Forums: Index > Policy > Chat Live! Policy Expansion

This page is for discussing a policy related to the Mass Effect Wiki that may or may not be passed by the community. The Form below serves to describe the Policy and what it is about, or what it will modify.


Description of Policy: Additions to the Chat Live! Rules to use the feature. Full description Below.

Supporting links or images:

Other Notes

The following consists of all additions to Chat Live! Policies and procedures.

Additions to the Introduction Section

All users must realize that the Chat Live! feature is still a part of the Mass Effect Wiki, and is therefore subject to all rules, regulations, and policies that govern the rest of the wiki. Any user found in violation of the Chat Live! Policies, or any site policy, can be subject to a kick or ban from chat, or even a general ban.

New Section “Description”

The Chat Live! feature, looks and is like an Internet Relay Chat, commonly known as IRC, that are found on other sites. The feature is provided by the Wikia staff as an extension of the Wiki. The chat feature is subject to both the rules listed here, and all other site policies listed in the Community Guidelines and Manual of Style. It is not a right to use Chat Live!, it is a privilege.

New section “Accessing Chat”

In order to utilize the Chat Live! feature of the Mass Effect Wiki, a user must accumulate Twenty (20) mainspace edits. Any type of edit will be counted, however it is encouraged that users make an attempt to clean up an article while doing so and not just make a bunch of small correction type edits.

In the process, if a user has 75%, or 15 of the edits undone with a valid reason, then the counter will be reset. It is true that edits are undone for a variety of reasons, some obvious, others not so much. The other stipulation is that if a user attempts to readd trivia that has been repeatedly added and removed in the past for a valid reason, it will count towards that limit. Attempts to add valid trivia will not be.

In addition, a user must have a valid account for 2 weeks. This means that the user must have made at the very least 1 edit every other day for two weeks, not create the account, make all of the edits the first day, then come back once the 2 week period has expired and use the Chat Live! feature. If this does become the case, the clock will be at set 13 days. If the user makes the 20 required edits over the two weeks, making at least an edit every other day, then they will be permitted to use Chat Live! at the conclusion of the two week time.

To summarize, a user must have a valid account for two weeks making an edit at least every other day, and 20 mainspace edits as described above.

If a user does not meet these requirements, then Admins and Chat moderators will kick the user from Chat Live! after explaining why they are being kicked, both in the chat window and on their talk page.

If a Chat Moderator is uncertain if a user has met 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.

If a user has been kicked from Chat for any reason, before heading back into chat, it is highly encouraged that the user contact the person who kicked them on their talk page for the reason why. It is not encouraged that if you are kicked to reenter chat, but instead, seek out who kicked you and ask them why.

Under the “Ground 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. If a user violates this rule persistently, then they will face an additional ban for a much longer period of time.

Under the “Consequences” Headline

A user may question why they were kicked to the appropriate person. This should be the person who kicked them. But if they are not responding, or unavailable, they should contact another Chat Moderator, or an Admin. Admins again do maintain the right to overrule Chat Moderators on this decision. If you have been kicked, please do not reenter chat to question why as that will only compound your situation.

At the end of the page

Admins and Chat Moderators are responsible for enforcing this policy in its entirety.


The reason for this additions is multiple instances of users coming into chat, not even bothering to read policies, proceeding to violate site policies, and causing problems. We have had more problems with people in Chat Live! following both sets of rules, both site policies, and Chat Policies, than in any other place on the wiki. This can no longer be tolerated. The following is a list of six users who entered Chat and proceeded to violate site policies for various reasons. There are more, but this is just a part of the main issue.

  1. YamiX0: Here for nothing more than chat, breaks the language policy, has only a few talk page edits.
  2. Sightmark: Multiple blog edits. No mainspace edits. Only used Chat and blogs. Created other accounts to get around block to just use chat. Now permabanned for sockpuppetry.
  3. Addders889: Created account to just use chat. 1 mainspace edit. Used and broke language policy in chat.
  4. 77 N7s: Created account for nothing from chat. Then made one talk page edit when no one was in chat that was responding to him. Raged in chat, broke language policy in chat and in wiki space.
  5. Robbie2190: Banned from chat for language, then proceeded to violate same policy in mainspace.
  6. AskChuckTWD: Warned multiple times in chat for violating policies. Could have kicked.

There are also several other users who on several occasions refused or had to be repeatedly told to follow the chat guidelines. There are also users who were kicked and banned from chat for violating site policies including harassment. This has to end, and it has become obvious that users who are in Chat don't know, or do not care about the policies because they never bother to read them and aren't familiar with them.

Forum Rules

  1. When putting your vote, all users are can only put two things, a "#" and then their signature. No comments may be left in the Voting section. This can be done by simply putting "#~~~~". Any comments left in voting section, any at all, will be removed and put into the discussion section. This even means "I support this." Nothing more than a signature and a "#".
  2. All users are required to only talk about the policy at hand, and nothing else. Any user who leaves comments or creates a conversations that distract from, or are irrelevant to this topic. This is to prevent irrelevant discussions and topics from entering this forum. This page is about the additions to the Chat Live! rules, and nothing else.
  3. Any user in violation of these policies will be warned on their talk page, and if they continue, their comments will be removed, the user will no longer be permitted to comment, and their vote will be invalidated for distracting from the issue.



  1. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:41, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
  2. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:52, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
  3. --Legionwrex (talk) 00:23, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  4. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:29, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Sqarkplugz (talk) 15:57, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  6. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:47, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  7. --SolitaryReaper (talk) 05:25, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


  1. Trandra (talk) 03:08, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  2. JediSpectre117 (talk) 21:27, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Arbington (talk) 22:34, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Lksdjf (talk) 03:15, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


  1. --Ygrain (talk) 06:35, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  2. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 15:16, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Midnightpiranha (talk) 19:14, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  4. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 21:12, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 22:08, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Shockstorm (talk) 07:43, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  7. -Algol- (talk) 11:35, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  8. HELO (talk) 15:31, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  9. --Nikapolll (talk) 21:56, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Matt-256 (talk) 22:14, January 6, 2013 (UTC)


I still support this policy. 20 edits is a very modest thing to ask for, and the two weeks will allow uses to get used to our policies.--Legionwrex (talk) 00:25, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

In comparison to the previous proposal, this is more reasonable. I'll vote neutral for now. If it passes, then I won't feel as uncomfortable about enforcing it as I did about the previous one.
Some nitpicks:
  • "The other stipulation is that if a user attempts to readd trivia that has been repeatedly added and removed in the past for a valid reason, it will count towards that limit."
The last clause in this sentence was confusing for me--did you mean "reset the counter" rather than "it will count towards that limit"? If you meant that it counts towards the 75% of edits undone, then it is redundant with "undone with a valid reason."
  • "...however it is encouraged that users make an attempt to clean up an article while doing so and not just make a bunch of small correction type edits."
I would remove the part I struck out because it's better to emphasize the encouragement without the extra stuff clogging the issue.
  • The stuff about making an edit every other day seems arbitrary. An example: a person that only has free time to edit on weekends made 10 good edits, one week later, made 10 good edits, then a week later, made 10 good edits. Is their counter at 3 or 14?
Trandra (talk) 03:22, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Basically, for the same reasons as before: I don't believe the chat is a privilege and that access to it should be restricted, especially if the behaviour of an unruly few should be the cause of restriction for everyone. Furthermore, as someone who has to cope with work and family, I find my time rather limited and am not thrilled by the idea of being told when and how often I should perform voluntary contributions. Finally, as has been pointed out previously, in the periods in between releases, worthwile edits will become more difficut to find. While performing 20 edits itself may not take that much time, finding something to edit might actually turn into a rather time-consuming process of combing through the wiki. --Ygrain (talk) 06:51, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

