Forum:Chat Live! Policy Revision

Forums: Index > Policy > Chat Live! Policy Revision

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: Chat Live! Policy Revision

Description of Policy: To change the editing requirement timeframe in order to encourage more people to edit.

Notes:
Supporting links or images:

Other Notes

The current chat policy has been active for around a month, and has resulted in practical absence of activity in the Live! Chat and lack of increased participation by new editors. While it was assumed that new editors would be encouraged to make the required 20 edits in order to unlock the Chat rights, so far this hasn't been the case.

In order to encourage greater participation in the wiki mainspace by the new editors, this policy amendment changes the edit threshold if passed. Instead of 20 mainspace edits required over a fixed two-week period with an edit made every other day, 5 mainspace edits would initially unlock Chat for a week without any more editing needing to be done until one week passes, at which point they won't be allowed to use the Chat until a total of 20 valid mainspace edits has been obtained. If the user has already made all 20 edits before one-week period expires, they're free to continue to use Chat, provided that they know and obey the rules for chat conduct.

Voting

Support

1. As proposer. 4Ferelden (talk) 10:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. See below.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Legion. LordDeathRay (talk) 11:07, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Against

1. Said it before, and I'll say it again. This is no way a solution. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 10:46, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
2. See below --DeldiRe 15:58, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
3. This alternative policy isn't any better than the previous. I would prefer LegionWrex's solution over this. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 16:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
4. While a revote would help ease the whole Mass Defect drama, this is not a solution. BeoW0lfe (talk) 17:47, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
5. See below Avg Man (talk) 21:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
6. The problem isn't the edits to use chat, simply that Chat is being abused. Remove the edit requirement and get to the source of managing the chat effectivelyGarhdo (talk) 04:32, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
7. Not a solution. -Algol- (talk) 21:28, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
8. You lost me at "then it locks again and they need 20 edits". (paraphrased, obviously...) SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:07, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

As stated above, the current policy unfortunately hasn't brought in new mainspace edits and while the disorderly activity in Chat! might be gone, so has the civil use. However, I'm against totally dismantling it as has been proposed by some users recently, largely because I feel that there aren't enough mainspace edits, but also since we cannot expect a true consensus on the issue in this community by completely ignoring one side of the argument. This policy change would encourage more people to use chat, as they get to use it sooner and would be able to appreciate its benefits over the week-long period before they're asked to make the remainder of the edits. Splitting the edit threshold also makes it easier to accept simply due to the way our brain handles numbers. All in all, we are likely to see Chat become once-again active and see our already detailed database edited further. 4Ferelden (talk) 10:36, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Lets not jump the gun here. Did Spart contact you and ask you to create this policy? Because to my knowledge the admins were still working on it. So for now, until I can get a bit of confirmation here, I'm going to vote neutral.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Before I vote, I'd like to ask the proposer a question:

Short version: This? Really?

Extended version: Do you honestly believe this would work? Can't you see that this only brings a cosmetic change to one of the consequences of the problem, but doesn't even scratch the surface of the real problem? -Algol- (talk) 15:54, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to what you consider to be the real problem? Thank you in advance. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LegionWrex. We should wait for a new proposition and then we will start the discussion. Moreover, your proposition seems to be way too complicate and it will not solve the previous problems. We don't need a complicate mechanism just to decide on the easy issue "who can use a chat". Nevertheless, thank you to propose your idea on this topic.--DeldiRe 15:58, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite on this divisive matter. However, as I have said both above in the proposition and below in the reply to Avg Man's comment, the current system is actually more complicated, essentially requiring admins/CMs to check prospect user's contributions every two days over two-week period. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Algol, to the point that I don't even think it's worth me voting... But then I can't see why a proposal that is overwhelmingly rejected by a qualified majority is still accepted as policy. And I don't see why there is a need for a compromise, a party in the House of Commons doesn't ask the opposition for a compromise if they have enough MPs to pass it on their own. Can this not be the case of what the majority vote for, the majority get? 19/4 is hardly a 'small' majority now is it, nor is 10/7. Alexsau1991 ^{(talk page)} File:Goddammit.svg 18:04, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

OK, you have brought up a similar point before on -Algol-'s blog and I replied to it there, but I believe it warrants repition: neither Wikipedia nor Wikia were designed as pure democracies, and Wikipedia openly says that here and here. To those unwilling to see the links, I'm quoting an particularly relevant section from the latter:

Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes," most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion.

