Forum:Chat Live! Policy Expansion

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.

Policy:

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

Notes:
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! without warning or explanation.

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.

Explanation

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.

Voting

For

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)

Neutral

1. Trandra (talk) 03:08, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
2. JediSpectre117 (talk) 21:27, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Against

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)

Discussion

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)