To that last issue ("worthwhile edits will become more difficult to find")... that's been addressed. Trust me, I know. My objections to the original draft are the reason that it's just 20 mainspace edits, not 20 major or substantive edits. The point behind this isn't to emphasize that chat is a privilege, but to remind people that chat is still a part of this wiki. An ancillary part, at that. This seems to be getting lost in translation with quite a few people who view the chat channel as nothing more than a convenient social networking site with no other affiliations. We now have concrete examples of exactly the sort of thing myself and others were warning about last time we voted on something like this. Needless to say, this proposal has my full support. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:34, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Though I still hate it, this sounds much more reasonable. I have to tell that I agree with Ygrain. I make an edit when I see something that needs to be edited, which isn't much. The problem is lack of editable things. It's really hard to find something that needs to be created / edited unless it's a fresh new DLC. However, with my salary I can't get DLCs right when they're released. And as for watching Youtube playthroughs, I don't want to spoil the fun for myself, even it's for the good of this awesome Wiki. But that's just my humble opinion, no need to criticise. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 14:50, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I am opposing this policy based on this every other day line. How regularly someone gets an edit tends to be roughly inversely proportional to the quality of the edit. Have a limit as to how many edits can be made per day and still count to this to stop a spree of 20 edits in one day by all means. But don't enforce a lower limit to how regular edits must be.Midnightpiranha (talk) 19:17, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry brother, but I no speak that smart language. I'll try to understand what you've written later. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 20:55, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

While the mainspace edits requirement in this version is more reasonable than the prior proposal's requirement, I still object on the basis of the two-weeks requirement. A user having an account for an arbitrary number of days doesn't automatically mean that they are knowledgeable about the rules, nor does the "at the very least 1 edit every other day for two weeks" rule. A user should not be assumed to be ignorant of the rules simply because they are a new user, nor should a new user who has shown their desire to contribute to the quality of the site be unaccepted based not on the quality and quantity of their contributions but simply being new. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 15:33, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

And yet we have multiple documented cases of users, multiple users, being ignorant of the rules and they are always new. They do not bother to read the rules and it is proven. Therefore we have little choice in this matter. The two week period is designed to familiarize new users with the rules before they can use chat. Lancer1289 (talk) 15:44, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
And does every new user demonstrate ignorance of the rules? Is there any guarantee that they will bother to learn the rules during the two-week period, other than the rules which bar them from joining the chat? If users break the rules, they should be punished; if users do not show any intention of contributing to the wiki, they should not be allowed to participate in the chat. Someone who is a new user does not automatically break the rules or have no intention of contributing to the site. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 16:49, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Legionwrex. Making someone wait for two weeks as a precaution for the wiki, and as a learning period for them, is not too bad. New people survived on this wiki just fine before the chat was implemented. Why now then, is it deemed almost unethical to not allow immediate access to it? And if a person is truly here for valid purposes (i.e help the wiki), then I'm sure they wouldn't mind being patient. Just think about it before you argue so passionately. Thought I'd throw my two cents in. Sqarkplugz (talk)
I did think, and my stance is that this issue with the chat is a part of a broader one, concerning general attitude towards new or inexperienced editors. --Ygrain (talk) 19:33, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
Clearly you did not because if you had, you would have seen that this is not to punish anyone, it is to do nothing more or less than make sure new users are familiar with site policies. There are more than the six cases listed of users not following site policies, and claiming that they did not know they existed. They had to be told that this site has policies for general and chat. Some were even shocked that we had policies because they thought we didn't have policies. So why to three people think it is that way?
If this were a campaign against new users, we wouldn't be having this discussion for just Chat. We would lock down the wiki. Please stop making this about something that it isn't. That is what happened last time, and that is what is happening again. Perhaps it is because there is no real argument that can be presented. This keeps coming around to punishing new users and making chat "an exclusive club" when that couldn't be farther from the truth. Stop making this into something that it isn't. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:40, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
Before the chat was implemented, no users had access to chat. It was not a privilege presented only to users who met a specific criteria.
To say that it's not "punishing new users" overlooks how new or frequently-inactive users are the only people affected by this rule, especially the "two weeks, at least one edit every other day" parts. It imposes a requirement which implies the belief that if a user doesn't fulfill those requirements, they can't be trusted to know the rules of the site. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 20:05, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
Except those are the exact users who don't know site policy, don't care about site policy, have problems following site policy, and with only a handful of exceptions, the general rule. More users come into this site not knowing that we have policies and proceed to violate them. Multiple users are even shocked that we have policies, and this is even more so in chat.
The fact you keep coming back to this tells me that you are not read up on this issue, nor do you know much about it. This is going beyond annoying now. This isn't to punish anyone, it is to ensure that they know the rules because of the multiple documented cases where users just entered chat, didn't even bother to see if there were policies, and proceeded to break them. That is documented and fact, what you keep coming out with is nothing more than a smokescreen. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:19, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
Lancer, I wasn't accusing you of leading a conscious campaign. I am talking about ramifications of your policy for people who do come with good intent and whose willingness may be unnecessarily hampered by restrictions set in place because of a minority of users. - But perhaps you would like to discuss this in greater detail on my talk page, so as not to detract from the point as you wished? There seems to some misunderstanding of intent brewing, and I certainly do not wish to instigate unnecessary conflicts. --Ygrain (talk) 20:11, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there was misinterpretation on one count, but the other I'm not so sure about. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:19, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to be nosy. I'm a little concerned with the line "If a user does not meet these requirements, then Admins and Chat moderators will kick the user from Chat Live! without warning or explanation.", this is likely to cause bad will and frustration. Instead, I'd suggest that the mod explain to the user that they don't have enough edits, link the policy and then kick. -- RandomTime 18:24, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

As the above user said, I believe this will only lead to frustrated new users breaking the rules, confused newbies simply leaving, or new editors making a multitude of meaningless edits, causing more trouble for admins. I understand that some users feel that too many people are using this sight for the "wrong" reasons, but punishing them with strict, confusing rules isn't the way to go. New users aren't going to know about these rules, and what's going to happen if they decide to enter the chat room? They'll get kicked out. Things will turn sour quickly. If you want new users to stick around, follow policies, and contribute, you have to be patient and helpful, not cold, rude, overbearing, and strict. This wiki already has a poor reputation amongst certain groups of people; this policy won't help.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 21:23, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