So I hope this answers your question as to why there is a need for compromise. You might not agree with this system, but it nevertheless remains the basis of this site. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Here is a solution for you: Increase the number of chat moderators. And that would be it. No edit restrictions on chat use. Because you can't really coerce people into editing this way. -Algol- (talk) 19:53, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

To sum up my thoughts rather quickly: While we need to do something to resolve this mess (for lack of a better term), your solution is essentially what we have currently, only more complicated to check. So, until we get something from LegionWrex, Lancer, or Spart (who lately seems to be the most reasonable admin about this mess), I'm going have to say no. Avg Man (talk) 21:17, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

....You guys do realize I'm not an admin right, I'm just a Senior Editor, which is one step above CM.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:23, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

. Meant that as "The guys(?) who're more likely to come up with a reasonable(ish) plan/policy". I think I just lumped you in there due to how this whole debacle started and the consequent reactions. Let's face it, popular or not, you 3 know what you're doing. Avg Man (talk) 23:49, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

While it's true that admins have currently remained non-committal on this, I believe that it's unfair to say that this version of the policy is more complicated to check. As I have stated above and as shown in the original forum Notes here, th current policy doesn't just demand 20 mainspace edits but also forces the user to edit at least every two days for two weeks in order to unlock the Chat. Effectively, admins/CMs would have to look at the user contributions every two days during that two-week period in order to see whether or not the edits are spread out as required. In contrast, under my proposition a CM would simply have to check the user's contributions once to see whether they have five valid edits, then check back a week later to see if they have 20 valid edits or not. It is much simpler and also lets prospective users access chat sooner during the one-week period, thus encouraging them to stay. 4Ferelden (talk) 06:35, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

I got a brilliant idea - disband the chat completely. Won't be any problems then. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 22:41, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Curing a headache with a beheading. It is pretty much the current situation. The chat is there, but nobody uses it, so you can safely consider it non-existent:) -Algol- (talk) 22:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

4Ferelden, i agree that it will not be more hard to manage for the moderators but this proposition will be hard to understand for the new comers. And one week for 15 edits seems to be really short if you want quality --DeldiRe 09:16, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

"Can you please be more specific as to what you consider to be the real problem? Thank you in advance"

Okay, if that question even arises, then I'll definitely vote against, just in case. Done. Now, back to answering the question.

The real problem here is that any number of mainspace edits shouldn't even be here in the first place. It's a purely artificial and pointless restriction, that doesn't differ much from the current state of affairs (meaning the dead chat). You cannot coerce people to edit. The only number of edits a user needs is a single one, anywhere, in order to be familiar with the policies. And increasing the number of chat moderators will help dealing with troublemakers more efficiently. -Algol- (talk) 21:27, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that, honestly, we can't even be sure if said CMs will enforce site policy. Honestly speaking, most of the people who have suggested to be CM as a way to solve this problem are the same people who disagree with many of this site's policies, the language policy being the biggest. I can envision them letting that stuff slide, and the only way to be sure is to have an admin on to constantly monitor, but that is one of the problems this policy is trying to fix in the first place.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:34, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

To answer Legionwrex's initial question, no. I had no knowledge of this until just a few minutes ago. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:09, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

