Forum:Revote "Chat Live! Policy Expansion"

By voting for this policy, you endorse the following statement:

Yea

 * 1) As Proposer --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:38, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I shall vote as well. Implementing the policy despite the number of votes against it is unfair. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 00:00, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I am agreeing. This was blatantly unfair, and it annoys me that the mods keep trying to insist that what they did was in any way professional or ethical.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 00:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a democracy and unlike REPUBLICANS corporations DO NOT rule us, just as my confederate congressional rep once said during a similar type of heavy hardcore verbalized debate between the two conflicting sides of this conflict. Ardent Clerk Bosker Apologist (talk) 00:34, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) If only because a revote might stop some people around here from constantly bickering about this. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 02:03, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Seconding LilyheartsLiara.--Zxjkl (talk) 02:07, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I was leaning towards neutral when the voting for the policy began.  After that whole fiasco, I will say that I will NOT make that same mistake. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 02:24, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) A bit predictable, but still... :) -Algol- (talk) 18:05, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) I missed this whole fiasco the Chat Policy. I'm in--TW6464 (talk) 19:09, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Yea. It seems perfectly reasonable. EzzyD (talk) 20:30, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) My opinion is irrelevant by this point, but still. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 09:54, February 1, 2013 (UTC) Alright, time for me to step in :)
 * 12) "This just oozes fail" - Yep, because quite clearly this ain't a democracy. Alexsau1991 (talk page) Goddammit.svg 02:15, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Seems reasonable.. I'm game. Avg Man (talk) 04:28, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) I'm in J.C IS A GOD!! (talk) 17:04, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) I'll leave this here. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie  21:00, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Sounds like a good idea?

Abstain

 * 1) Midnightpiranha (talk) 23:48, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) For reasons below. 4Ferelden (talk) 11:33, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) For the reasons below.JediSpectre117 (talk) 09:46, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) There isn't a solution that can satisfy everybody. LordDeathRay (talk) 19:53, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) --Legionwrex (talk) 23:45, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) No policies were infringed, and the matter is solely an administrative (i.e. policy enforcement) matter. So no. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:53, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) This just oozes fail. Lancer1289 (talk) 16:20, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) DO NOT mistake this for being for the original proposal, nor in support of Lancer's rather offensive quip about this proposal, but the original was proposed, debated and voted on. This proposal is like a proposal that America have another election since Obama won. It is not reasonable. BeoW0lfe (talk) 19:41, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Is this even allowed to happen? Whatever, I have already said more than enough about what I feel about this.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:44, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that voting is not mandated by Wikia. It was something the admins here implemented, and which we have on occasion felt it necessary to preempt. This is, of course, fully in keeping with Wikia's policies, which allow admins to make decisions regarding the policy of their individual wikis on an as-needed basis. In this case, the admins were uniformly of the opinion that the policy changes being proposed were needed. This, btw, coming from the perspective of the people who actually have to uphold the policies. I just thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that in no way was the decision reached by the admins a violation of any policy, either of Wikia or this Wiki. To use a real-world equivalent, what the admins did was the equivalent of a Presidential Executive Order being used in light of Congressional inaction. It was a decision made by the admins solely concerning a matter of policy and policy enforcement. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:52, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Legionwrex, it doesn't appear that, even if this passes, it would be binding or mandatory. After all, the purpose of this is to "formally request" a new vote. So literally, if passed, this would be a formal request for a new vote. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:55, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * If you turn down the request, you won't solve anything. If you initiate a revote, you will. If you wish for things so return to normal here, avoiding the wishes of the community will do you no good. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 03:11, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * But by that same token, if we do, and the policy (which the admins unanimously agreed was necessary) is discarded, we won't have solved anything either. Look, don't think I'm dismissing this out of hand. I'm not. If, as appears likely, this does pass, the admins will seriously consider a new vote. I time to be pretty neutral in those discussions. With the Ygrain issue, I was leaning toward not closing the vote or banning until it became obvious that both Lancer and Commdor were pushing for it. Despite how we're being caricatured, th admins DO listen and we do care. That's what makes this whole situation (typified by -Algol-'s asinine blog) so frustrating, at least for me. But I digress... Your request WILL receive a fair hearing. That's what I guarantee. I can't guarantee it'll go one way or the other, but it WILL get a fair hearing. SpartHawg948 (talk) 05:04, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * If you allow a revote, you will solve the issue regarding whether or not the community views you as giving a damn about them by showing them that you will allow them to have some degree of input in policies that they vote on. If you do not allow the revote, this problem will continue. This actually doesn't have much to do with the chat itself, as I'm fairly certain that it will remain barren no matter what policies affect it. Any future problems don't stem from what you do with it. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 05:16, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken. I will ask, however, that you please abide by existing site policies, including (in this case) the site language policy, which remains in full force despite my attempts to push would-be reformers to act... SpartHawg948 (talk) 05:24, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Just when I thought I had seen everything, I see this. I cannot believe that this is even happening. I find it insulting, rude, and frankly just stupid. What I see is nothing more or less than socialites doing something something that they have no idea what is actually going on because their precious, their so very precious chat has been shut off to them. Why am I not surprised one bit by this, and the person who started it. It is things like this that show me the real people who actually care about this wiki, and those who have no idea what is going on, doing what they want to do anyway. No one who has voted for this has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT STARTED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. None of them were here for the problems. None of them had to deal with it on a daily basis. And yet, each and every one of them claim by voting for this that they have every idea what is going on.