For the last time, this policy isn't to punish anyone. We're not evil Renegades who sit making finger pyramids conspiring about how hard we work and what little other people do. This policy is to get new users to learn the rules, and to help them in the long run. It would be better to kick them and then calmly explain the situation to them so the get familiarized with our policies and basic editing rather than end up banning them and have them wonder "WTH?!?!?!?", because that's how things have been going, and it's not working. The current system is broken and needs to be fixed, and this is the best way to go about that.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:31, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's what you are. I'm saying that's how you are coming off, and how you are being perceived. This won't encourage new users to follow the rules, it'll just discourage and confuse them. The current system is not by any means "broken". Literally dozens of other wikis do just fine with less strict systems, and this wiki in particular has a nasty reputation for being too strict.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 21:56, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather have new users who don't follow the rules be scared off right off the bat rather than have them come to chat ignorant of out policies, break our policies, and then be banned, because they are the type of people that no matter what you do or say, they just don't care, so it would be better to get it over with quickly.
For the last time, we are not like other wikis. What works there doesn't always work here. Other wikis didn't have a vandal impersonate one of their admins for a month. The system on this wiki is broken, that is proven. Lancer just proved it above. You can't deny that.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:12, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
"The current system is not by any means "broken""? WHAT? How can you even say that? There are six cases above that prove the system is broken. There are plenty of other examples as well. We have more users who either do not read the chat policies or do not care about them, than anywhere else. The fact you even said that proves you do not know what is going on and it shows arrogance and ignorance towards this issue. You continue to make this into something that it is not. This is to make sure that all users, both new and old, make sure they know site policies before using a feature of the wiki where rules have been continually broken, and it is not always the same user. It is always different users and often it takes twisting their arms to get them to listen and follow policies. The system is broken, so we are trying to fix it. I just think you cannot take the fact there will be regulations.
And for the record, there are plenty of other wikis which have even more restrictive policies for both their wiki, voting, and chat. I notice you keep avoiding that fact and just keep pushing the "chat will be an exclusive club". That is not what this is about for the upteenth million time. It is to ensure that users know all site policies before using a feature. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:21, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
"“ Don't assume everyone has read your guidelines unless you clearly state them“" (from the Wikia staff blog)
And I beg to disagree: six people breaking rules do not prove that a system is broken, they are just that: six people breaking the rules, because that's what people do all the time. --Ygrain (talk) 22:39, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
And ignorance of them is still no excuse. The guidelines are stated clear enough, if they aren't sure of something they should ask about doing it first. Seriously, I am getting so sick of this "well I didn't know" excuse.
You yourself just showed the problem: that's what people do all the time. Those six people Lancer listed are just a small minority of the ones he has encountered, and that's not even counting all the ones that he hasn't. The fact of the matter is that this isn't a punishment, this isn't even an inconvenience (unless the only reason you come here for is for chat, in which case rethink your priorities), it's a way to help solve a problem that we obviously have. Apparently everyone here thinks the admins and CM are being dishonest when we tell you that there is a problem, the very fact that the admins (who really know what's best and are some of the most reasonable thinkers, otherwise they wouldn't be admins) support this policy tells you something. This isn't some irrational fear that is being exaggerated, or a disguise for another more malicious motive (which I know some of you believe, despite claiming otherwise), this is an actual problem that needs a good solution, and this policy is that solution. So stop pretending that this isn't a problem.--Legionwrex (talk) 01:28, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I mean seriously, if you can't see the problem here and think that every single person that does, including all the admins, are wrong, then you are either:

A). Have not visited chat ever.

B). Are oblivious to everything going on.

C). Being willfully ignorant because you don't want to have to make mainspace edits and things are easier for you as they are.

D). Misunderstanding what exactly the problem is and how this policy will fix it (this one is probably the most likely).

E). Other reason that is most likely not valid (not to say that there isn't a non-valid other reason)

So if you have a reason for why this problem isn't a problem, please by all means present it.--Legionwrex (talk) 01:41, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

So Against the policy = not aware of the problem? Is that what you're trying to explain? Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 17:55, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
There are probably plenty that I have missed, and there are plenty that aren't being reported because I ID six very prominent examples, ones that everyone is ignoring as "isolated cases". Flash news people, it is not isolated cases. It is just a small snip it of the problem. There are also ones that Legionwrex and SolitaryReaper have dealt with since they were in chat more often. Everyone needs to stop thinking this is a vendetta or something else, and labeling it as that, because it is not that. It is a solution to a very real problem that everyone who voted against is ignoring because they have to have their precious chat feature. This has been an ongoing problem since day one, and I might add that no one who voted against has done a thing to do anything about it. In fact, at least one has contributed to the problem. If this problem keeps persisting, then the only remaining option will be to just shut Chat down for good without a vote because of the ongoing problems that it keeps drumming up.
I did not do this last time, but I will now because I am fed up with these persist denials of a very real problem that exists and that has shown that it is not going away because you all will it to. Between all of the people currently voting against, only one of them has a higher mainspace edit than social edit, and that is Lksdjf. Lksdjf's mainspace edits are 351, more than the rest put together. The rest of the people going against have more blog comments than mainspace edits. Of the people voting against, I have only seen one recently in chat, and that is Ygrain, so they are the only one who really could have any possible idea of the problem. Yet even they refuse to acknowledge it exists for whatever reason. The rest, well that's quite interesting.
  • LilyheartsLiara: Has not been in chat recently, so cannot even be remotely aware of the problem. The only reason I see for this being a no vote is because they do not want rules on a social feature. Noted for causing several flamewars on multiple blogs. Refuses to admit there is a problem because they have no knowledge there is a problem. No logical reason for oppose. Total Mainspace edits: 96 (11%). Total blog comments: 709 (83%)
  • Midnightpiranha: Have not seen in chat recently, or not for any prolonged period of time. Only reason for against, so they can continue to use social features and not contribute to the site. Living in denial of a very real problem. No logical reason for oppose. Total mainspace edits: 39 (17%). Total blog comments: 118 (53%)
  • The Milkman: Have not seen in chat in months. Clearly not aware of the problem. Repeatedly refuses to acknowledge there is a problem. Keeps dancing around the bush in that regard. Cannot possibly be aware there is a problem because user is never in chat. Bottom line, no logical reason for against vote apart from the fact they do not want restrictions on social features, even when there is a problem. Mainspace edits: 124 (4%). Total blog edits: 196 (7%). Total blog comments: 2,172 (78%)
  • Phantom Bootie Slap: Has not even been in chat for quite some time. Over a month at least. Clearly not even aware the is a problem. Cannot even have a clue there is a problem because of the infrequency of edits to the wiki. No logical reason for against vote. Total mainspace edits: 4 (13%). Total blog comments: 7 (23%).
  • Lksdjf: Only user of the group who has a higher mainspace edit than blogs. Actually, they have more mainspace edits than the rest put together and change. Have not seen in chat recently. Cannot possibly be aware of the problem. Refuses to acknowledge a legitimate problem. No logical reason for against vote. Total Mainspace Edits: 351 (68%). Total Blog comments: 29 (6%)
  • Ygrain: Only user who I can clearly remember being in chat recently. Had to be reminded several times about chat policy while there. Repeated refusal to acknowledge of a real, persistent problem. Some reason for against vote, others illogical.
The bottom line here is that just about everyone voting against either refuses to admit there is a problem. 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, or, which is what I believe the case really is, they just do not want a restriction on a social feature of the site because they all cannot live without it. Sorry the truth hurts and I am of the firm belief that 5 out of the 6 voting against just do not want restricted access to the precious chat feature. Well, flash news people, it is a problem, it is not going away, it continues to get worse, and if it continues, then chat will be gone for good.
Now, if that is all you are here for, then go to BSN because if you cannot live without chat, then you need to so some serious rethinking of all of your priorities. I have yet to see one completely legitimate argument why this is not a solution, because if this keeps up, then the only remaining option if it persists, which I have little doubt it will, is to eliminate the problem altogether, and that will be pulling the plug on chat. For good. I stated when this whole thing started that it would be a problem, and the fact that we have not had one, but two votes on new policies shows that there clearly is a problem. If it were just one person a week, then we would not be doing this, yet it keeps happening. So it looks like I was right to begin with. We are providing a solution to a real problem, a real problem that T least 5 people flat out refuse to acknowledge, or refuse to see. We have demonstrated that people in chat cannot be reasoned with, cannot be trusted to abide by site policy, and cannot police themselves, so therefore rules are needed. Anyone who says no at this point just point blank refuses to admit there is a problem. I challenge anyone who is voting against to flat out say there is not a problem or that it is isolated. If you do, then you show your ignorance of this situation. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:29, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Lancer, the reason I'm not on chat is mostly the timezone complications. But that doesn't mean that I'm unaware of the problem, I am in fact. However, limiting newbies isn't the way to go. Besides, if this Wiki will be so perfect there won't be need in moderators in the chat, will there? Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 13:03, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
So your seriously telling us, people who monitor chat regularly, and all the admins, who monitor the wiki, that this isn't the way to go? The very fact that you aren't on chat shows you have little knowledge of the scale of this problem, so please have some faith in the people who actually monitor and police this wiki. And no, there will still be a need for chat moderators, but the violators will decrease in numbers, I think you missed the point.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Well then Legion, if a silly newbie of me, as you said, "have little knowledge of the scale of this problem", then would you kindly use more of your smart vocabulary and enlighten me about it? I could listen to your cool stories all day. No sarcasm though. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 21:45, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
I never called you a silly newbie for starters. We (CM, SE, Admins, even regular users who help defuse situations) have to deal with these people all the time. It is nerve racking how they show blatant disregard for our policies. When they finally are dealt with, they through big hissy fits about how unfair this wiki is, and often times include a little snip about "enjoy (insert admin here)'s Mass Effect Wiki!", before leaving. This isn't a cool story. This is what happens.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:56, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Well first of all, the "as you said" part was for the following sentence. Thanks.
I'm starting to smell smoke of Mt. Flamewar, so I'll stop for now. The only thing I must say is that you're too much obsessed with this policy's pros to see it's flaws, which are many. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 22:04, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I don't personally use the chat so this is largely irrelevant to me, but this policy doesn't seem too efficient at either dealing with ignorance of policy rules in the chat or the lack of quality editing in the mainspace. Im not an admin anywhere and thus don't have much knowledge of wikia's technical side, but I do know that we have several quizzes about the series' trivia. Would it be possible to make anyone entering chat for the first time face a mandatory questionnare about this wiki's policies and only let them in when they have perfect score? We could include the language policy in there, the remainders about name and other unneeded trivia, where images can and cannot be included and info about concentrated effort (preferably overhauled to make it clearer what sections are in greater need of editing.)4Ferelden (talk) 02:00, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

