Forum:Adding Live! Chat

Over the past few weeks, we've had a massive influx in blog posts, and many users made various criticisms of these blogs, including but not limited to:
 * The blog is short and and not really significant.
 * The blog is a duplicate of a blog made by another user.
 * The blogs are leading to flamewars.
 * The blog has been dead for some time, but has been unsuccessfully bumped by it's owner.
 * The blog is being advertised across several others despite having no relevance to the them.

Meanwhile, blogs which would normally have gained a lot of traffic were left in the dust by the constantly updating activity feeds, and there have been relatively little edits made to the articles. How can we resolve this? Other wikis I frequent have a Live! Chat function. I think it would definitely help cut down on an overload of recent activity. I like to follow blogs, but if I can't see the interesting one because users are arguing over whether or not it's appropriate to comment on every reply, then it's just pointless to try. The presence of a Live! Chat function would allow us to ask simple questions or have general discussions about whatever without clogging up the recent activity. I really think that this would be a great step in getting things back on track around here, and I think that's a cause everyone can get behind.

Just a quick message to TW6464: Before you assume the worst, I really did try to find blogs that weren't made by you to use as examples, but I honestly couldn't. The comments of your blogs really were a hotbed of evidence, if you want me to put a positive spin on things. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 04:43, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Soon, I've drafting up a concept for Live! Chat rules. Obviously, they've been modified a bit, as I made a few changes that I felt were more agreeable. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 22:44, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
While I can only support ending "blog spam", I'd need some clarification on what exactly this would involve before I'd support it.--Zxjkl (talk) 04:49, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * We would be adding a Live! Chat function to the wiki. The Dragon Age wiki has it, among others. It's a chatroom. Posts made there do not appear on recent activity, allowing for a more casual form of conversation. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 04:54, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would gladly support a live chat feature considering I'm a frequent user of DA Wiki's and Nukapedia's. I would think the only real problem would be finding chat mods but that shouldn't be too much of a problem.Aleksandr the Great (talk) 05:51, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I have time for that, but I'm sure there are others who could step up to the plate. I'm currently doing research on other wikis with Live! Chat to see if they have different sets of rules for chat, since it's designed for informal communication. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 05:56, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you added some links to some wikis that have the live chat enabled. This is the only wiki I regularly visit, so I haven't seen all of Wikia's features. A few questions: Trandra (talk) 05:58, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Would the admins have to police this along with their normal duties? (Though it would cut down on the current hundreds of blog comments they had to read anyway, so maybe it's a moot point.)
 * 2) Are the chats logged somewhere? Example off the top of my head: the strict language policy on this wiki combined with the instant nature of a chatroom...basically, not good. If the chats disappear, it would look like users are banned for no reason.
 * 3) How many users do you think would frequent it? This might be put to the test when actually implemented, but maybe a poll could test the waters. I know the admins have dismissed the live chat suggestion before because of low traffic.
 * I'm gathering information on these points as we speak. For now, I know that the Dragon Age, Call of Duty and Fallout wikis all have it. Special "Chat Mods" can be appointed on the fly to police the chat if needed. As for traffic, I'll have to do research, but I will say that there's no inherent harm done if the Chat has low traffic every once in a while. Better to have it and not need it than have to go through this process again the next time we have a blog overdose. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 06:08, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the chat is logged - this has been used recently to perma ban an offending user on the Dragon Age wiki. Apart from this one case, though, I am not aware of problems with improper behaviour, but the DA wiki is generally a highly civilised and friendly place. The chat is quite busy, I'd say - 4-5 users on average, I guess, but 8-10 is no exception. The more people, the merrier the party :-) -- Ygrain
 * To clarify: I saw chat logs directly quoted in connection with the permabanned person, and the discussion at that time was revolving about using the log as proof of his improper behaviour. - But of course, the really knowledgeable person is down here :-) --Ygrain (talk) 15:21, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was curious since I was asked about the chat on the Dragon Age Wiki. To clarify: the chat logs are not automatically logged, so you must save the logs yourself. There's a script to get a bot to actually post them on the wiki (the Bleach Wiki does that—you may ask Godisme for instructions). In regards to said user that was banned, it's an inevitability, but he wasn't banned because of the chat. We do have another user permanently banned from the chat after being kicked and warned several times, but that was last year.