What?! I thought I have clearly stated that I decided to open this forum on your talk page two days ago! Anyhow, can you please elaborate more on the "against" vote? I have edited the description somewhat in case it has been confusing before (i.e. by "locked", I meant that they won't be allowed to use chat anymore until the 20-edit criteria has been met.) I mean, after all, you have repeatedly stated in the original discussion that 20 edits is a modest thing to ask for... 4Ferelden (talk) 09:20, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase - I didn't recall hearing of it prior to a few minutes ago. That's my bad. I remember your post on my talk page, but had initially skimmed it, and then when I re-read it I was a bit miffed by your "no response of any kind" comment. It's been a bit hectic of late what with the vote redo discussions and all. As for my vote, I dislike the idea of temporary usage only to then have the chat locked again until they hit 20 edits. Either it should be permanent access at 5 or at 20. I'm not crazy about dangling it temporarily only to take it away. It's not about the number of edits. Additionally, once voting has commenced, please refrain from making any edits to the proposal. SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:35, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I like Kainzorus Prime's solution. Just saying... And -Algol-, no one is trying to "coerce people to edit". But is it really so unreasonable to expect that, if people are coming to the Mass Effect Wiki to use the Mass Effect Wiki chat channel, that they in some way contribute to, or take part in, the Mass Effect Wiki other than just using our chat channel? There are plenty of other channels, none of which is part of the Mass Effect Wiki. It essentially boils down to: are we a wiki that also has a chat channel, or a chat channel that also happens to have a wiki? SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:41, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically Lancer did edit the current policy proposal about two days into the vote, and this edit was more grammatical in nature than any real change in substance. Anyway, think of it a bit like antivirus trials: they give user a chance to see whether it's worth for them to make the rest of the edits to unlock the chat or not. Currently, it's clear that making 20 edits up front for something you haven't tried is simply too much psychologically for users. A valid counter-point would be that most trials don't require you to pay a segment of the price first, but 5 edits is both very modest (especially if we improve our Concentrated Effort & other initiatives regarding problem pages) and serves to establish that user is aware of our policies, thus dealing with "inorderly behaviour" concern. That said, I'm considering changing it to 5 and 5 or 5 and 10, if that will make it more accessable to those who don't object to the entire idea of edit threshold per se. 4Ferelden (talk) 11:02, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

"And -Algol-, no one is trying to "coerce people to edit""

Here is a quote from the proposer: "the current policy unfortunately hasn't brought in new mainspace edits". Looks pretty much like coercion, if you ask me, and not even a subtle one. Thing is, the chat is for chatting, you know, and mainspace is for editing. If users wish to engage in both activities, they can only do so willingly, not under duress of being denied the use of the chat if they don't edit. Gosh, should I write here in full detail how a proper chatroom should work?

"It essentially boils down to: are we a wiki that also has a chat channel, or a chat channel that also happens to have a wiki?" - Both. -Algol- (talk) 12:51, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustrations, Algol, but let's not conflate 4Ferelden's statement at the top of this proposal with the actual intentions of the original policy expansion. I happen to agree that the edit count doesn't solve any problems (lacking any evidence in either direction, notably), but this sentiment can be expressed without also getting disagreeable. -- Dammej (talk) 13:22, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting until now but I will say this. I am once again completely floored with the amount of hostility towards someone who actually is trying to do something. I have yet to see just about anyone voting against actually do some work and propose a solution apart from "let chat moderate itself". We have proven that does not work and I am getting sick and tired of the repeated statements that it will. You want change, then actually get up and do some actual work because just about everyone once again voting against has done nothing but fight, complain, be arrogant, and live in denial of an actual problem that none of them even knew about or refuse to admit it exists. You all want a solution, yet none of you want to actually do any work to make it happen. Funny how when there is actual work involved, just about all of you disappear... Lancer1289 (talk) 15:49, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Lancer you seem to be ignoring the fact that several editors, myself among them, have made themselves available for selection as Chat moderators, but there has been no decision on that one way or another yet. I hardly call that disappearing when there is work involved. We are instead volunteering to help run the chat effectively. The Chat needs moderating and not allowing users to use the chat feature provided based on their edits is ridiculous. As previously stated by many sometimes it can be hard to find edits that need doing, especially between releases. The options seem to be monitor the chat effectively, reminding all members of the rules with moderators taking action when those rules are broken, or if there is no desire to do this then removing the chat feature from the wikia completely.Garhdo (talk) 17:18, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

