than making a wiki have it that has voted otherwise, which to us feels as if Wikia is shunning our opinion in favour of what they want

I understand Wikia/Fandom is constantly evolving and changing when a wiki is as deep rooted into policies and our order as we are it's going to be met with some hesitation and backlash. Given the backlash received here over the forced implementation my honest thoughts would be it would be best served in a newer wiki where people aren't into established ways of doing things, or a wiki that is more social and continuous in it's topic.

Being a once a year deal, many discussion topics get rather old rather quickly. Whereas something like Discussions would be put to best use on a wiki for say, a weekly TV series. so that users can start discussions over recent episodes, spoilers, predictions for the series and such i.e Flash, The 100, Game of Thrones etc… whereas here I feel it would be best served on reveal, each trailer, and then launch. then maybe 3-4 times through the year on DLC. Aside from that it can be cluttered with posts of people looking to play together.

The community here has grown throughout the years and evolved. It's taken blows from games that aren't always good and stagnation of the series. But most of all we keep on doing what we do. I won't speak for the wiki but i'll speak for myself that discussions is a good prospect, maybe after the middle-step and there's editing the users here may become more open to it. I just don't believe it's right for the wiki at this point in time.


Fusion Enforcer DBD AbyssxVfyPws.png 00:26, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.