Forums: Index > Policy > End Policy

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: Ending Policy.

Description of Policy: Over the year since Mass Effect 3's release, both recent and old events have made it blatantly clear that the ending cannot be discussed without hostility and aggression. For every 1 user who tries to approach the subject with a logical and reasonable attitude, there are 10 who wield their opinions like clubs and attempt to beat each other with them. It has been proven that this issue cannot be discussed civilly, as such it shouldn't be discussed at all, at least not on this wiki's main body.

This proposal will ban any uncivil discussion between users regarding the ending. If the discussion can remain a calm and civil debate, it will be permitted. Expanding on that, if an admin or senior editor determines that it is out of control, and says specifically "this discussion is over", then it is over and any further comments will be deleted and if it continues, then it can be considered "disrupting the peace". Repeated offenses may lead to ban. Notes:
Supporting links or images:

Other Notes



  1. As proposer.--Legionwrex (talk) 16:42, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:34, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Bluegear93 (talk) 18:33, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes because some people are overemotionaly unstable. J.C IS A GOD!! (talk) 22:51, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  5. definitely--TW6464 (talk) 10:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  6. -- JediSpectre117 (talk) 16:59, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  7. I will GLADLY support this proposal. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 14:04, April 6, 2013 (UTC)


  1. I want people to shut up about the endings as much as anyone - probably more than most - but the more I consider this idea the less practical it seems.--Zxjkl (talk) 01:23, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. If a more fair and civil policy is proposed, I will support it, this one however is tossing everyone under the school bus. I would like to see the ending argument stop, but not like this. Marauder 09 40px I can make the Black Sun look like a Swoop Gang. 03:23, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  3. similar views to those just above me here Midnightpiranha (talk) 17:54, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


  1. Ban every talk about the end just because some people can't discuss it without a fight isn't a good solution. --MasterDassJennir (talk) 17:00, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Completely against, unproportionnal measure (see below)--DeldiRe 17:16, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Avg Man (talk) 20:55, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Garhdo (talk) 21:43, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  5. As much as I dislike arguments about the endgame, this policy would do more harm than good. Nord Ronnoc (talk) 23:09, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
  6. The more I thought about it, the less and less I liked it. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 04:32, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Daniel Kelly (talk) 05:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Lksdjf (talk) 09:42, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Seems too far. Gboy4 (talk) 10:21, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  10. TheUnknown285 (talk) 15:26, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  11. STRONGLY oppose. This is ridiculous... SpartHawg948 (talk) 00:31, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  12. This does seem rather pointless. Phalanx (talk|contribs) 19:13, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
  13. Given other users' concerns. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:38, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
  14. Not in favor of even more restrictions. Cattlesquat (talk) 15:02, April 9, 2013 (UTC)


I like how the fact it says specifically argument, not discussion, but there is a point I do not like and I think however it should be clarified. If the discussion can remain a calm and civil debate, then it is permitted, but if it gets out of control, with insulting others opinions, direct insults, and the like, then that isn't permitted. There have been a few civil discussions about it, with others inflaming the discussion. If it can remain what I said, I still believe that should be permitted because if someone mentions it, it will be discussed.

So there are two options, either ban it all together, which we really can't, or permit civil discussion and have consequences if it gets out of control, starting with the discussion being ended. Expanding on that, if an admin or senior editor determines that it is out of control, and say specifically "this discussion is over", then it is over and any further comments will be deleted and if it continues, then it can be considered "disrupting the peace". Warning then ban in my opinion. This is a sticking point for me. It needs to be one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it too on this point.

And if it isn't allowed in the main wiki, then it is not permitted in chat, private message or not. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:07, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Good points, I'll adjust it accordingly.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:09, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Really ? Do we need to ban this topic to avoid conflict ? The language policy is clear enough to give appropriate sanction for poeple becoming insulting against another (for the ending topic or another). This policy is far way from a core principle of proportionnality. It is clearly unnecessary, poeple have to learn to be polite that's it. And if you want to take measures against those specific debate, it is enough to ask an admin to say something like "dangerous topic, i do not want a flame war in here or I will take measures" when this particular topic is launched. Forbidding this crucial topic for ME universe and fans is pointless even if I do not like to talk about it and that i'm convinced that there is no more to say about it. Nevertheless, permit such a policy is an open door for other banned topics... And last but not least, banning procedure are always a bad things for a communautary website, it creates war and disputes (we already seen it and it led to the departure of valuable contributors) --DeldiRe 17:15, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: new version is less accertive but still unneeded. --DeldiRe 17:19, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