We can't do that, and even if we could, it would just be, guess until you get it right. Even if it was short answer, it would just be too easy. If someone clicks on, "Join Chat" or "Start Chat", they are just dropped right in. We would have no way to grade it. It was a legit proposal and idea, it just ins't one that is technically feasible without going to an off site form. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:29, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that my reasons for choosing how I did would be attacked if I didn't give a reason. I read block logs and warnings, and I know that a lot of people are being blocked from chat for various reasons, most of them being language. Yet, I see two provisions as very unfriendly to new users.

"To summarize, a user must have a valid account for two weeks making an edit at least every other day, and 20 mainspace edits as described above."

-I don't like this because information that comes from the Mass Effect Universe isn't constantly coming in. Grammar fixes are apparently not substantive enough, and clean-ups are very difficult to do for new users. The most that this wiki gets comes during balance changes and DLC releases, aside from game releases.

"If a user does not meet these requirements, then Admins and Chat moderators will kick the user from Chat Live! without warning or explanation."

-There is no reason why an admin or a moderator cannot explain to a user that they will be kicked. It does not take that long, and it won't generate nearly enough animosity as an unexplained kick.

Lksdjf (talk) 02:58, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Lancer, stop using percentages to make people look bad. I contribute to this wiki too. Why I'm here doesn't matter, because I'm following wiki guidelines. I'm not causing trouble, and I edit where I can. I undo harmful edits and keep an eye out for vandalism when I can, and when you aren't here. Not everyone can devote their lives to this project. Punishing users and acting like basic wiki features are "privileges" won't solve your "problem".

And trust me, as an admin, you should know that, even when you explain the reason for a block, it will still cause animosity.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 04:33, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it won't solve the problem, but if it doesn't the only other option is to stop the problem at it's source by destroying chat altogether.--Legionwrex (talk) 04:38, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
More denial of a real and ongoing problem. Why am I not surprised. Lancer1289 (talk) 06:40, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

  • "lack of worthwhile edits" - it's almost a year to ME3's release, almost 3 years for ME2, SIX years for the original game and some of us are still finding stuff to add/modify because so few of you despite being "regulars" on this wiki are willing to step up to the plate. problem?
  • "being mean to users" - so if you feel the site has such a rotten reputation for being too newbie-unfriendly, why don't YOU take responsibility in guiding them instead of letting the less nicer ones like me run the show. you identify as part of this "community", act like it. face it. where the f- are you most of the time.
  • "If a user does not meet these requirements, then Admins and Chat moderators will kick the user from Chat Live! without warning or explanation." - not the best way to go, make it mandatory to explain FIRST before kicking as a matter of general courtesy. only illiterate people will continue to persist in this anyway. (even if evidence says most do not heed what you say despite warnings, at least there's a record that you did warn them)

one thing that can stem the tide of newbie users not knowing site policies everytime they hop on to chat is a big annoying dim-screen popup that appears whenever you try to enter it and doesn't let you do anything else other than accept or leave.

  1. contains all the relevant warnings and notices and the mandatory scroll-down for the checkbox signifying that the user has read and knows about it
  2. has to be set in a timer, about in the average time it takes to read all the notices in the box to guard against impatient people
  3. a CAPTCHA as a final safeguard against automated logins
  4. only works for people with less than a specified number of mainspace edits, say 20, and takes into consideration if user is attempting to game the system to bypass requirements
  1. can be extended to newbie users in general when trying to edit on mainspace and/or comment on forums/blogs (well, customized reminders for every instance, e.g. language policy and general code of conduct for forums/blogs or a warning not to add persistent unsubstantiated trivia like leeroy jenkins for mainspace)
  2. can be adopted by other wikis/sites with similar architecture
  3. almost eliminates policy ignorance by virtue of the big annoying popup in people's faces. the only way you will ignore it is to be blind, retarded, dyslexic, ADHD-addled or all of the above (how can you even be browsing the net with that)
  1. massive technical undertaking, requires professional web devs. working on this for free ain't exactly an incentive.
  2. CAPTCHA licensing issues/fees if devs aren't willing to make one in-house.
  3. too much work for too little gain, too many hoops to jump for one little social feature

T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 06:04, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...there are quite a few things in this comment that I have to agree with. The checkbox thing would just be more problem than it was worth. Other suggestions, probably worth undertaking. I'll make a slight modification. Lancer1289 (talk) 06:40, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do we need to implement the above without the Captcha? Though I guess it is still far too impractical. Anyway, I have switched to supporting this because why not, there is far too much left to edit still, as Temporaryeditor78 have pointed out. To elaborate, some of the enemy pages still provide only a fraction of available information and most need streamlining in some way or the other, some enemy and quest pages still have no images (and plenty more need replacement with higher-quality versions), Mass Effect Infiltrator has hardly any info on it, etc. When the 3rd ME3 DLC and the Mass Effect movie will come out (I so wish the latter didn't, but that's not the point), it will be even more available info to rack up twenty edits.

