Forum:Additions to Chat Rules

Ever since the launch of the chat feature, there have ideas that have been thrown around and some good some bad. However, several have kept coming back, both influenced by past experiences, past instances in dealing with behavior, and a number of other things. Therefore, the following rules will be added to the Policies regarding Chat and they are as follows. Rules will be broken up by sections or a new section if applicable.

All rule additions are in blockquote form.

New Section: Accessing Chat: "In order to utilize the Chat Live! feature of the Mass Effect Wiki, a user must accumulate Fifty (50) mainspace edits. Of these 50, 25 of these edits have to be meaningful edits and 25 can be small, correction type edits. What type of edits count are edits to any article. What types of edits do not count are talk page edits, user page edits, sandbox edits, user talk page edits, blog comments, blog space, forum space, or uploads. They must be mainspace edits and have to be meaningful edits that result in positive change. Edits are classified as follows:
 * Correction type edits are classified as, but are not limited to, adding categories, fixing spelling errors, fixing grammar errors, fixing Shepard gender references, or small things of that nature.
 * Meaningful edits are classified as, but are not limited to, rewriting paragraphs to make them more readable, adding several valuable player notes, adding new content, or adding missed content.
 * All edits are evaluated by Admins for legitimacy and Admins and Chat Moderators reserve the right to kick users without notice or warning if they do not meet this criteria.
 * Note that if an edit is undone, it may or may not count towards either quota.

A user must have a valid account with the Mass Effect Wiki for 14 days (2 weeks). Meaning that in order to use the feature, you must have been editing for 2 weeks before getting access to the feature.

If a Chat Moderator is uncertain if a user has meet the criteria, then they reserve the right to allow a user to stay or kick them at their prerogative and forward the case to an admin for review. The admin can either agree or overrule the decision but must respect the decision the Chat Moderator’s decision at the time."

Under Grounds for Blocking Headline: "If a user who has been banned from Chat Live! in the last 30 days, they will not be permitted to use the feature. Once the 30 day period expires after the ban expires, then and only then will they be permitted to utilize the feature. A user in violation of this policy will be warned, both in chat and on their talk page, and if they do not abide by the warning, they face another longer block."

Under Consequences Headline: "A user may question why they were kicked to the appropriate person, the person who kicked them, a Chat Moderator, or an Admin. Admins again do maintain the right to overrule Chat Moderators on this decision."

For

 * 1) As Proposer. Lancer1289 (talk) 06:53, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems reasonable. It will weed out undesirables from the Chat.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 7:29, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:53, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I have already said I supported this.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:09, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Commdor (Talk) 18:56, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm for this, though lowering the number of edits would be appreciated--TW6464 (talk) 14:48, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Change of heart. It does seem like a good idea. Not like my vote is going to do anything though. Sqarkplugz (talk)

Neutral

 * 1) meh. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 08:34, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) fime either way--Agentsmit58 (talk) 05:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Meaningful mainspace edits can be hard to come by, so 25 may be too many. Neutral. BeoW0lfe (talk) 14:37, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) Bad50cal (talk) 11:06, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't believe that wikia's features are meant for a club of exclusives. --Ygrain (talk) 11:50, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Against. Trandra (talk) 16:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) So just because I'm not one of editors I can't have my rights? I'm FULLY against new rules. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 17:38, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) STRONGLY against. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 22:46, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Never. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 04:21, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I strongly disagree, for reasons I shall articulate in the discussion section below. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 05:51, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Opposed -Algol- (talk) 07:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) strongly against --DeldiRe 09:25, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Opposed. Lksdjf (talk) 10:46, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Opposed. Introduce a bit of Anarchy (talk) 13:03, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Taxation without representation and all that whatnot. Opposed. HELO (talk) 14:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Gotta be against. What if I can't see a problem with a page? I'm here for knowledge, I read knowledge. -- Trewsq
 * 14) Strongly opposed, for the same reasons The Milkman posted below. Additionally, not every user can make "big" edits here. There will eventually be a time where our articles' paragraphs are already worded almost perfectly. Let's also not forget that there is not that much information left to add to the wiki&mdash;or at least information that is significant. What I'm trying to say is, not everyone will be able to make significant edits in time, giving few users a chance at chat.-- 20:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Made up my mind—these suggestions penalize new users merely for being new users and value quantity of edits over quality of information given. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 21:07, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Can you clarify the last paragraph "Under consequences Headline"? Are you referring to the moderator's decision on how to respond to the question from a kicked user?--SolitaryReaper (talk) 7:28, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the decision itself. Admins have always had the ability to override Chat Mods on bans and lengths of bans. The decision whether or not to answer is theirs. If they want to forward the case to an admin, fine, if they want to answer it themselves fine. Lancer1289 (talk) 07:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