This entire thing is just nothing but a failure for anyone to understand what happened, what was going on, and what was the underlying cause for what happened. That to me is just plain wrong. You want something, and yet no one is willing to work to provide for it, no one is willing to try and understand what happened, and no one is even willing to lift a finger to find out. You all just want your precious chat and that is all you will ever care about, despite every single problem that was laid out, and caused it. Funny how that works. You all will make no effort to to anything to fix it, but you just want your precious chat and could care less about anything else. Each and every one just lives in Denial and that is where everyone will stay because the chat is so previous that everyone is willing to ignore the ACTUAL, UNDERLYING ISSUES so long as they get access to their ever so previous chat. Tells me exactly what I am dealing with here with no illusions on that point. This just makes me sick, the truth gets ignored for nothing more or less than a lie. This coupled by the fact that the person who started it knew absolutely nothing about what was going on and what caused the issues because despite being a chat moderator, wasn't even in chat for over a month, but they were cut off from the precious chat, so they will make no effort to find out what happened, make no effort to understand, and make zero attempt to actually fix the problem. Lancer1289 (talk) 16:20, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

You know the one thing I would like to see here? Someone who votes for this actually come up with a solution to the problem that they all claim to have full knowledge of. No one who is voting yes, or voted no last time, or the previous time, proposed a change or a way to deal with the very real issues. If you really want a revote, then propose a way to fix the problem and not just go back to the same situation because as I previously stated, if Chat continues to be a problem, then it will be shut down since there have been two attempts to fix it, and everyone refused to acknowledge the issues, lives in denial that there are issues, and refused to fix the actual issues.

I would also like to see an attempt for anyone to actually find out the truth behind the issues, not just go along with the crowd. But I have a feeling that these two requests will just be ignored because no one actually wants to fix the issues. As long as they have chat, they could care less about the problems. They all just want to live in denial of any issue because they all put chat on such a high pedestal, that no one sees that said pedestal is crumbling and will fall without some actual repair work. Chat is broken, and no one is willing to help pick up the pieces and rebuild it right. They would just rather leave it broken.

To close I have two quotes, one by Spart and one by me for everyone to chew on. "'This nitpicking is getting a little old. Look, the people who actually have to deal with the issues here, and have to keep the wiki running (chat mods, senior editors, admins, and myself) by and large think there IS a problem. We're proposing fixes. People are objecting and voting against. That's their right. But just pissing and moaning about our proposals is getting old. Since the system does seem to have flaws, as even people voting against the proposal are agreeing... does anyone voting against the proposal have suggestions? Most of what I'm seeing is griping and nonsensical/unsubstantiated claims about how we're so much stricter than other wikis and have a bad reputation.'... (SpartHawg948, 07:41, January 6, 2013 (UTC))"

"If all of the admins and Chat Moderators, A.K.A. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CHAT THE MOST TO MONITOR IT, keep saying there is a problem, then the only reason for anyone to say there is not is because they refuse to see it, refuse to acknowledge it, pretend it does not exist and that everyone is overreacting, they just think that chat is a right when it is not... (Myself, 02:29, January 6, 2013 (UTC))"

Fix the problem, don't just say that it was wrong and go back to the same broken system. Propose change, not the same thing that caused the mess in the first place because it will happen again. Yet no one who wants this will actually be willing to propose change. I just find that funny and shows me what they really want. A massively broken system that doesn't work and will never work without change. Yet no one is willing to actually do some work, yes that means getting up and actually putting effort in, not just whining about it then shoot down actual change, and propose change. If you really want chat back so badly, then you all should be willing to lift a finger to fix the problems with it. Yet no one will.