I do have certain objections, but overall I think that the benefits far outweigh the negatives. For instance, I think that one week should be enough, or at least that should be the case if new user racks up 50-70 edits within that time. Then, I think we could have an alternative to 20 mainspace edits here - 100 substantive mainspace edits on a different language ME wiki. I can take it upon myself to confirm the claim and evaluate the edit quality, as I'm bilingual and a lot of edits can be checked moderately well with the Google Translator anyway. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:47, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

What happens on another wiki has no impact here. We cannot, nor will we, take edits from another wiki for valid ones here. I know Spart will not go for that, and hasn't gone for it in the past, nor will I. And as pointed out, there are still plenty of things to do, but few of the users who voted against seem to be unwilling to do anything about it. I know I have been lapse in that category myself lately, but I do intend to fix that starting later next week when I will have much more time on my hands. Lancer1289 (talk) 06:53, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it increase our prestige though if we openly encouraged people to edit different-language versions of this wiki? Anyway, this is certainly very far from the top of the to-do list now. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:59, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
to answer your question about the big annoying popup thing, it would require some guy/s with a veritable (as in "paid to learn and employ") knowledge of web dev languages, frameworks and wikia innards. we currently have none on the wiki and i ain't one either (not yet my field of expertise). it's just a very hypothetical suggestion in case someone with more skill in such things gets creatively inspired. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:37, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything, Lancer. Every wiki has this problem. Hell, I've dealt with it before. You're just going about this the wrong way. I've yet to see another wiki that has to enforce such strict policies. The problem here isn't that users are here "for the wrong reason". Most of these new users are not going to be able to add information, and if they do, you're going to end up undoing it, because this wiki has such strict guidelines. The result? More frustration and rebellion. I've dealt with these kinds of problems. Some of these people are simply irrational and will go off with the slightest provocation. This will only cause more problems than it solves.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 06:56, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, people keep saying that this will cause more frustration, rebellion, and spite from new users (specifically a certain kind of new users), but should we really let what those certain users (who are already irrational to begin with) think of us influence our actions? Unhappy users aren't anything new, and there will always be some no matter what you do.--Legionwrex (talk) 07:05, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

“Ygrain: Only user who I can clearly remember being in chat recently. Had to be reminded several times about chat policy while there” Curious. Could you, please, refresh my memory when I was SEVRAL times reminded about the policy? I hope you have a chat log for this because I don’t recall being told off even once.

“they just do not want a restriction on a social feature of the site because they all cannot live without it.” Even curiouser. You state yourself that you haven’t seen the against people in the chat for quite a while, except me (which was pretty much a Christmas coincidence as I’m not there very often, either), so how come that we live without the chat meanwhile? Let me say again: this is not about the accessibility of chat as such but about the rules designed with the notion that everyone has a great deal of free time to contribute and should be as dedicated as yourself. Some people can make big edits daily, others monthly, yet others only during the periods of holidays, but that doesn’t make them worthless and is no grounds for restricting features to them. --Ygrain (talk) 07:08, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't require free time to contribute: It requires the same amount of time it would to use chat, even less. Your argument is self-refuting. The fact of the matter is that is someone has twenty minute to burn on a secondary feature, then they have plenty of free time to get in a minor edit or two.--Legionwrex (talk) 07:13, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
The time which I spend on the chat is the time when I am unable to do any mentally demanding activity, anyway. I could perhaps read instead, but definitely not edit.--Ygrain (talk) 07:17, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with this policy though. Putting two "[[" on both sides of a word to create a link and basic edit is not mentally demanding, and there is no excuse for not being able to do it if you have time for chat. Honestly, it's these excuses that are getting me here.--Legionwrex (talk) 07:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Legion, you haven't walked in my shoes, so please don't judge what and when I am capable of. When I go on the chat, it means I'm not even capable to write my own stuff, which should tell you something. --Ygrain (talk) 07:34, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I am not trying to insult you, merely get my point across.
And yet you are still able to write in chat. Once again, it is self-refuting. If anything, using chat to write sentences and paragraphs would take more mental focus than adding a link or two.--Legionwrex (talk) 07:39, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

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. Come on, people. Be part of the solution, please! If you don't like our fixes, work with us constructively! Don't just knock what we're trying to do. Frankly, getting self-righteous and preachy here, it's doing a tremendous disservice to people who have put way too much time and effort into making this a great wiki for all of you. SpartHawg948 (talk) 07:41, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

^I like this comment. Short, straight, to the point, and the truth. Lancer1289 (talk) 07:48, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Amen!--Legionwrex (talk) 07:50, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Alright - I meant to write you about this, anyway, so it doesn't make a difference if I take a part of it now. I am willing to curb some of my other leisure activities to help monitoring the blog chatter – except the mornings, which overlap with your late night peak activity, my time zone falls mainly into the off hours and I should be able to this, or at least I’ll try my best. As for the chat – when I was there, I didn’t see Yami breaking any rules, so there was nothing to act on. As for one of the other people listed, I happened to be checking the recent activity and saw that something in the chat set off Lancer very badly, so I went to check myself what the matter was. All I saw was a single impatient kid who got frustrated over not getting an answer, and while not behaving particularly maturely, his actions weren’t really harmful to anything. So, in those five or so minutes I could spare, I tried to find out what the matter was and help him until someone else logged in. Lancer, whose icon was still on when I joined the chat, didn’t leave any visible message there. So, yes, Spart, I am trying to help, as much as I can, but my idea of what such a help constitutes and how it should be performed is different.--Ygrain (talk) 07:56, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

interesting. since people are apparently alive at the same time why don't you continue discussions on the disputed medium itself? :3 T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:50, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Because I have to get up and start making lunch? --Ygrain (talk) 07:57, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

In an example I like to keep going back to, for those voting against and claiming we're too strict, at least two of the "No" votes would be stricken and disallowed on Wookieepedia, one of the largest and most well-regarded sites in Wikia, for lack of mainspace edits. Food for thought... SpartHawg948 (talk) 07:53, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
(Also, Temproraryeditor - no thanks. I'm multitasking right now. Chat would interfere with that.) SpartHawg948 (talk) 07:53, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
A nice suggestion, but precedent in this case means we have a forum and a matter of public record. For reference and other things. Lancer1289 (talk) 07:56, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
And based on my interpretation of Wookieepedia policy, it would be 4 at least. Lancer1289 (talk) 07:58, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Ygrain, but to me that seems like you're just trying to fix the issues with the status quo by applying more of the status quo. There's a saying popularly attributed to Einstein (though I haven't the foggiest if he actually said it or not) about what it makes you if you keep trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. I for one don't want to be insane. We need a lasting fix, not something dependent on who is where when. And I'm not seeing any proposals from the "against" crowd. I'm not seeing anything from the against crowd except "I'm against it!" Again, enough with the nitpicking. Help us help you. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:02, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Lancer is right. We can't do this in chat because site policy mandates a public record accessible by others after the fact. As usual, he's getting the details I miss... SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:03, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Because we differ substantially in how the problem should be adressed, and in assessing its severity. Users breaking rules in the chat are annoying but cause no permanent damage, therefore creating a restrictive policy because of them seems unnecessary for me.
As for other suggestions, I think I made this one, a time ago: self-moderation of social features, highlighting each user's responsibility towards the wiki, and calling in an admin intervention only when other means failed. --Ygrain (talk) 08:08, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
And how many times has that been proposed? At least 10 by now. Users cannot control themselves in blogs, in some active forums, and not in chat. What you suggest is a broken solution that has been tried, and has failed every time. Users cannot be relied upon for self moderation because it does not work. We have enough evidence from flamewars on blogs to prove that. We had death threats on blogs before. That is not a solution, that is the status quo, and again, the status quo does not work. We need regulation because users cannot control themselves, that has been proven, what you offer is the same thing that has been attempted multiple times, and has failed every time. Lancer1289 (talk) 08:12, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
When was this tried - as an official policy, I mean? There is a huge difference if I try to moderate a discussion now, because I speak only on my own and no-one is bound to listen to me. If self-moderation is a rule, though, then a user who tries to moderate a discussion speaks on the behalf of the wiki, not his own. Besides, once again: the fact that people keep breaking rules doesn't mean that the system is necessarily broken - every country's laws prohibit theft and murder, yet they happen all the time; does this mean that their judicial systems are broken? --Ygrain (talk) 08:21, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
And you are now confusing the issue. The issue here is that more users break the rules than follow them. The majority of users that have come into chat do not, or will they ever care that there are rules. Self moderation cannot be an official policy because it throws the door open on what is acceptable as it will be subject to personal interpretation by everyone. Someone could say that it was unacceptable, the poster says it is, and there you have an argument right there. That is an oxymoron, circular logic, and we end up back at the same problem. What you propose is even less regulation than we currently have, and therefore we might as well throw out the policies altogether. Self moderation only works when there is proven evidence that it can work, but you have none of that here. It has not worked on blogs, it has not worked in forums, it has not worked on some user talk pages, and it certainly has not worked in chat. More users than not have to be reminded of policy and we have to twist their arms to read it and obey it. The fact you even proposed that shows that you have little ideas as to what the issue really is here because so far every person who actually has to deal with this issue says there is a problem, yet you keep denying there is one. We have a serious problem, and it needs to be fixed. You just want to keep this upuntil we give up. Well, there is a problem, and this will fix it. It is not perfect, nothing can be, but it goes a long way to fixing a multitude of ongoing, persistent problems. Problems you refuse to admit exist. Lancer1289 (talk) 08:29, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
I believe I made a suggestion to the clause that I would like changed earlier. Make an upper limit on how many edits in a timeframe count towards this 20 edits if you think that it will prevent people trying to game the system. Just don't include a lower limit (this every other day business). Instead of having to make between 0.5 edits/day and 10 edits/day, to get closer to chat, make it between 0 and 10 edits/day. As for being on chat, I live east of most of you so your peak chat time coincides with the early hours after midnight, at which time, if I happen to be awake it is not the time to go on an internet chat. If I am not awake, I am not capable of going on a chat. Mostly I see no one else in chat and so I see little point starting one. Midnightpiranha (talk) 12:00, January 6, 2013 (UTC) In Summary I cannot see why this minimum rate of 0.5 edits/day was necessary.