a bunch of consequences if this passes:
 * weeding out chat undesirables (are there any?). good idea if there are more of this than people with genuine queries about ME.
 * may will put off ME newcomers about the "unwelcoming" state of the wiki community however.
 * more blog/forum posts and RC clogging (as if it wasn't already) since people who see no real need to contribute (or can't because they're literally new to the franchise) will have to do so. except that the track record of unanswered blogs/forum posts speak for themselves: obvious questions get no answers, people with no wiki-cred get no comments. chat's one easy way to get their queries answered quickly and by the time they fulfilled the necessary criteria to participate legally they would've probably known the answer to their questions or forgotten about it completely.
 * a bunch of chat regulars and blog regulars barely even meet the above stipulations. chat's going to be a lot emptier as if it wasn't already. unless the blog regulars take a break from throwing worthless opinions around and start caring about policy that threatens their "rights" expect them to clog the blogs even more if they're denied chat.
 * to that end, chatmods should probably shoulder the duty of spamming the link to this forum on chat (or even the targeted users' talkpages) as often as possible during the voting period. wouldn't be fair to deny proper representation to the targeted groups. plus those in disagreement won't have any reason to say "i didn't know about this".

as for myself, i mostly use chat to get people to confirm some things asap, so long as i get people who can confirm whatever it is i need confirming at the moment i don't really care. months or years for simple confirmation of disputed info on some things (people apparently can't be bothered to read article talkpages most of the time) is hilariously unacceptable and this is why chat exists in my book. doesn't matter if MEwiki newbie, chat regular, blog regular or admin. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 08:34, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I can see the pros and cons to this. Chat will become even more deserted with less traffic, yet at the same time more people will migrate back to blogs. However, more mainspace edits will also start to appear. If we are going to do this, we might consider doing something like this to blogs as well.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the recent mushrooming of blogs is something to be concerned about, as it drags people's attention away from mainspace edits. Also, the new chat policies will get us more mainspace edits and will dissuade people from being lazy.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 17:50, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * "more mainspace edits will also start to appear" You guys really think so? --Ygrain (talk) 18:02, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly do.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:05, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * As do I. I see more and more people in chat who have never edited the mainspace, are ignorant of site policies, and do not bother to read anything for that matter. This is still a feature of the Wiki, and therefore they should have to contribute to use it. It isn't an executives club, and the user who said that is really just using rhetoric to get their point across. It is also a rather insulting statement to say the least. And if a user cannot live without chat, then they really need to rethink why they are here. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:52, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I am going to say this now and I really do not care at this point what anyone says. If you really have a problem with this policy, then you need to reevaluate why you are here. This is not an extension of BSN, this is a completely different site. This is a content based site, not a social site. The Chat is a feature of the site, not the main focus of the site. The focus of the site is maintaining articles, keeping this up to date, and provide a source for all ME canon information. Content first, socializing second. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:00, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Very true. Most people on the chat are equating it to the wiki; it has become Mass Effect Wiki = Live! Chat, which is ridiculous and absolutely incorrect. People are supposed to contribute and enjoy the chat at the same time, not exploit the wiki for the chat's availability.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 20:11, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a bit as if you said that people shouldn't be reading the wiki if they don't contribute. Not what you meant, I hope. --Ygrain (talk) 11:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with people coming here solely for the purposes of chat? If they don't edit, but instead decide to join the chat room to talk with other users, how is the counter productive? Someone's motivation for visiting chat seems irrelevant, and I honestly don't see a problem with more chat traffic. It's not usually that busy, and with this policy in place, we'll likely lose even more people. This honestly sounds like a non-issue. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 12:37, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * If people come here solely for the use of chat, then in their eyes, this wiki is another BSN, which is not at all the main purpose of this wiki. This wiki is about content first, socializing second, and do not quip that I am quoting Lancer, its true, it has always been its true purpose, regardless of how people look at the wiki nowadays. I am a regular user of chat and I see people who are never seen in this wiki and are showing up only for chatting, thereby exploiting the wiki for the chat. Now they are taking advantage of the wiki for socializing. That's what is not right, all taking and no giving shouldn't be the case, but it is.