And I have already mentioned the problem with that; CM powers are given to people who have shown that they understand and will re-enforce site policies such as the language policy, and frankly, I'm not sure if I can trust a lot of the people who are volunteering to become CM, mainly because of how they have reacted to the language policy in the past.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:22, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And let's look at who has "nominated" themselves, people who have a reputation for having issues with site policy. Therefore, the ability that they will enforce every and all site policies, if they will even do it at all, comes into question because they cannot abide by them already. So far, I have yet to see anyone who could really be a chat moderator from the group for the way they have behaved towards site policies in the past, from their lack of experience, lack of time spent here, or lack of frequent editing to be able to be on every day to enforce said policies. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:23, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Okay sorry I didn't see that. The language policy is something I don't really see an issue with. I swear in real life but it isn't necessary to function on the internet. The fact is no-one has a better solution for it.

Still that's a non-issue. I'm sure some of the volunteers are acceptable? Or the admins could contact other people and ask if they would be interested in the role. Garhdo (talk) 17:27, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Also Lancer surely the fact people are volunteering is a sign they are willing to do the work and enforce the policies, even if just to resolve this? Your abrasive attitude is just dismissing them outright when you should instead be willing to give these people a chance. Maybe talk with some of these volunteers more and discuss what they need to do and see if they are still interested rather than just writing them off.Garhdo (talk) 17:35, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Because that is exactly what they want. They want to do chat however they like and not care about the rules. Just about everyone who has either suggested additional chat moderators, or "nominated" themselves, has either had issues with site policies in the past, has repeatedly shown they cannot follow site policies, are critical of just about every site policy and will take any issue of being reminded of them, has repeatedly broken site policies, or just does not have experience that would be necessary for the admins to trust them with running chat. Bottom line, they have offered the same solution over and over again, and none of them even want to actually fix the problem. They keep saying it will fix itself, when that has been PROVEN that cannot and will not be the case. I will not argue this point further. I want to see actual proposals, not the same thing time and time again. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:41, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

And that whole statement proves my point that you are not even willing to talk to those nominating themselves and are dismissing them purely on past issues. You are proving that you have no real right to admin the community when you are so out of touch with it and are not even willing to discuss the motions they put forward rationally. Garhdo (talk) 18:45, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

First, HOW DARE YOU. HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF BEING OUT OF TOUCH WHEN YOU ARE SOMEONE WHO HAD NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED. You have no right to go about saying that and I will not tolerate it further. This is just proof that no one here can assume that admins act in good faith, yet they want the admins to the exact same thing in return. You have been here for a huge majority of the problems that we have dealt with so you have no right to go about saying that. I will no longer converse with someone who accuses me of doing something when they have no position to say that.

Second, why should we trust them with any position of authority? These people have proven they can't follow the rules, have repeatedly shown contempt for site policies, shown repeated contempt for anyone in position of authority here, so why should they be entrusted with any position of authority? Until they can prove they can follow the rules, giving them any position of authority is out of the question. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:47, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