Isn't the very existence of chat moderators an exercise in self-moderation? They speak on behalf of the wiki, after all. And that sure is working swimmingly. (Sarcasm, for those unaware...) I mean, if it works, why is one of the leading proponents of this a chat mod??? We have conclusive evidence it doesn't work a majority of the time. We've gone this route with blogs. Someone will act up, another editor will inform the offender of site policy and tell them to straighten up and fly right, and the offender will just get more belligerent. And yes, we do have substantially different approaches to how to address this. I want an actual solution, something concrete and long-term. Not something we've already tried that hasn't worked. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:42, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly hasn't worked I might add. I cannot tell the number of times Legion, Commdor, myself, or another user would remind someone of site policy, and it ends up in a massive argument for 30 comments. And then there was the whole death threat issue on the blogs that took a staff member to notify us of. That was rather a big fail in self moderation and a rather large nail in that coffin. Lancer1289 (talk) 08:46, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Let me ask again, please: has self-moderation ever been an officially stated policy? In the time I have been here, it certainly hasn't, so is there a time before which I am not aware of?
Besides, a switch from the current mode into self-moderation wouldn't go smoothly or quickly, and would require a transition period to set in in people's thinking. That's why I originally suggested separate blog moderation.
"if it works, why is one of the leading proponents of this a chat mod?" And what was your criterion for naming chat mods? - The number of their edits, or their people skills?--Ygrain (talk) 09:51, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

1) Vote against

2) How does 20 mainspace edits correspond with being civil in the chat? As if regular editors can't be dicks (oh excuse me for a bad word I'm so sorry) sometimes. The way I see it, is that this whole "people misbehave, so we restrict the chat" thingy is just an excuse, and the real reason for restrictions are different.

3) Limiting the chat can (and most likely will) scare off potential editors, as this wiki's reputation is bad enough already. People do not like draconian rules, you know. -Algol- (talk) 11:35, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

First of all, watch your language.
Secondly, what is the real reason then? Do enlighten us. People have already misbehaved in the chat. They will continue to do so until some sort of action is taken. And 20 mainspace edits over two weeks, just so we can determine that they're here for the right reasons, is such not a difficult requirement. Seriously people? In what way is making sure new editors know what to do, and making sure they do not (maybe unintentionally) violate rules, a severe punishment? Sqarkplugz (talk)
Personally, I do not like the use of phrases like "draconian rules" to describe things that aren't draconian in nature. It's one of those "I don't think that means what you think it means" things. Draconian means either something relating to or characteristic of Draco or the system of laws he created (literally Draconian laws), or something that is just plain "unusually severe or cruel" (the dictionary definition). I fail to see anything unusually severe or cruel. As has been pointed out multiple times, compared to many other wikis, our rules (and proposed rules) are about in the median. SpartHawg948 (talk) 11:53, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
I have already pointed out why an edit limit within a time limit is a discriminatory practice and that irregular users can still be an asset to the wiki. Deterring them with restricting their use of a feature even though they did nothing wrong will bring no asset at all, because they will simply shrug, try to find what they have come for, and leave never to be seen again, the good and the bad both. The social features which the Wikia staff seem to be promoting are nothing else but a sweet bait to lure people into staying and developing emotional bonds to the wiki, and start contributing even though they originally may not have intended to. Even a user who does not edit much can still participate in creating a welcoming environment, and thus help in acquiring future editors. --Ygrain (talk) 11:56, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
So how do you propose we prevent acts that violate the rules? Keep in mind that these incidences were probably due to ignorance of said rules. Sqarkplugz (talk)
Indeed. I've yet to see any solutions posed other than continuance of the same practices which nearly everyone involved with actually enforcing agree are flawed. (Look at it this way - five people involved in actually enforcing site policy have voted. Four are in favor, the fifth is neutral but ok with enforcing the policy as proposed. None have voted against.) This, to me at least, seems untenable. But there's been no substantive proposal from the people voting against, just criticisms of proposed fixes drafted by site administration. I can't begin to describe how frustrating that is. SpartHawg948 (talk) 12:10, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
You will never eradicate the violation of rules by making more rules or stricter ones. What you really need is a stable, self-disciplined community of users who will regulate the behaviour of newbies. As I have said above, though, this takes time, and patience, and won't happen overnight, but pay in the long run. --Ygrain (talk) 12:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
But in support of that you offer... blind faith. And I've got to say, the "take the long view" argument isn't an effective sell to someone who's been here nearly the entire time the Wiki has been in existence. I'm just not convinced it's going to play out that way on chat, with all these fly-by-nighters coming here just to use the chat channel. We've seen the development of a stable, self-disciplined community of users on the mainspace - that's part of the reason we want people to be active in the mainspace before moving to the chat channel. What we've seen on the more social functions has been the inverse though. The blogs have gotten much less stable and self-disciplined over time. I see no reason chat will not do the same, unless we take action. Your argument, while certainly well-intentioned, is distinctly unconvincing. It flies in the face of observed patterns here on the Wiki. Again, the only place we've observed this stabilization into a cohesive and disciplined community is on the mainspace. That's the observation underpinning this whole proposal. The mainspace has a moderating influence. Chat and blogs by themselves do not. SpartHawg948 (talk) 12:27, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Because self-moderation doesn't happen on its own and by its own - I believe that countries which shed off oppressive regimes and struggle for democracy are an example of how responsibility is only gradually instilled, and to apply this on the wiki, it would require much more than simply loosen the rules and tell people that they are on their own. The community does need to be managed, and forgive me for saying so, this is not happening here. It seems that the perception and expectation of a wiki has been changing, which brings about constant clashes with the given set of rules; wouldn't it be possible to try and adjust the rules to accomodate the needs of a broader spectrum of people? The main issue here seems that we are unable to reach a consensus what should be done and how, wouldn't it be perhaps wise to postpone the chat issue and open this up for a wide debate? --Ygrain (talk) 12:41, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
"Secondly, what is the real reason then? Do enlighten us"
I think it's you who should be enlightening us about this real reason. Nevertheless, the way I see it, is that our illustrious admins want to have themselves a nice little private club for those privileged few. Something like the VIP section of Afterlife. Except that instead of dropping Jaruut's name, you have to drop 20 mainspace edits and be nice to said admins. In this way nobody would say a naughty word (God forbid!) and every member of Admins & Pals will feel warm and fuzzy. "we can determine that they're here for the right reasons" - See what I mean? You determine who is worthy of the privilege, you determine whose reasons are right and whose are wrong. A little too much of subjectivity, if you ask me.
See, I do not possibly grasp how does the number of edits correspond with a person's behavior. One could have 20 edits, 200 or even 2000, and still say the naughty word (God forbid, again!). We're all human, you know, we all have emotions. I know a person on another wiki, who was the most dedicated editor ever, and still collected bans like Shepard ship models. Now, if you simply want to keep certain people out, just freaking say so.
Self-moderation doesn't help? Well make it official, what's the problem? Say, user A is on the chat frequently, has an exemplary "service record" and never said a naughty word on the wiki (God forbid, again and again!). Make him/her a moderator and that's it. Works perfectly fine on other wikis.-Algol- (talk) 14:55, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
I think Algol is very confused and doesn't understand what this policy means to accomplish. Isn't that against the rules for voting on this policy?
The purpose of this policy has been stated enough times above, the fact that you even compare it to the afterlife shows that you don't understand what the problem is or that you are bringing your own biases into this vote.
It shows that they understand enough about site policies to be trusted to behave correctly. Your example proves nothing and has no merit to this vote. Stop with this whole "excluding people thing", this is exactly what everyone said on the last policy forum and it has nothing to do with the topic, so keep on topic.
Do you not see the problem here? Do you really honestly think no one ever though of making more moderators? The problem is, that is what we have been doing all along, and it isn't working. It's not a solution, it's the status quo.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
No, we don't. The problem here is that you are making this one huge non-issue. This wiki's guidelines are the strictest of any wiki I've ever seen, and I've busier wikis with less problems. Honestly, the problem might be that the rules are simply too easy to break. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 21:36, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously going to call this a not a problem? How can you say that? Not one single person above standard user has voted against this policy, and you want to know why? Because they are the people who spend the most time keeping this wiki running, and as such they are able to see the problem here.
This isn't some big conspiracy that every single admin, CM, and SE (including some regular editors who vote for as well) is using to punish new users because we feel in-titled, this is an actual problem that we realize because we have to deal with it on a more than regular basis, I don't get what about that is so hard to understand.
This wiki's guidelines being strict has nothing to do with this policy at all, it is just an excuse for a way to bring more socializing to this wiki. This wiki's policies have helped improve it, and so will this one.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:47, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I am voting neutral, leaning against. The reason we implemented a Chat in the first place was to reduce frivolous Blog traffic by inexperienced socially-oriented users. To restrict Chat use by these very people defeats the purpose of the Chat, I think. The Chat exists to funnel undesirables away form the mainspace. Arbington (talk) 22:39, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that a lot of the policies are self-serving. They exist only to create problems and punish users. For example, the language policy. It does nothing to improve this wiki, and only acts as a destriment. Thus, when users unknowingly break this obtuse policy, they are creating a "problem". Honestly, this all comes off as a vendetta against those who are here to socialise. Socialising isn't a problem; this is a community project anyone can contribute too. No other wiki has this "problem". Bigger wikis than this are doing fine, and they have chat rooms and looser policies. If there's a problem here, chat and socialisation isn't it. Communication is a good thing. This is Wikia.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 04:40, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