 * True, the chat traffic is not very high, but that is because the feature is relatively new. Implementing the policy is not for dissuading new users, its for making people understand what's fair, contribute and enjoy the chat, not taking things for granted.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 19:12, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Notice how all the comments here are almost entirely by people who supported the vote. Interesting...--Legionwrex (talk) 00:02, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because no one who votes against can come up with a real reason they oppose it. Or they don't want to be away from the precious chat for longer than 10 seconds for an actual debate. I have several reasons but I will keep them to myself for now. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:05, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be the point I was trying to secretly get across.--Legionwrex (talk) 00:10, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I am beyond caring. I feel that pointing out the obvious at this point is probably better for everyone. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:27, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

While I do think it is reasonable for users to have to earn a privilege, I can see how it would turn off newcomers—or encourage new users to quickly make numerous low-quality edits in order to (try to) meet the criteria. I think that newer users should have a "grace period" where they have some time to meet the fifty-edit requirement, during which time they would still be required to have a (lower) certain number of edits in order to use the chat. As it stands now, I'm on the fence about this idea. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 00:48, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. Grace periods only work if people actually edit and get familiar with the rules and policies. They actually have a grace period of 2 weeks before they can use it, and allowing them in sooner doesn't make sense because someone can spam the required edits in a hour, get on, then proceed to violate policies which they know nothing about. The rules and policies here will ensure that users know those policies beforehand. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:04, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Chat is supposed to encourage users to come and chat with other users and be part of a community alongside a comprehensive wiki. I feel this will not only act counter against the feature itself, but also harm the main space as well. This could easily result in an influx of pointless edits made for the sole purpose of getting into chat. This is very similar to achievements. I can respect not having them, because after all, they can result in people editing just to boost for achievements. Also, as I said, this discourages new users from using the chat room. Chat should be a quicker way of gaining information and talking with new users, not an exclusive club for people who are here just to edit the main space. For more than any reason, I believe people come here because they love Mass Effect, not because they want to edit pages. Now some do, but not all. This also doubles as a community of fans. I understand that this wiki has tighter regulations and more comprehensive policies when it comes to editing, and I'm fine with that. This is a high-traffic wiki for a popular game. The end result is, of course, a clean and concise wiki. However, there is no need to restrict the community aspect like this. This can encourage unnatural edits, as I've stated, from people who just want to get into chat. People should edit where/when they see a problem, or a lack of information. In addition, I feel that this will increase the amount of forum threads and blogs that are, to be frank, utterly meaningless. I really see no point in restricting who can and cannot enter the chat room. I don't see what is gained in doing this. This wiki's chat room, as with many others (even the popular ones), is rarely overpopulated, so I don't really see the point. A chat room can help make the wiki more accessible to new users, but having to wait two weeks and make 50 edits feels like a needless restriction that will either discourage the new user from becoming part of this project, or encourage them to make unhealthy edits and create short, pointless blogs that could have been otherwise served better as a chat room discussion. Doing this doesn't really yield any benefit, and having more people in the chat room can't really be viewed as a bad thing. A chat room full of users on the other hand, can promote conversation and discussion amongst the community members, which itself can be a boon for this wiki.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 06:04, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick question addressed to Phantom Bootie Slap: What do you mean by "So just because I'm not one of editors I can't have my rights?" Several things puzzle me here. First off... how are you not an editor. Anyone who makes an edit is an editor. Secondly, how is chat a "right"? Where is the right to unimpeded access to a Mass Effect Wiki chat codified? Who guarantees said "right"? Third, if you're not here to edit... why are you here?