You are out of touch Lancer. You are continually rude, obnoxious and abrasive to every editor on here recently. I am raising a sensible query as to why you should not discuss people's nominations and give them serious consideration. Yes I was absent during this crisis due to my PC breaking, but I have taken a keen interest since I have returned, as well as being on the site every day and trying to take a more active role on this wikia. The admins in general may act in good faith but as I mentioned at present YOU are not. You mentioned to me previously you are having real world issues and I seriously think you should either stepdown as admin while you deal with them, or just take a break, as your attitude is helping no-one. I would like you to explain what rules I have broken or taken issue with, or authority I have shown contempt with, considering I have volunteered and yet you are dismissing me as well? I would also like to know what problems I have been here for that according to you give me no right to comment? There is no reason that the admins cannot at least consider the proposals made by the community, or talk to the community about them. If you are the example by which we are to judge all admins is it any reason many in the community are against you. And as for position, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but yours are bordering on rudeness nearly all the time at present.Garhdo (talk) 21:12, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Lancer, your comments are a pleasure to read as always. First you go all "this oozes fail" at a proposal that had 19 people backing it, then you think that you have "proven" that the chat wouldn't work without your artificial restrictions. Proven to whom? The sheer number of people who disagree with the existing policy should give you a hint that you have proven nothing. Now you are just denying everything that you don't like, every opinion, every proposal, every nomination. Maturity. Where is it? -Algol- (talk) 20:26, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Maturity? You want to talk about Maturity? Look who is talking here. You have been anything but mature since this who things started. You knew NOTHING of the problems in chat here. Why? Because you were never here. If someone had not canvased for your vote, you would have never known about the situation or anything that was going on here. You and just about everyone who voted against and for both policies respectively, knew just about nothing about the situation. You have repeatedly shown that you had no idea what was going on and have continued to argue for things that haven't worked, be rude to anyone who disagrees with you, and shown repeated contempt towards the admins. You have been nothing but rude for the entire process, to admins, to people who disagree with you, to people who support the changes, and current chat moderators. You had to be told that there was a problem, and then you assume that nothing is wrong and that everyone else is overexaggerated and is wrong, so you just continue. You have flat out refused to admit that there could even be a problem to the extent that it was described, which was quite accurate.

Now if you cannot answer these questions in your reaponse, then you prove my point that you know nothing about the issues, knew nothing about the issues, and have continually dodged around the issues and flat out refuse to address them. And I will refuse to converse with you anymore because you will not even respond to a simple request.

• Who is in a better position to know about the actual problems that occurred in chat, you or someone who was here every day monitoring chat?
• Why would everyone who is here monitoring chat every day say there is a problem, and yet everyone else, who are not here on a daily basis, not here to monitor chat, not participating in chat, says there is not a problem?
• Why would people who are responsible for monitoring chat keep saying that the issues were as bad as described if they weren't?

If you cannot even bother to answer those questions and continue to berate me, insult me, be flat out rude to me, then I will no longer converse with you on any level. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:47, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

"You knew NOTHING of the problems in chat here" - I did. Some of those problems where explained to me by you, or have you forgotten? I simply do not go paranoid about them. Even if a troll impersonates you, you really shouldn't lose your head and barricade the wiki from anyone. Language policy time: "excrement" happens, but this is not an excuse for what you are doing.

"and shown repeated contempt towards the admins" - No kidding. Though I wasn't alone, not by a long shot. This should give you something to think about.

"If someone had not canvased for your vote, you would have never known about the situation or anything that was going on here" - Quit your raging, it blinds you to facts. My registration date is December 16, 2011. And yes, I was here, lurking mostly, but seeing what was going on. I would have known and nobody canvassed my vote.

About you refusing to converse with me: d'awwwww, I'll be so upset :( But here are your answers:

• Both of us, from our own different perspectives.

• You ask it like I deny there is a problem, which I don't. To answer your question, however: because people who monitor the chat daily lost their perspective. They may be so tired of monitoring the chat and dealing with trolls, that they want to treat a headache with a beheading. It's not a good solution.

• Same as above.

Now I will ask you a question. Are you happy with a dead chat? -Algol- (talk) 21:29, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

You know, I don't exactly like being told that I lost my perspective, especially when it's false.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:33, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

And I don't exactly like being told that I know nothing, especially when it's false :) Though I wasn't referring specifically to you, after all you proposed a solution that removes the mainspace edits requirement yourself. That's very commendable. More like I was mostly referring to people, towards whom I "shown contempt" ;)

Oh, and a question to the proposer. You have repeatedly stated that this wiki's articles are sooooooo good, that they are practically the best on the whole network. Why do you need more mainspace edits then? Do you realize, that the overwhelming majority of people are simply unable to raise the bar even higher? -Algol- (talk) 21:44, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