The answer, yes, we really do. The language policy and going to admins has already proved to be very ineffective at dealing with this situation, hence, the reason we are even having this problem to begin with. It has been proven that most people cannot be polite about the ending, so this policy will fix that.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:21, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with such a policy if it takes a general measure against flame wars but not with this particular actions to be taken against the ending's discussions. --DeldiRe 17:24, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x2)DeldiRe, you were not around during the aftermath of the release and after Extended Cut was released so you cannot know where this situation is coming from. if you had been here and dealing with the issue, your stance would be much different. Your comment does show your lack of understanding and familarity with the situation so here is what actually was going on.
There were literally fires every day about people arguing over some aspect of the ending. There were warnings, bans, everything to try and stop it, but it kept coming back and disrupting everything because admins had to be pulled off from fixing article content to do nothing more or less than corral many troublesome users who would just continue to go on and on about it, insulting each other, repeatedly breaking the language policy, insulting other people's opinions, creating comment threads so long that comments could not be read fast enough, repeated flamewars over opinions. This is not something that can be approached with we cannot ban it, we have to control it. If we use this template for a civil discussion, then it is still permitted, but if it gets out of control, then there will be consequences. People will not abide by site policies on this issue, that is clearly documented.
Again, you were not around and do not know what was being done on a daily, if not hourly basis. People cannot talk about the ending without someone going off about something. It is too much of a polarized issue. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:33, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

While I really wish the Ending Debate would go the way of the Indoctrination Theory, this just seems to be an over reaction. This wiki has been, despite some trolls here and there, rather good about the ending as of late. It's likely just the fact that it's been a year, and most of the hardcore ragers that are left are keeping to the BSN and YouTube. This just seems like an overkill policy. Avg Man (talk) 20:59, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