 * People are making this out to be something it's not. It's not a policy meant to exclude people, and it's certainly not (IMO) excessive. Many other wikis have similar policies, and many other wikis have much stricter policies. You can't VOTE on Wookieepedia without racking up a certain number of mainspace edits. The admins will literally see who voted, check their edit history, and throw out the votes of people who don't qualify. THAT is an exclusionary and excessive policy. This is not. SpartHawg948 (talk) 06:45, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but the sore state of civil and human rights in North Korea doesn't make me feel any better about issues in my own country. I do not care about other wiki’s rules, what concerns me is this particular wiki of the game which I enjoyed more than almost any other. I also believe that a main purpose of a wiki is to share information, not to be edited, and that “open” here correlates with “equal” - a principle the breach of which I find absolutely unacceptable, as well as the condescension showed by some users towards “undesirables”, or to some users' low participation, not realizing that this might well be due to work and family duties or lack of editing skills, none of which should bar the person from being able to use a wiki feature. I see no problem with newbies going to the chat, as it is a quick way of making oneself familiar with the wiki and the regulars, and ignorance of rules can easily be rectified. If they keep breaking the rules, they can get banned like everyone else, based on the current rules. Barring all newbies from the chat because some of them may have misbehaved is application of collective guilt, and that is something I cannot agree with, either. --Ygrain (talk) 11:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * North Korea has nothing to do with any of this. The main purpose of this wiki is to read and add canon, valid information. Unfortunately, most people are only doing the first, and not the second. All it is are 50 edits, some users can make that in a day. It is not a hard thing to do, and people can fit it in. All this policy asks is that you contribute a little bit in order to get access to a secondary feature, and that is fair and reasonable..--Legionwrex (talk) 15:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Truly, North Korea has nothing to do with our issue - the "sweet lemon" or "it ain't that bad as compared to others", a huge lot. And it doesn't matter in the least whether 50 edits are doable or not (and, BTW, it is rather entitled to throw out such general statements about users whose background you know nothing about - FYI, I consider myself pretty profficient with English words, yet I'm still uncomfortable about wording encyclopaedic entries), as there is no justified reason why such a requiremenet should be in practice in the first place. Your work is being used by thousands of people who never contribute, or even leave a word of appreciation for the huge undertaking that the wiki is; discriminating against the ones who do care enough to stay seems really over the top.--Ygrain (talk) 17:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not entitled, it's a fact. He wrote a whole paragraph perfectly fine in English, he can add a sentence or two. There is a justified reason, many people are coming here solely for chat and not even looking at the policies (given that you are not a CM, you can not know how annoying it is), with this policy, we give them the ability to use a secondary feature in exchange for a little work (which apparently, is such a bad thing now days). Additionally, I find the fact that many of these users first edits are voting down this policy to be ironic, to say the least.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Legionwrex, but unless you have contributed yourself to an encyclopaedia which is not in your native language, I'm afraid you are not fit to judge what is or is not a difficulty for a non-native user, so, have you? And please, don't lecture me on annoyance of dealing with the unruly and repeating things over and over, I'm a teacher. True enough, I get paid for it, but on the other hand, no-one held a gun to your head to make you a Chat Mod, or have they? Also, I see you use the words "priviledge of chat" - so, is this really about priviledged and unpriviledged users? --Ygrain (talk) 20:09, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Why are we are if it is not to edit ? First, the main point of this wiki is to find relevant information about an universe that we all like. After that if we can see that some information are lacking or are false we can begin to edit but why do we need to edit when it is not needed ? I do want to do my best for this wiki that i really like but : - English is not my mother language - I work from 8AM till 19 PM, when can i find the time to make plenty of edit ? - I have no skills with photoshop or equivalent so i will not upload bad screenshot for the pleassure of uploading screenshot and overwhelming the servers in doing so - The wiki is already full of information, there is not much we can be added, at least if you want to meet quality criteria - When a new content come in the universe of ME, the new edits are coming so fast that you don't always have the time to be the first, and there is no point of rushing to be the first and risking a bad/wrong edit.