My bad then (though considering I am on of the people who monitored chat daily you can understand).--Legionwrex (talk) 21:46, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

All right folks, seems like we need to take a step back and let cooler heads prevail here. It would be extremely beneficial to knock of these asinine comments about people being "out of touch", and people 'knowing nothing', and using all caps. Let's try to keep this civil. I get that there are people here who don't like each other. Well, guess what? There's people here I don't especially like either. That doesn't mean it's cool to be a tool toward them. So yeah... let's all just take a deep breath, leave the internet shouting and snarky/derogatory comments safely stowed away, and try to have a civilized discussion. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:32, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

In that case then Spart perhaps you could answer my points above more sensibly?Garhdo (talk) 09:03, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to if you can provide the aforementioned points. There's a good bit of commentary there, and I've only skimmed it. A synopsis would be greatly appreciated. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:18, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Several editors, myself among them, have made themselves available for selection as Chat moderators, but there seems to have been no decision on that one way or another yet. Lancer mentioned he was not considering many of these due to them taking issue with site policy before, or inexperience, meaning he cannot trust them to enforce those policies. I suggested talking to them and outlining the work to them to see if their proposals are still genuine after they know and understand the work involved, rather than simply dismissing them on previous evidence. After all people mature, and seemingly inexperienced persons may have more experience than their time on this wiki would show. I for one would be very interested to know why I am being dismissed as well without an admin at least discussing the role with me to judge my suitability for it. If after discussion with them the admins feel that these volunteers are not acceptable for whatever reason then perhaps the admins could contact other editors and ask if they are interested as they must have their own ideal choices.

I also pointed out, as many others have,that it can be hard to find edits that need doing, especially between releases, so the edit limit proposal is unfair. The options seem to be monitor the chat effectively, reminding all members of the rules with moderators taking action when those rules are broken, or if there is no desire to do this then removing the chat feature from the wikia completely.Garhdo (talk) 09:34, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any. Obviously I'd be more than willing to promote some new Chat Moderators. I'm 99% sure I've said as much multiple times the last few days in various forums. Anyone who is interested will get a fair hearing from me, from Commdor, and in all likelihood from Lancer as well, since Lancer doesn't hold a monopoly on chat mod promotions. That I know of, you haven't been dismissed as a potential chat mod. We haven't seriously discussed who would be suitable, since the whole chat policy thing is still very much up in the air. It's nice to see what the policy is going to be before promoting more people to administer it, is it not? So yeah, that's that. Very few people have been dismissed as potential chat mods. (Offhand, I know of only two I'd be opposed to.)

I'm more on the fence about edit limits. I've made myself pretty clear, I think, in my belief that involvement in the wiki should be encouraged to the utmost, since this is first and foremost a wiki, not a chat channel or social networking site. Your point is valid though. I'm totally fine with low edit limits (5, for example), and could likely be persuaded to support no edit limits for the sake of consistency with other portions of the site, but again, I do think we should be doing all we can to encourage participation at the wiki. I repeat, no one is talking about "coercing" edits, but we do want people to be involved in the wiki itself. And yeah, I'm 100% okay with removing the chat feature completely. Good luck selling that to the community though. Does that answer your concerns? If not, let me know and I'll get back to you! SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:47, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

No that's fine for me, and should answer many of the community at large's questions as well.Garhdo (talk) 09:52, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

"since this is first and foremost a wiki, not a chat channel or social networking site"

Partially it is a social networking site, like it or not. Otherwise you might consider removing blogs and watercooler forums as well as the chatroom. Even more good luck selling that to the community though.