I think that should be a condition of this. Before any new vote is taken, a new proposal to add to the first set of rules should be proposed. We have proven that the old rules won't work, and eliminating them won't work because of the issues and people showed that they have zero self control, so a new system is needed. If you all want chat back so badly, then you all should be willing to work to make it better, not just whine, complain, and blow up actual fixes. You want a revote, then propose something new, not go back to a hopelessly flawed system. Yet I know this will never happen so why did I even say it. We will just end up back here in a month with the same problems and this time chat won't be modified, it will be gone.

Everyone lives in denial of an actual issue, and says that the system works, when it is clear that no one actually knows what happened, what was going on, and the ongoing issues. This to me screams of people who just want what they want and want to do nothing to fix it. Which is clearly evident by the comments here and from the last forum. Denial is the word of the year and that is what it will continue to be.

I've said all I'm probably going to on this because this entire thing just says "we don't care, we want what we want, and we don't care that there are issue that need to be resolved." Lancer1289 (talk) 17:02, January 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * You've essentially repeated your point about 20 times in the course of two paragraphs. You keep saying that we need to address this "problem" but here's the thing, WHAT IF THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM?  Or to be exact, it's a problem that has been inflated to high hell.  How is this wiki different from any other in terms of chat (other than the language policy of course)?  What makes it so fundamentally different that it requires some sort of policy to keep "undesirables" out where others have managed PERFECTLY without one?  Now what do these wikis do when those that cause trouble or are unfamiliar with their policies join the chat?  That's right, they WARN said individual, direct them to the policies, and boot/ban them when needed.  Why this wiki can't manage to just do this, I have no idea.  I will tell you that this farce of a policy is not the solution.  It's a bit of unneeded regulation that only exists because chat moderators don't want to do their job. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 17:41, January 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, have you even SEEN the chat Lancer? Look at it.  It's not a chat, it's a freaking ghost town.  The chat was a bit empty beforehand but it had it's moments of sociability.  With the advent of this policy it's now completely barren.  This has to tell you SOMETHING is wrong.  If you'd rather see the chat fade to obscurity than be flawed yet occasionally social then maybe you don't have the chat's best intentions in mind. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 17:58, January 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Lancer does have a point; we should have a discussion as to the degree of the problems which the prior policy change attempted to fix, whether the policy change accomplished its goal or went too far, and possible alternatives to the previously-created policy changes. I do have an inkling of an idea for an alternative to the currently-in-effect policy, but it will take me time to write out the idea, reference the pre-existing chat rules prior to the policy change, and compare it with the recent policy changes—plus I'd prefer to bounce the idea off of the community for feedback before putting it to a vote.  But I do encourage a community discussion of the problem, the pros and cons of the previous policy change, and alternative additions to the chat rules.  LilyheartsLiara (talk) 17:59, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't you just love it when moderators have a condescending, smug, and spiteful attitude towards the people they're supposed to be helping?--RandomGuy96 (talk) 01:42, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * "You want a revote, then propose something new, not go back to a hopelessly flawed system" - A helluva lot of people do not seem to view it as "hopelessly flawed". Those who do are in the minority, just as they were the last two times. Just sayin'. -Algol- (talk) 18:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Algol denying there is a problem when he never knew the situation, the circumstances, or anything about about the issue. Why am I not surprised... Lancer1289 (talk) 18:17, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * I know the situation. Also I know the problem. Though I view this problem from a bit different angle then you do. Let's just say that while I admit the problem with a theoretical evil troll coming to the chat does exist, I do not believe sacrificing an indefinite number of good users is really worth it. Doesn't tie with all "good faith" stuff you seem to talk about a lot. -Algol- (talk) 19:00, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Look who's talking. After what you have pulled in the last month, you have no right to say that. No right at all. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:28, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am exercising the gift of speech right now. Could you please specify what exactly did I "pull in the last month"? For the record, I do not wish to argue here, and I do wish to keep the discussion on topic, but I feel like I really lost the track of it because of your last comment. -Algol- (talk) 19:36, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * dude, you put up a blog bashing all the admins. I think that is what lancer is Refering to--TW6464 (talk) 19:48, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't mind hearing it from the man himself, but I wasn't exactly "bashing"... Too strong of a word:) In any case, it wasn't "last month". Not in my timezone, anyway. I think Lancer refers to a certain event in the chat;) -Algol- (talk) 20:03, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

A re-vote process seems quite reasonable given that the last attempt encountered problems. And to belittle the opinions of those who support such a process seems unbecoming of users whose job it is to moderated and promote a stable welcoming environment for their fellows. EzzyD (talk) 20:30, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes, someone on the DA Wiki told EzzyD about this vote and told him to go vote on it.
 * That's a big fat NO.Aleksandr the Great (talk) 20:56, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Nope
 * 2) Care to introduce yourself, anon? ;) -Algol- (talk) 20:58, January 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm a chat moderator from the DA wiki. I'm sad that this has to be my first post on the ME wiki but it would be unfair to allow this incident to reflect unfairly upon this process. I have been monitoring the chat for the majority of the day, and no voting encouragement, or canvassing was done in the main channel.