For those reasons, do i have to be banned from the chat despite the fact that i m a great followers and that i try to make relevant remarks when i think that it is relevant ? This new chat policy willl not meet its objectives and will have too much side effects to be implemented. Nevertheless, it can be usefull to have some low restrictions to avoid spammers and vandals flooding the chat.--DeldiRe 09:47, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just by the fact you typed that comment shows enough understanding of english to make minor and some major edits. It's only 50 edits, you can fit it in.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should judge this policy in relation to other wikis. Better does not necessarily mean good. I don't really see the need for this, besides weeding out editors who don't make a specific amount of edits in certain places. What are the benefits to such a policy?

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 06:50, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * The benefits are already states and Spart hit the nail on the head with what this is going to do and what this is to accomplish. Lancer1289 (talk) 07:14, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with more chat traffic, and I don't really think this will encourage more constructive edits. If anything, this will lead to edits made purely for the sake of being able to chat. It's like I said with achievements. Why don't we have them? Won't it also encourage more editing?

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 07:17, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

25 mainspace edits, seriously? I don't have that many on DA wiki, despite being somewhat notable member of the community, who uses the chat frequently. But nobody had an idea to deny me the opportunity to use it.

What if a person really wants to edit, but does not have 25 mainspace edits yet, and finds the guidelines unsatisfactory? This person might ask for advice in the chat, because it's fast, convenient real-time conversation. You're denying the opportunity.

I don't see any point to this at all, unless you really want to make the chat "a club for the privileged", like the VIP section of Afterlife. -Algol- (talk) 07:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if anything chat can become a "club for the people who are capable a making edits". It may be fine on the DA wiki, but we're not the DA wiki are we? We are asking tit for tat, 50 edits for Chat privileges. It is not a hard thing to accomplish.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why make it a club? That only serves to exclude people. Not everyone can make 50 edits. Keep in mind how comprehensive this wiki is. You are encouraging people to go out and make pointless edits and pointless blogs. Hard or not, there's no reason to implement this. It accomplishes nothing. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 15:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

strongly against : I don't believe that wikia's features are meant for a club of exclusives. I'm a great follower of this wiki and i do some comments on talk page or some minor edit when i see that it can be relevant. Nevertheless, i do not meet those criterias. Do you think that i do not deserve to acces the chat ? This new rules policy could be push away new comers from the wikia. For me, before editing it is really relevant to learn about how the wiki is made and how the edition must be done. Pushing the edit to have access to the chat will lead to useless and irrelevant edit in an "edit run to the chat". However, to avoid spammer and vandals, the rules could be soften like subscribed since one week or something like that. But more will lead to push away new comers in the mass effect universe or new comers in this wikia. Is that what we want ?--DeldiRe 09:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Chat is a privilege that the admins added, it is not a right. You functioned before fine without chat, you can do it again. 50 edits are not hard, stop acting like they are.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:33, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't an actual argument in favour of it. You may be fine with 50 edits, but forcing people to edit unnaturally for the sake of editing is pointless, can lead to boosting, discourages new users, and stifles the community. So far, the only reasoning you've presented is "I can't tolerate other people who don't work as hard on the project as I do." Not everyone has to or even wants to. If they want to chat without editing, and it doesn't harm the wiki, there's no problem. To say that people should be stripped of a feature, merely because you feel they aren't working as hard as you, strikes me as intolerant. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 16:03, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an actual argument. This place is for information, not socializing. All we are asking is that you help contribute a little bit. As to "unnatural edits" (whatever that means) a valid edit is a valid edit, it doesn't mater if it was natural or forced.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:23, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just saying, wouldn't it just be a unnecessary obstacle? on the chat, Legion said 'just go edit on the walkthrough, minor edits' Introduce a bit of Anarchy (talk) 16:54, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that people are taking this policy personal and making 50 MS edits before using Chat such a big deal shows a lot about what this wiki is coming to. Perhaps chat should have never been implemented in the first place.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:28, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Milkman's argument is essentially the same as mine. Not every user will see corrections or improvements to articles, and editing will necessarily decrease as less information flows into the wiki, either from the Mass Effect universe or from user knowledge. Editing for the sake of editing is a pointless gesture; the small edits that I do from time to time are my attempt to reduce verbosity and colloquialism, and to spruce up the grammar. I don't want to see edits that only attempt to change the style in which the information is conveyed and that don't attempt to reduce the verbiage that can clutter this site. If an editor wants to do that, he or she should be prepared to rework the entire page to make it flow in a particular fashion. Lksdjf (talk) 17:40, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, edits like that will be reverted. This wiki had a steady stream of edits before Chat, heck, it was even larger. If anything, this policy will increase MS edits no matter how you cut it.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:47, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