"I repeat, no one is talking about "coercing" edits"

That's exactly what you've been talking about. Coercion can be subtle, but it's still coercion. The number of people, who don't edit mainspace will always exceed the number of mainspace editors, it is simply natural. Let's look at this situation from the perspective of a potential newcomer. The newcomer sees a chatroom, yet akin to Tantalus s/he cannot use it. Why? For no real reason, especially if said user does not intend to do any harm, like violating the sacred language policy. And yet this user is expected to unlock "50/20/5 (no real difference) mainspace edits" achievement, in order to use the chat. Well it can be very hard to unlock for many people. If the quality of the articles here is half as good as some people claim, then adding to such a high standard of quality is the first problem. The next would be that many people are simply reluctant to edit for many reasons: starting from language problems and ending with laziness. But they still can be part of the community, right, no need to deny them that? They still can become potential editors later. Not to mention the possibility that some people will just start farming edits, and those edits will most likely be reverted. I thought you problems with people complaining about their reverted edits, you want even more of that?

How does real encouragement work? Just like on a certain wiki, which is affiliated to this one ;) Any registered user (that would be a single edit anywhere) is welcome to the chat to use it for it's main purpose: chatting. Socializing. Despite not having any language policies (simply because they are not needed), 99% of discussion are civil, and those which are not are being put back on track by the moderators. Despite not having any restrictions to the topic of discussion, quite a few of those people, surprise-surprise, start to edit mainspace! Speaking for myself, I am currently working on a task to improve a somewhat important article, based on ideas I came up with another chat user. See, artificial restrictions like any number of mainspace edits are not needed, but a friendly and welcoming community is. That is something you should aspire to be like, so care to try it out? -Algol- (talk) 07:45, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

What wiki are you referring to? We're affiliated with several. As for the community here, I've found it, stretching back to the founding of the wiki, to be very friendly and welcoming, minus occassional hiccups (for example, folks starting blogs for the express purpose of insulting specific editors). Your comment has merit, and I'm considering it seriously. It would just be a bit easier sell on your part if you'd refrain from being so needlessly antagonistic. Not referring to this specific discussion, in which your comments have been mostly civil and on-point, other than the parts where you put words in my mouth. At no point in time have I been talking about coercing edits. This should be obvious by my last comment, in which I was open to removing edit limits. SpartHawg948 (talk) 07:52, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

I think he's referring to the DAwiki. Anyway, -Algol-, please don't put words into my mouth. I have never stated that this wiki was the best on the network in terms of content; to the contrary, I have replied to concerns brought up once by RandomGuy and you by asking for more information and encouraging the former to write a blog on the subject so that we can amend whatever issues there are (you can do that as well, of course, and I'm thinking of asking Milkman once this is sorted out.)

Regarding as to what is left for new editors for improve, the Mass Effect: Galaxy and Infiltrator IOS games have essentially zero gameplay information on them, lacking in walkthroughs, locations, adversary, character and weapon/power articles. Even if they don't have them, there is adding pictures to where they're missing/of insufficient quality (covered in a blog on that matter by TemporaryEditor78), bug verification, re-arranging walkthrough and adversary tactics articles' (if RandomGuy is 100% correct, there is potential for hundreds of edits in that alone) and if we ever decide to introduce the Nukapedia's carte blanche of adding sound files to the articles then the potential for edits is virtually limitless. 4Ferelden (talk) 11:33, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to DA wiki.

"As for the community here, I've found it, stretching back to the founding of the wiki, to be very friendly and welcoming"

Is that an April Fools joke coming up a bit prematurely? It's not even a funny one, not to mention that it doesn't hold any truth. Right on my blog Lilyheartsliara calls the whole DAwiki community, quote, "worse then idiots". Nobody gives a dang. Temporaryeditor insults Ygrain on her talk page (that you were editing) and continues with his/her insinuations about how less active editors are supposedly worth less then more active ones. And s/he is a Senior Editor here? Lol. And there is a general picture of this wiki having a very bad reputation among others. In no small part due to this wiki admin's (mis-)deeds.

"for example, folks starting blogs for the express purpose of insulting specific editors"

1. Still better then folks handing out unfair bans.

2. Do you think the purpose of my blog was to insult? It wasn't. Tsk-tsk, how much entitlement can you possibly have?

"Your comment has merit, and I'm considering it seriously"

I'm flattered... I guess. In any case let's see if it goes any further then simple consideration. I'd still recommend consulting the old admins, because that obviously didn't go any further then consideration. On a side note: people nominate themselves for CM rights. Will the community have any voice in this matter? Because it's the community who will be moderated by those people.