And this is you venting your frustration at this wiki's policies. It has absolutely nothing to do with this policy. If you have an actual reason for not doing this policy, then please present it.--Legionwrex (talk) 05:01, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Yup. You caught us red-handed. We only make policies because we want to ban people. Darn. There goes our whole racket. Guess we'll have to find some other way to get our rocks off.
Seriously? Is that honestly what you think? That the policies "exist only to create problems and punish users"? Based on... what, exactly? And don't bring up the language policy. I personally have tried numerous times to engage critics of the policy and help guide reforms that will make said policy much looser and less restrictive. I personally have no problem with it, but the again, have no problem with it being changed. I've offered multiple times to help revise the policy. Literally none of those offers have been accepted. And I hate to say it, but none of the offers have been accepted because none of the proposals regarding the language policy have been serious. The policy, IMO, does improve the wiki. Could it use some tweaking? Sure. That's why I'm willing to work with people to change it. It does not exist "only to create problems and punish users". None of the policies do. That is the single most asinine claim I've seen in this discussion so far. I'm not even sure why I'm dignifying it with a response.
Bigger wikis than this tend to be much more restrictive in their policies. I've already pointed out my favorite examples, namely that many of the people voting against this policy wouldn't even be allowed to vote on one of the flagship wikis of Wikia, Wookieepedia. We're not waging war against people who want to socialize. We're just asking that, if they come here, they respect the wiki enough to not just see us as Facebook lite. Contribution to the Wiki (also known as the reason the chat channel exists in the first place) isn't an unreasonable request, IMO. It certainly isn't a proposal we're making just to create problems and punish users. That notion is, quite frankly, absurd. SpartHawg948 (talk) 07:06, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Something I originally posted on another page that I feel may help here, as the spirit of compromise is something one person opposed to the policy has been trying to engender. There's one thing I'm finding very disturbing in this discussion. One side (the people arguing against the proposed policy) seems to be working very hard to caricature and demonize the other (people like me, Lancer, Legionwrex, etc) who are promoting the proposal. We're "condescending", "cold", and come down hard on people. We feel "contempt" toward new editors. Because of is, the wiki has a "bad reputation". We support "draconian rules" that are "self-serving" and "exist only to create problems and punish users". When one side is bashing the other this consistently and this blatantly, how can anyone expect there to be meaningful compromise and consensus? What happened to disagreeing without being disagreeable? I understand this topic breeds some level of frustration, but if we're going to get anywhere, both sides need to treat each other with a modicum of respect. And I know that, with very few exceptions, I'm not feeling any respect from the people on the other side. You want us to assume good faith on the part of new editors. If so, perhaps assuming good faith on our part is a good way to start. SpartHawg948 (talk) 07:35, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

This isn't me venting about anything. I've presented my reasons for it. This serves to only alienate new users, defeat the purpose of chat entirely, and open the wiki up for meaningless edits that will be undone, thus creating more problems.
And no SpartHawg, I don't think that. I'm saying the language policy does nothing to improve the wiki. No one understands why it's a rule, and we have to go out of our way to say f*ck instead of the other word. It's a pointless rule, and I've yet to see anyone on a mature wiki complain because of naughty words. I also don't think the "Facebookification" is an issue. This is a community project. Wikia projects are a collaborative process. There are plenty of other wiki domains that are more suited for just main space edits. I know you're not creating policies to punish users. I'm simply saying that's all it does. It causes more harm than good. How many times do you and the other admins have to get onto
To be honest, other Wikians look at this wiki and they're... puzzled. People having a fun time chatting in a chat room isn't a problem, and so long as people follow the rules, it doesn't matter why they're here. A wiki is a place for people to view knowledge about a topic, and not everyone can or even wants to contribute. The whole point of editing is so non-editors can enjoy the site.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 07:41, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