 * In regards to traffic, we gave an one-week trial, and while it's not super popular (we have very quiet days), it's a great feature to discuss with other users, whether it's about the series, the wiki (exchanging ideas for articles, quick questions), or just about anything. It's simply more convenient in some cases than using talk pages or the forums, for me anyway. --··· d·day! 14:56, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I asked D-Day, the Dragon Age wiki admin, about their chat policy: "We do not have any specific rules on the chat as we've never got around to actually write them, but we have not seen the need to do so yet. We are much more lenient regarding conduct in the chat than in the forums and blogs. It has worked for us so far, and it's generally the same people who hang on the chat. I suggest checking Nukapedia's rules for their chat." You can see Nukapedia's rules here. I think they're reasonable. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 14:36, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

While I do understand and approve of the motives behind this, I do not like this idea.I can honestly say I will never use chat, and I can see how it could be a problem for administrators to monitor.

Additionally, while we may have a blog problem now, the fact that the only evidence you could were blogs created by the same user shows me it's not really community problem, but rather that that user needs to tone it down a bit.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:49, September 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * D-day brought up a great point&mdash;live chat would also cut down on the administration of Talk pages. We would potentially see far fewer edits that say, "That is not what Talk pages are for," clogging the RC page. ;-)


 * I see that Nukapedia runs the administration of their much differently than is run here. They have different 5 different levels of permissions, whereas we have 3. They also have far more special rights users than we have here. This is why the question of who would moderate the chat is important&mdash;our two active administrators (and active bureaucrat) exert much more control on this wiki compared to others and may be unwilling to have another responsibility thrust upon them. Would we appoint special chat moderators? Would senior editors be chat moderators?


 * I actually am in favor of the idea, but we need to hammer out the details. Trandra (talk) 16:36, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * People will always be asking stupid questions on talk pages, whether it be with this policy or without it, so that should not be a factor.


 * Again, I see this making administrators jobs harder, as either they would have to constantly monitor, or special moderators would, and even then they would still have to report to an admin for a ban to take place (unless there is a way to ban someone from chat but not the wiki).


 * One of the points of having the RC is to be able to monitor everything with one page, chat would ruin that as you can't see it on the RC.--Legionwrex (talk) 16:51, September 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * One would almost think that the moment the chat starts, people will run amok calling each other names. I'd really like to believe that the ME wiki users are a bit more mature than that, and that the admins really needn't oversee every single comment. A chat moderator would be fine, especially if it's someone with good people skills, and then there are the users themselves who can do a lot of the moderating by themselves and report abusive behaviour if the offender cannot be reasoned with. --Ygrain (talk) 17:23, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if in reality most Mass Effect wiki users were mature, sadly, in reality most editors are one-time users who come here solely to socialize, and they act pretty immature. I can see how chat could turn into something worse than the current blog situation, where users are constantly talking in "leet speak" and starting flamewars.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:30, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is the evil of socialising? Over at the DA, I see a pretty tightly-knit community, treating each other with respect. Have you ever given thought to the idea that if a one-time editor feels welcome, they might stay and contribute, become a part of the community and further cement its standards? --Ygrain (talk) 17:36, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already said, it's because of their immaturity. If the want to socialize, go to Facebook or Twitter, just don't bring your flamewars and leet speak here. Most of the time the community is pretty welcoming to these people, it's just that when they do idiotic things and get in trouble, they almost always look around and say "What I do, what I do?".--Legionwrex (talk) 17:43, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I am for anything that cleans up the Recent Activity page. No matter how little or big it may. I like reading and talking and responding to some of the blogs, but it makes it almost impossible for me to see what pages have been changed recently and watch edits.--Xaero Dumort (talk) 17:13, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think the chat would be a solution to that. If there is a point worth discussing in a blog/forum, people will still want to discuss it there, will read other people's comments and develop on them. Elsewhere, I suggested a filter for the Recent Activity page, if such a thing is possible. --Ygrain (talk) 17:23, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, whether or not to implement chat is up to the community, but the implementation itself and the rules and procedures that will govern chat will be handled by the admins. We're looking at Nukapedia's model for the rule set, and I'll be suggesting to the other admins that senior editors also be given chat moderation rights, since I doubt admins could simultaneously juggle patrolling the wiki and the chat alone. But all of that depends on whether or not chat is approved by the community in the first place. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm Agent C from Nukapedia. I hear and see you're looking at our rules as a guide for maybe brining in chat here. We're voting on a few small amendments but overall they seem to work well. If there's anything you'd like to know about the rules, how they work, enforcement, or anything else we might be able to offer from experience, feel free to hit me up. Agent c (talk) 17:39, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