It seems my use of the word "undesirables" have sparked off a lot of protests. Let me make this clear, that was not meant as an insult to any specific group of people on the wiki. It was more of a general statement. Since the introduction of the chat, there have been a lot of new people who have been visiting this wiki. Since I am a regular chat user and I see people who are not even familiar with the wiki policies and treat them as jokes when reminded about them. So are we going to have chat filled with disrespectful people who come in here thinking they can do whatever they want and expect not to be reprimanded for it? We do need to take a hard line on such people, thereby implementing this policy, which will familiarize them with the wiki policies, teach them to be a bit more respectful of the policies and eventually make them valuable contributors. Its just infuriating that people are treating the wiki as another BSN with nor regard for rules and regulations. So, again I am saying, the word "undesirables" was not meant for any existing group of people already present on this wiki.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 19:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what we call "pouring out the water as well as the baby from the bathtub." The proposed measure affects not only brand new people but a considerable portion of regulars, and it affect well-intentioned newbies, as well. If people break the rules, they are to be warned, and if they do not heed, they are to be banned from the chat. If somebody causes a problem, do take a hard line - at a particular person for a particular offence, no generalisation. Perhaps it might be a good idea to put up a sign, e.g. "just ME talk and no swearwords, please" just next to the chat feature, to make them aware that the chat is regulated. Also, you can bring other chat users to participate and maintain the regs and help the newbies make their way around.--Ygrain (talk) 20:09, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment shows just the problem. People do not read site policies, because they do not know they exist or they just do not give a care! That said, I have noticed that some people just do not care. There are also others who think that the Chat feature is an extension of BSN and/or not subject to the rules here. Now this will make them aware of policies before they can engage in a feature of the site. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:18, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * People on chat are breaking too many policies, Ygrain. They either harass other people, or break language policies. They even resort to whining when their horribly messed up edits are reverted. This shows people are not respecting policies and taking things for granted. This new policy will educate them about the rules of the wiki, as they are apparently incapable of reading about them on their own. This will be good for everyone in the long run. This is not a vendetta against non-contributors, its only a means to familiarize them with policies so that they don't get themselves into trouble by breaking policies. People need to drill this inside their heads: This is not an extension of BSN--SolitaryReaper (talk) 20:28, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I can feel for your frustration, SR, but this is not the way. For each barred unruly individual, how many prospective contributors will you lose? I agree that a solution is required, but not this one. Find another way - "There's always another way", remember? It's easy to fall for the hard line just because you can, but its results are always counterproductive in the long run. I cannot, and will not, support this.--Ygrain (talk) 21:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not many if they are willing to do some light editing.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

You know what I find absolutely hilarious about this whole thing, just about everyone arguing against the new rules, who have little to no mainspace edits, only can come up with "chat will now be a VIP club", or will not even put a comment. If that is your only reason for voting against, then that isn't a reason, that is just an excuse. Only one person had made a reasonable argument against it. Everyone else is on the "VIP" bandwagon, which is not what this is about. I find one vote completely off the wall because it was taxation without representation, your vote would not count. So that really needs some thinking over.