My feelings are thus: The game has been out for a year, and while some people still have strong feelings about the ending most can discuss their differing opinions with civility. This was not true a year ago, sure but we have moved on since then. The fact is that it is still something that people will have a strong opinion about and many people will like to voice those opinions on the more social aspects of this wikia. Many within this community can discuss the ending without vitriol and so banning ending discussion seems redundant. If we are to ban discussions of this nature then where does it end? What about if people debate the changes in combat mechanics too loudly, or the Talimancers get too uppity about Talibrations? Action can and should be taken if a discussion gets too abrasive, but having the ability to completely end a discusssion is wrong and I can't agree with it. Garhdo (talk) 21:06, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Except the proposal specifically says discussion about the ending is allowed as long as it is conducted civilly. What is banned is basically what happened a few days ago on Traditionalfire's blog, with hostile arguments that manage to just skim under the line of the language policy, but still create animosity and clog the RC.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:11, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
3 counterpoints to that however: All discussion above is being phrased as though ALL discussion of the ending is off the table, or that any discussion could be closed, even in chat. That I disagree with. Perhaps removing talk from the main body of the wikia as a counterbalance? Also you were heavily involved in the discussion on that blog, weighing your own valid opinions, as the other opinions were valid as well. Some posts may have been a bit more heated but this is a topic that will promote strong reactions. Telling people not to get wound up about it would be like telling someone grieving a year later to stop crying and pull herself together. Also there is the vague point as to exactly which part of the ending we are forbidden from getting riled up about? The originals, the EC, Pick-a-colour, Indoctrination Theory, why we prefer Synthesis to Destroy, or all of the above? Garhdo (talk) 21:17, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
Not all discussion is banned. Only heated ones as defined in the policy, which I do not wish to repeat in this comment, as I already defined them above. If people are incapable of talking about it civilly and get wound up, then they need to go into the corner and keep their mouths shut, because they add nothing to the conversation. This is a wiki for information, not a wiki for people to get wound up and then act as if their entitled to it. It's incredibly childish and annoying. As to which part, pretty much everything involving the ending.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:27, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
And yet this is also a website that incorporates social functions such as Blogs, Profile Talk pages and Chat. I agree with the logic of what you are saying, especially now that the looser language policy will probably lead to more vitriol on some of those fires. However the ending will create heated arguments as it is a sore and strong point and telling people they have no right to discuss those points because someone gets angry is not something I can agree with.
Let's say for example I was debating Synthesis versus Destroy with a new user. Lets say that I remain calm, but that user writes an angry post about my points (never mind that implying anger from written words can be VERY subjective) and yet I continue to debate rationally and calmly. Lets say that user comes back the next day and has calmed down and wishes to respond, only to find that the topic has been locked by an admin. That, in my opinion, is much more damaging than continuing the discussion. For one I have remained calm and am being punished for someone else's actions. Two the other user, now in a much calmer mood, finds that they can no longer comment, gets angry at their right to free speech being removed, and leaves the wikia. I can understand the points behind your argument but I cannot agree on the principle. Garhdo (talk) 21:42, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
This isn't an issue of social functions or whatever. Unfortunately, if your example is the only way to get people to learn, so be it, however I am not worried about that happening, because I have yet to see a completely civil discussion on the ending recently nor have I seen a user calm down (because whenever anyone suggests it, both sides completely ignore that comment). There is literally no reason what-so-ever that a user cannot debate the ending in a civil tone, other than that they want to be a hostile *** and impose their opinion on other people.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:50, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
Gardho said with better word what I wanted to say, such a policy is just too strong in its principle. And to respond to Lancer, first I was there when EC was out even if I didn't participate at the heated debate and second stop saying poeple that they know nothing about this problematic (or other ones, it is the same arguments that you said for chat policy debate). Maybe, we were not confront to the problem but it is not true that we can't give a good opinion on the topic. It is always good to have a third party who see the problem with some distance. You are maybe too close of the problem and you want to find a fast solution which is not always the best because chosen too fast in a hurry and under emotional context. You should be more aware to our vision. As Gardho said, I'm also well aware that this topic (flame debate) is an issue and that actions need to be taken, but once more this policy will lead to more problem than it will solve. Poeple who will be banned or no more allowed to speak freely will become angry and frustrated and the debate will be more strong and less civil. It is obvious --DeldiRe 21:58, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
You know, why should we even care if they get upset? They have demonstrated a complete disregard for us and how we feel, and they don't care if they upset or anger others.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:03, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
You have a point but the problem is that we risk to punish poeple with good faith for the behavior of a minority. The measures taken should stay directed at the trouble maker. Well, I will not develop my opinion further, I would prefer to speak about how to improve this wiki content rather than speaking about some jerks who are only active in the social features of the wikia  :) --DeldiRe 22:14, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
Except that is isn't the minority. Almost every single person who discusses the ending ends up flaming, myself included. This isn't meant to punish anyone, and the civil person can simply start another comment string about it with the troublemaker gone. Problem solved.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:17, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
Except that doesn't solve the problem, but starts it up again ad infinitum, ignoring the original issue and instead shifting it to a new discussion. 23:31, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
All the more reason that this proposal should be passed then. If people are really so childish that at every single comment string they will create a flamewar, then it's best that the ending just isn't discussed at all, period. The hope is that after enforcing this policy a couple times, people will finally get it through their heads that this behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated any longer.--Legionwrex (talk) 05:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Nord, the reason it says "possible ban" is for repeated offenses. Obviously we aren't going to ban people for a first time offense on this.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:11, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