i for one do not want unfunny and oftentimes idiotic comments spamming the RC. sure we can filter out the forums/blogs if we wish but if the only things on RC are pointless drama/"debates" all the time rather than mainspace updates it's better to move such puerilities to chat. where people can sort out their problems much quicker without having to grace the rest of us with irrelevance. now for some suggestions if the chat idea is going to fly. an additional usergroup by the category of chat mods? i think they should be distinct from senior eds because -if- admins start appointing users as "senior" editors solely for the chat mod powers and their inclination to socialize rather than making mainspace edits (i'm not saying the admins -will-, just -if-) that'll give the wrong impression those users were actually contributing more to the mainspace than on blogs/forums/chat. we peons casual users would rather discuss mainspace changes with senior eds who know the ropes rather than "senior" eds who were simply given the title because it has chat mod powers. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 17:51, September 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * If we end up giving senior editors chat moderation rights in addition to rollback, it wouldn't affect how senior editors are selected. Elevation to senior editor status is reserved for users who demonstrate excellence in their contributions to the wiki; we don't consider blog and forum comments to be contributions, even if the edit counter at the top of every user's page does. Chat moderation would be an additional responsibility for senior editors, but never a priority over their patrolling duties. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:16, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * well that certainly clarifies things, thank you for that. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 18:21, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I would ask that everyone cease commenting for a few minutes as I have to take care of something with the page because of how this was set up. Commenting will resume once this is done and this is not an attempt to shut this down however this page is not in the proper place nor is it set up properly. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:22, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ok thank you for everyone not commenting. I have since moved this into the Projects Forum because the Policy Forum isn't the place for this. Policy forum pages are for things that are under immediate vote, not for discussing things. Once this discussion is concluded, then it can move to the Policy Forum for the vote on whether or not to implement chat. The Projects forum is the place to hammer things out, not to talk then vote. Voting is to commence immediatly in the Policy Forum, not after the discussion. Thank you. If you have questions, then direct them to my talk page. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:29, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving it. I had initially intended to go straight to vote, but I decided it would be better to do some research on other Live! Chat wikis so that the community here was more clear on what the change would bring. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 19:40, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to expand on what LegionWrex said about how I'm allegedly singling out TW6464. Honest to god, that was a very unfortunate coincidence. I went out of my way to find blogs that weren't made by him that would make good examples, but they were practically non-existent. The key is to look at the comments in those blogs, as many of the related problems lie therein. Many different users contributed to those blogs, and we're all guilty in some way of helping this problem along. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 19:40, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you where singling him out, my point was that we shouldn't let the actions of one user allow this to happen, the fact that the only blogs with these problems are TW6464's only strengthens my point (I'm sorry if I'm offending you TW, that is not my nor Mr.Mittens intention).--Legionwrex (talk) 21:08, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's the few who ruin it for the many. (I'm not calling anyone out, this is just a life lesson I've learned in my life) Bluegear93 (talk) 21:12, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, many people other than TW, probably including myself, were causing problems in the comments of blogs he created. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 21:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, I may be included myself, I just say it's just bad luck that TW was all of the examples. And like you said there are other examples other than TW. Bluegear93 (talk) 21:27, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking through the Dragon Age chat archives, if I find what I hope I don't find, it will negatively affect how I view chat.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:23, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * And it would appear my fears were confirmed.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:58, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Link please. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:01, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that big of a deal, at least not in relation to this discussion, it was more of an issue about what people where saying about you and me on the Dragon Age Wiki's chat. Take a look a D-days talk page on the Dragon Age wiki, under the section "Chat Archives" if you want to see the discussion.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:16, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what that has to do with my policy. This is clearly a personal issue between you and the Dragon Age wiki, and has no place on the Mass Effect wiki. Any further discussion of this issue should be done there. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 22:25, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, Mr.Mittens. I apologize for bringing a personal issue up, it will not affect my vote, let me assure you of that.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:50, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Mittens is half right here. Yes it was a personal issue that shouldn't be here, but at the same time, it does point out a problem. If people will just use chat to do nothing but complain, then perhaps that is a problem. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:52, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * What the people are or are not complaining about on the Dragon Age wiki chat should in no way be considered a problem for our chat. I remind you that they do not have any policies regarding Live! Chat on the Dragon Age wiki, and so they were likely free to do whatever it is alleged they did. We will probably be integrating a chat policy into this proposal. However, it is important to remember that Live! Chat is designed for informal, general communication, and the policies must reflect that. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 00:00, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the Chat Policy draft is up, so you can check it out. Remember that it's based after chat policies that seem to be working fine for other wikis, so consider that if that you consider the policy to be too lenient, even though that's the point. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 22:44, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Question;when you are banned, is it just from chat, or the wiki in general?--Legionwrex (talk) 22:49, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Voting
Voting has not yet begun.