It's not a pointless rule. You just refuse to acknowledge that there's a point. If you dislike it so much, make a serious attempt to reform it. The previous attempts have all been by editors who wanted to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, i.e they wanted the entire language policy discarded, allowing for (among other things) personal insults to be leveled at other editors. As I've said before, I've yet to see a serious and substantive attempt to reform the policy. Such an attempt would have my support. Instead, I see people complaining but doing nothing. Gandhi said that people need to be the change they want to see. That's all I'm asking. And if you don't really think that we just create policies to punish users, why did you say that's what we do? You say you weren't venting. So what is it? Do you believe what you said in your last comment, or do you believe what you said in the comment before that? They can't both be true. SpartHawg948 (talk) 07:49, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
No one here is trying to demonise you. I'm just trying to explain how you are being perceived, and how you are unintentionally hurting this wiki by enforcing unnecessarily strict policies. I don't mean to sound like I think you're some kind of tyrannical monster; I just don't want this wiki's reputation to worsen. Again, it's not you, but the policies I have a problem with. They are clearly causing problems, and adding further restrictions on who can and can't use a basic feature on Wikia won't solve any problems.
Imagine how a new user would feel upon their first foray into MEWiki. Instead of being kindly greeted by a warm, friendly community, they get kicked out and are sent to a long, complicated series of rules. They are then told they must make a certain amount of edits over a certain period of time. It's all rather complex for a new user. And then, when they try to make an innocent albeit erroneous edit, they're work is undone. Instead of inviting them to join a community we've confused them. Now what? They'll either keep going with less-than-constructive edits, or they'll give up altogether, and make no edits at all. Believe it or not, but for a very comprehensive wiki with very specific style guidelines, being able to make the kinds of meaningful edits we can is rather daunting. I'm not saying it's an "exclusive club" or that you are "cold", but to a new user, that's what it will be.
And so what if they are here to socialise? If they make a couple of worthwhile edits whilst they're here, and they obey all the rules, what's the problem? Everyone contributes in their own little way, and I don't hold that against them.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 07:53, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Countless other wikis have absolutely no language policy, including the ones I administrate. Here's the thing. You think that will allow for personal insults, when that isn't the case. On most other (mature) wikis, you are allowed to curse as you like, so long as it isn't directed toward another user. Obviously nobody wants to allow insults. That's pure harassment, and we already have policies against that. If a user says "**** you!" to another, we don't need a language policy for action to be taken. Simply have a rule that states "Don't insult other users".
Again, I didn't say that's what you're intentionally doing. I'm saying that's what these rules do. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 07:58, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
You're not getting me. What I'm saying is that, as it stands currently, our language policies prohibit both profane language and insulting other editors. There has been literally no attempt to alter the policy which allowed for this. They've all been disgruntled editors seeking to toss the whole thing out. I'm still waiting for that serious proposal, and have offered my assistance. And yeah, based on some of the comments, I can safely say that some here are trying to paint us in a bad light, even if demonize was a bit strong. I cited examples. That sort of rhetoric ("draconian laws", holding new editors in contempt, etc.) isn't going to take this discussion anywhere productive. It certainly illustrates an assumption of bad faith. All I'm asking is for people to lay off a bit. I mean, seriously. You personally may not have called me or anyone else a tyrannical monster, but another editor did. The literal definition of "draconian" is something akin to the laws of Draco, who was a tyrant. Saying the laws we set and enforce are comparable to the laws a tyrant set and enforced is de facto calling the admins tyrants. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:10, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Then I'm simply saying that there should be no problem with general swearing. As it stands, the rule against swearing (not insulting) generally just causes confusion. But I do suppose that a serious proposition should be made. If I can (I don't know the requirements for proposing policy changes), I may do it in the near future.
And I do agree, mindless mud-slinging isn't going to get us anywhere. However, I do believe these rules are too restrictive, and will end up driving users away, back to the forums, or to vandalism. Some users are, to put it quite plainly, arrogant. Part of being an admin, I think, is diffusing these people, whilst at the same time being friendly and inviting new users to join the project. If they mess up, it's important to correct them and encourage them to keep trying. I'll admit, cleaning up their mistakes is rather annoying, but that's part of the job. This proposal doesn't invite people to join MEWiki. It will alienate them.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 08:28, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Look, I really can't help but jump into this now. I'm not an admin or senior editor or anyone in any position of power here. Nevertheless, I'm supporting the current chat policy, not because I have any sort of prejudice against the new editors, but because I believe in that there isn't enough work being done for the wiki as it is.

Mass Effect has been released in 2008. Yet, there are still quite a lot of images missing or lacking in quality, the enemy pages were in considerable dissarray until I joined in, and other things here and there. Mass Effect: Infiltrator has almost zero info on its enemies and powers, morality, walkthroughs and literally everything important. Even M2 and 3 sections could do with a lot of clean-up work. All these things were liek that fro more than a year and new editors were free to move in and fix this, but they didn't. The recent Operation Concentrated Effort has essentially been carried through by the admins and people that are now senior editors, not new users. You might say that this wiki was built freely by the new editors: that might be true, but it certainly isn't getting finished by them, and this seems to be the case on any wiki with lax rules. I have browsed a couple of times through the Dante's Inferno wiki, Milkman, and I honestly say that I prefer this wiki about ten times over it. 4Ferelden (talk) 08:32, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. For you and I, finding these niches and improving articles isn't so hard. For a new user however, this isn't so easy. What if they don't have the knowledge you need? Maybe they've only played one game. Free users come and go, and they will likely only make small contributions. I've adopted several wikis. You know who does over 90% of the editing? The admins. The new users don't edit much, but a lot of the time, it's helpful. I don't expect them to do all the work. So long as they follow the rules, they can do as they please. If they make a bad edit, it is removed.

Sadly, Infernopedia hasn't been edited as much. However, it's still a far cry from what it was. Trust me, lax rules isn't a bad thing. Check out Nukapedia, Red Dead Wiki, or Dragon Age Wiki. Now, rules pertaining to the editing of the mainspace is one thing, but restricting the community and alienating users won't get us anywhere.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 08:48, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Milkman, you'd be a-ok to propose a policy change. And while I won't guarantee success, I do think that a reasonable proposal to amend the language policy would do pretty well. It may very well pass. That policy has been a bone of contention for some time now, and I think that meaningful reform could well succeed. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:51, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Forum Closure

This policy forum is now closed and the policy listed here is now in effect due a unanimous vote by admins. This is because at least one confirmed case of a user canvasing for votes. This destroys the nature and spirit of the policy forum because said user only went to users who they knew would vote against this policy. There are also a series of very suspicious activities that went on during the vote that give evidence to the fact canvasing went on. There is also enough evidence to support this happened last time as well, and therefore shows that no real vote can be taken on this issue without it becoming tainted.

This is not a decision that was reached lightly, or without debate, nor does it set precedent for the future. Admins cannot do this whenever they want and all major policy changes will continue to have votes. At the same time however, if a vote cannot be taken fairly, with evidence to back it up, then action will be taken. It has become obvious that this vote, or any vote on this subject, cannot be taken fairly with the evidence presented, and therefore this page will be closed, and the policy enacted.

The admins would also like to remind everyone at this time that policies like this were being considered when the initial draft of the chat rules were being drawn up and were rejected, with some protest. This is because we thought that people could be trusted and could behave in chat, but time and time again we were proven wrong, and our trust was abused by a number of individuals. We wanted chat to be an open experience, and we trusted users to make it that way, however again, our trust was abused and it was shown that users cannot control themselves in chat, which is why these policies were drawn up.

Blaming admins in this case will not solve the problem as a user who voted against is to blame in this instance. In the forum itself, a problem was identified, attempted to be fixed, twice, and at least one user decided to go out and break the nature and spirit of the forum by getting people to vote against it. This is unethical to say the least and that is one of the reasons this policy will be enacted. If a user cares enough about the wiki to come around and see changes and vote on them, then they will come. They should not have to be told that some major change is going on, they should notice it.

This page now serves as an archive and a warning. Do not go around canvasing for votes. It will not help the case and you will face punishment. If the vote can pass on its own, then there would be no need to canvas. If you have to canvas for votes, then that should say something. Lancer1289 (talk) 08:54, January 7, 2013 (UTC)


Please refer to Forum:Language Policy Reform for the established precedent (set by Commdor) by which this decision was reached. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:00, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

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