 * In fact, this behaviour has been actively discouraged by two administrators and the two main chat moderators. EzzyD is a known disruptive influence and has continued this behaviour independently, for what I can only assume is his own amusement.


 * So again, please do not allow the actions of this individual to tarnish this process. Tekka Ijuin (talk) 21:07, January 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * <3 you too, Mike. EzzyD (talk) 21:48, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Shocker! More drama, that's just great.....--Legionwrex (talk) 23:43, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * "no voting encouragement, or canvassing was done in the main channel. " Woah, that sounds like real drama, folks. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:51, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to a specific comment, Mittens.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:55, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

OK, I voting neutral on this. I was in support of the original policy due the need for more edits, but I'm also afraid that the wiki community might not get past the issue unless it's done. The re-vote can also be used to create a fully effective policy, since a considerable number of people from the last vote opposed only a part of it and not the overarching idea and the current rules do need changes made.

That said, I do find it quite strange that the person who came up with the re-vote that is supposed to benefit the entire community has also called the said community in general a cancerous cesspool and willingly surrendered his chat mod rights when asked about it. It seems quite hypocritical to say the least.

And finally, I don't really think it's possible to say that the problem is hypothetical when the previous vote has essentially opened with a list of six users that have repeatedly broken the chat rules, which is quite important given the relatively small sample size (overall activity in the chat). It's still there for anyone who's interested. 4Ferelden (talk) 11:32, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick administrative type note from your benevolent overlord. (That was a joke.) Barring a sudden and massive influx of "no" votes (which, in addition to being extremely unlikely, would also look all kinds of suspicious even to me), this is going to pass by a very wide margin. That being the case, here's what I'm thinking. Now, I'm still mulling over my position on a revote (mostly decided, but only mostly), and I definitely know Lancer's position (no offense pal, but you're not exactly subtle on the best of days...) but I do want to get Commdor's opinion since he was part of the resolution of the first vote, and I'm thinking of maybe asking a couple of more recently departed inactive admins (Teugene and possibly also JakePT) to get an unbiased outsiders take. So when this passes, I'd appreciate it if you good people could kindly give me one week (tops) before I get back to you with word from the admins. Now, since I'm a pretty notorious procrastinator, at the end of that week (that'd be Feb. 13th), if I've yet to get back to you, someone (anyone, even -Algol-) please leave me a message letting me know, and I'll do so ASAP (bearing in mind that I work, and time zones and all that...). Hopefully that sounds reasonable? SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:41, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * "I'm thinking of maybe asking a couple of more recently departed inactive admins (Teugene and possibly also JakePT) to get an unbiased outsiders take". So, people who haven't been on the wiki in a while? I'm sorry, but isn't that similar what set of the powder keg we have now in the first place? Serious question, not trying to start anything else. Avg Man (talk) 17:32, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's me going "huh... maybe the active admins really have lost perspective. If so, consulting a few of the inactive admins (the more recently active inactive ones, since they're the ones most likely to respond quickly) could be beneficial." Like I said, the idea behind that is to get an unbiased opinion from admins who were completely uninvolved in the original vote. I wouldn't be asking them to vote on this or any other proposal, merely asking their opinions of the situation as a whole. It's just a thought. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:30, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * A misunderstanding on my end then. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Avg Man (talk) 21:08, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Now I agree with what the policy says but I agree with Lancer that we should probably come up with another plan before disregarding the current policy. That is to say if there is a problem, I never used chat much so I wouldn't know which is why I was neutral on the policy before and I am neutral for this.JediSpectre117 (talk) 09:46, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a largely ignorant 3rd party, a revote on the policy seems like a good idea. Incidentally, is there an existing Chat Policy, or was the original proposal supposed to create it? I can't for the life of me find any mention of Chat in the Community Guidelines. -- Dammej ( talk ) 02:50, February 5, 2013 (UTC)