People, what is so hard to understand that this is not an extension of BSN, this is a content based site. Not a social site. I find that for some their first edit was on this page laughable, ironic, and a whole bunch of other things that I will not say. This is not meant to turn Chat into an exclusive club, it is to make people understand that there is a point to the chat, which is not just for socializing, but to also make people aware of site policies. Many of the users who made their first edits here are, and have never been aware of site policies, because they do not read them and they do not care. Chat is a feature of the wiki and you should have to contribute, even a very small amount, 50 edits is not asking a lot yet people keep making out to be like we are asking you to rewrite the entire site, people learn to evaluate what is exactly being asked of you because all of you are blowing this way out of proportion, before you can use one of the nice features of this site. Is that really so hard to ask? According to 14 of you, it apparently is asking you to move the world. Sad really. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:00, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly do agree that users should contribute to the site if they want to use the features. However, meeting a specific number of edits does not automatically make someone a worthwhile contributor, nor does not having made a specific number of edits mean that someone has not contributed enough to the site.  Having the requirement be "X number of edits" means that someone who makes numerous small edits receives more credit than someone who has made a small number of substantial and informative additions to the site.  Even without having to meet a specific number of edits in order to use the Chat, the "user must have had an account for two weeks" further restricts users not based on contribution history but merely the fact that they are newcomers.  While encouragement to contribute and follow the rules of the site is always a good thing, this suggestion penalizes new users based not on whether they've contributed to the site or followed the rules but merely for being a new user.  That attack on the people against this idea at the ending of your comment is simply uncalled for; people disagreeing with the means by which you wish to ensure users contributing to the site and knowing the rules does not automatically mean that they all do not think that users should have to contribute or follow the rules. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 21:02, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * He never said it does, however it does prove that they know policy before they join chat, and it helps clean up the wiki. No one is being penalized, it is not like you are forced to edit, you will simply have to deal without chat like we did about a month or two ago. Big deal. If people are really serious about Chat and nothing else, then this is probably the wrong site for them.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:16, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

This is such a stupid thing, and the "oppose" votes are so obviously ridiculous and without reason. There has been one semi-good argument against this policy, that is it. This shouldn't even be up for voting, the admins should just be able to adjust the chat rules.--Legionwrex (talk) 20:41, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not hoping for an argument, but I am curious as to whether you would say the same on it being a vote if it was in the supporters' favor.-- 20:53, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously no. My whole point was admins should be able to pass this without a vote, however if it is already in the supporters favor, then there would be no need to say it.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:03, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, every user can make big edits unless they are either lazy or don't try. There is no excuse. All they have to do is go through walkthrough articles, or wait a day until Omega is released.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:06, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't see laziness as a reason for not making "big" edits. Some day, there won't be any "significant" information to add. Say the Mass Effect series went to a complete stop. No more sequels, prequels, DLC, etc. Eventually, there won't be anything left after a while. Now, with that in mind, I also point you to LilyheartsLiara's comment above.-- 21:10, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * And eventually the sun will explode; doesn't mean it will happen soon. The fact of the mater is if a user really can't find a edit even after Omega is released, they are most likely half-a**ing it. As to Lily's comment, I will reply to it.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:16, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Point made. However, soon or not, it will happen. Sure, there will be Omega, but what next?-- 21:20, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Future MP and SP DLC, then eventually that new Mass Effect.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:24, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just going to point out that for some of us (Europe by the look of it) our chances for getting good edits from Omega are reduced to nought because you have a full day to work through a few hours of gameplay and make your edits before we can download it. Not blaming any of you but you would think that by the time we got into the 21st century, it wouldn't be that hard to sycronise release times for these kind of things.Midnightpiranha (talk) 21:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * For Leviathan it took over a full week to get all the info, and Leviathan was smaller than Omega. One day off is no excuse.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)