Also, if you see merit in my comment, I'd like to remind you that it was exactly what Ygrain said right here, back in the days. But her words hold no merit to you, don't they? Also, people who voted against 50 edits for the chat that first time told you that the chat would end up dead if limits like these were to be implemented. Surprise-surprise, it is dead now. It was obvious for almost everyone but somehow not obvious to you. Thing is, the reason why I write all this stuff, the reason why I encourage you to contact the old admins is to help you manage this community, because you are unable to manage it properly. And you just ignore the helping hand for most of the time :(

"At no point in time have I been talking about coercing edits"

You have been talking about an edict restriction. 5 edits, to be precise. That strongly reeks of coercion, intentionally or not.

"I have never stated that this wiki was the best on the network in terms of content"

Consider it my free interpretation of your and Legionwrex's comments on my blog. Mostly Legionwrex's.

"so that we can amend whatever issues there are"

The main issue with problems like these would be Lancer. Amend him :) I'm still not getting why poor Bray was considered unworthy of his own article.

"the Mass Effect: Galaxy and Infiltrator IOS games have essentially zero gameplay information on them"

Well that's hardly surprising. Who in the world even played that stuff?:)

"if we ever decide to introduce the Nukapedia's carte blanche of adding sound files to the articles"

If.

"there is adding pictures to where they're missing/of insufficient quality [...], bug verification, re-arranging walkthrough and adversary tactics articles"

Many possibilities for quality edits and as many (if not more) possibilities for meaningless, poor or unconfirmed information edits, when people will want to farm for their "welcome to the chat" achievement. Edit wars, complaints and other problems will follow. that's what usually happens when people are being coerced into editing by artificial restrictions. However, if people edit because of their own will to do so, the results are more rewarding. -Algol- (talk) 19:50, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

I don't ever recall saying it was the-end-all best on the network, however this wiki is without a doubt one of the best on the network in terms of content.--Legionwrex (talk) 19:59, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Again, a free interpretation, a hyperbole intended to stress what I wanted to say. Regardless the problem remains: if this wiki really is what you claim it to be in terms of content, then adding to the quality will be very difficult for potential editors. And coercing them into editing will make it even more difficult. Again, the best editors are those who edit willingly, not those who just aim to get to the chat.

Simple logic: edits are made by people ----> people come when they feel welcome ----> artificial restrictions do not add to the "welcoming" part ----> therefore they need to be removed.

A-a-a-and the last question. The admins planned to issue a statement about their view of the current situation... last week. Where is it? -Algol- (talk) 20:13, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Here. The response was posted on time, but some time before the forum header tag appears to have been removed from the page, rendering it difficult to locate; I have re-added the tag. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:16, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That was really needed.

Also could you please post the list of new chat moderators, who the admins consider trustworthy? If such a list exists, of course. Because starting a new vote on the policy would be a little bit premature if people do not know the new CMs. -Algol- (talk) 22:40, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

The list of all users with Chat Mod privileges can be found here. If other Chat Mods are being considered, I have not yet been made privy to that info. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:02, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

A misunderstanding has occurred... I didn't mean the list of current chat moderators, I meant a list of the would be chat moderators like, say, Garhdo or others who nominated themselves. SpartHawg mentioned that the administration is willing too consider potential new CMs. Whom? -Algol- (talk) 20:23, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Probably not the place for this, but stupid question: Can we not just put a dropdown box at the top of the chat window, which contains a summarized version of the Chat Policy/Rules? Would mean there's little excue for people to not be aware of said policies which, if I read all the old policy votes was interpreted correctly, one of the things that sparked the edit req. to begin with. If they read them's a whole other thing, but at least we'll make peolpe aware that these policies exist. Avg Man (talk) 21:09, February 18, 2013 (UTC)