What is an offense ? What is repeated ? From when does the discussion need a closure ? Once more, I tottaly agree with your goal Legion but this way of action seems totaly out of proportion. Too uch discretionnary power for the enforcer, it would lead to debate and endless discussions on "why is the discussion closed ?". And moreover, as stated by ronnoc, poeple will still try to give their opinion in an other way. --DeldiRe 23:45, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
As defined above, being aggressive and uncivil in discussion about the ending. Repeated is pretty self-explanatory. It needs closure the second it becomes the annoying flamewar we have been dealing with for the past year. No DeldiRe, if I had done this when nothing has happened, that would be out of proportion. But people have been acting like whiny children about the ending for over a year now. They have shown they don't care that it's bothering other people and they do it anyways, even when repeatedly asked to stop. Well enough is enough, now is the time when the "wiki leadership" (for lack of a better term) needs to step up and tell them to knock it off and grow up. If they have a problem with it it's only because their ego is bruised at not being able to bash others with their opinions, even though there is literally no reason why they can't discuss it civilly.--Legionwrex (talk) 05:45, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Three words: freedom of speech. This policy breaches that and sets a dangerous precedent. Period. Daniel Kelly (talk) 05:52, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was the U.S. Government. Lancer, isn't this the type of thing that is grounds for removing a vote?--Legionwrex (talk) 05:57, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
People can and should be able to vote for whatever reasons they want, whether or not they exist. Lksdjf (talk) 06:21, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
I never said this was the U.S. Government. Even if I had, you'd lose. Wikia is an American corporation which means it is bound by the laws of America. However, that is not my argument. My argument is that this policy sets a dangerous precedent. Daniel Kelly (talk) 06:29, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
1). No, people can't. It has already been mentioned by Lancer that votes can be removed because of this.
2). Freedom of speech doesn't apply here. Hence the reason we have a language policy, and a policy against insulting other users. And what precedent would that be? All it would be doing it ending hostility. The only reason I can think people would oppose this is because somewhere inside, they like the flamewars and hostility.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:55, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference. The language policy defines how people can voice their minds. This policy prohibits them from voicing their minds. Also, I told you that the freedom of speech argument is not mine. I have no problem with censorship, in the right situations. Censorship on a wiki that "anyone can edit" alienates the guiding principle of a wiki. Daniel Kelly (talk) 04:52, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Couple of quick points - there is absolutely no reason that I'm aware of for Daniel Kelly's vote to be removed. People most certainly CAN vote for whatever reason they wish. If you recall, during the vote on whether or not to demote me, someone voted to demote me because they thought it would be funny. Did anyone pitch a fit or call for the vote to be removed? No. There are, that I'm aware of, exactly two reasons votes have been stricken in the past: sock puppetry and canvassing. I've seen evidence of neither here. If Lancer has said that votes can be stricken because he doesn't like the reason given, please direct me to those comments. I'll gladly rectify the situation.
Additionally, I can think of multiple reasons people would oppose this without being fans of flamewars and hostility. Here's two that are influencing my vote: an utter hatred of Orwellian speech codes, and the sheer hypocrisy of banning an entire debate topic so soon after loosening the language policy. SpartHawg948 (talk) 12:34, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Wait I thought the point of this policy was so that flamewars and heated debates on the ending were prevent and allowed the admins to remove said debates if they get to much out of hand. We are still allowed to talk about the ending right. JediSpectre117 (talk) 13:49, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
@Sparthawg98 okay, you already drove your point home, no need to keep repeating it. Sorry about the confusion, but I was 90% sure Lancer said something like that on the chat policy vote, hence the reason I asked instead of just saying "remove this vote".
@JediSpectre117 That's exactly right. Doesn't matter anyways at this point, the majority of the support base for the policy aren't supporting it, so.....--Legionwrex (talk) 17:51, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
I was answering only the points raised in your comments to Daniel Kelly and others in this sub-thread, or whatever you call it. I wasn't repeating anything. As for removing votes, we've now got concrete statements from an admin and a Bureaucrat saying that is not going to happen. So perhaps it's time to stop repeating that you're 90% sure Lancer said something in chat? And JediSpectre117, part of the problem is that not all the admins would feel comfortable enforcing this policy. SpartHawg948 (talk) 21:37, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see why this is needed. Unless I am sorely mistaken, insults are already banned both by precedent and existing policy (such as the recently passed language policy). So, I don't see why we would need a special rule just for the ending discussion. TheUnknown285 (talk) 14:39, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

You are right, we don't. Other rules already cover this matter and besides this is too vague for my taste, since it leaves the issue open to a adm or senior editor to determine when they think the matter should be over. --MasterDassJennir (talk) 14:58, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
And both of those have proved ineffective at dealing with this. Incase you haven't noticed, most of these flamewars manage to just skim under the radar of the language policy and the insulting other users policy.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:55, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

So I don't see what the problem is here. Can someone please explain it to me? All that is being banned are the ending flamewars that swallow the RC (frankly, a lot you opposers seemed against these on the blogs, so I'm a bit confused), not civil discussions about the ending. After a few times enforcing this policy, most if not all people would get the message and we can end this whole annoying fiasco once and for all (one of the reasons it's named the "End Policy").--Legionwrex (talk) 16:05, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

I will then sum the arguments against up :
  • Disproportionnal policy
  • Dangereous precedent
  • Discretionnary power given to the policy enforcer
  • Reducing the freedom of speech
  • Debate still risk to go on other pages
  • Will create more animosity and frustration
  • sanction against poeple who want to speak gently on this issue
  • Current policy is already against flame war
  • Whinners will stay whinners even with news policies

--DeldiRe 16:31, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

  • How so? So your saying these massive flamewars aren't a big deal?
  • For what? No precedent is being set here for any other policy.
  • All I can say is trust your admins and SE (as in me), if you don't, then there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.
  • It doesn't apply to this wiki. Besides, if people really care about free speech that much then don't complain about the flamewars to begin with. This policy was mostly made after multiple people complained and said they would support such a policy.
  • How so? What other pages? We'll just stop it there to, but this is a somewhat petty concern considering the highly unlikely chance it has of happening.
  • Between who? Most people will be happy this whole fiasco is over with. The small minority that will be upset are the hostile whiners who feel the need to voice their oh-so important opinions, so they can just sit in their corners and pout.
  • I highly doubt a situation will come up in which we have to deal with this. But the end result of ending these arguments will be worth it.
  • And it has proven ineffective, because for the last time, people sneak around it.
  • But their whining won't clog up our blogs and the RC anymore.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:08, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • We're not sayinng they they aren't but censoring opinions is hard, especially about such a sensitive issue.
  • Actually it would be easy to propose another policy where admins can censor any conversation they disagree with based on this precedent.
  • Some users don't trust the admins. Admins are also not on all the time, meaning this flamewars can escalate before action is taken, and admins could abuse this policy to shut down conversations as they feel like as it is far too subjective.
  • A lot of people have obviously rethought their position. I know I have. There is a social side to this wiki no matter how much admins deny such, meaning that people have a right to say what they wish. One could say if you don't like the topics discussed, don't join in.
  • You said above if a thread is locked then people are free to start a new discussion. That doesn't help the problem.
  • Most recent discussions over the endings, such as on the Mass Effect 3 choices poll blog, are actually very civil. In fact the thread that prompted this proposal the discussion seemed less about the ending, and more about a particular user's attitude to people she disagreed with. That was the topic that the other editors took issue with.

Garhdo (talk) 19:12, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

  • Opinions are not being censored, hostile behavior is. They can still voice their opinions in a civil manner. I don't get what is so hard to understand about that.
  • It would be easy to propose that now, even if this didn't pass. There would still have to be a vote on it, so unless the community wanted it to happen, it wouldn't happen.
  • Like I said, if they want to have their irrational beliefs that the admins are out to get them and are looking out for their own interests, there is nothing I can say to stop them. However, it won't just be the admins, it will also be SE (and maybe CM). Fear of admin oppression is a poor argument.
  • Okay, then next time something like this happens on a blog I don't want to see any complaining about it from the opposers then, or else I will call them on it and point out their votes on this proposal.
  • If a person tries to continue the argument after the original thread was locked and they were warned, they will most likely be banned. But I highly doubt anyone would try to do it again after being warned. Either way, it will be dealt with.
  • ???? So what? Others aren't. I have witnessed more ending flamewars than I can count and they are still happening, regardless of the cause of them.--Legionwrex (talk) 19:31, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • Hostile behaviour is already censored, so this policy becomes redundant with that argument.
  • The last major flamewar involved yourself as a key part of it. That was also the first one regarding the ending that I have seen in several months, since that Indoctrination Theorist was here, who you also brought to this wiki.
Garhdo (talk) 19:54, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • And yet somehow these flamewars go by unopposed. Like I have repeatedly mentioned, people in these flamewars always find ways to dance around directly breaking policy, even though they are clearly being rude and hostile.
  • It was raging before I even joined, and mainly what I was doing was trying to end it. The IT one also had flamewars on it, IronicAtheist just took it up to 11.--Legionwrex (talk) 20:13, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
There is no 'dancing around policy'. They are either being rude and hostile, in which case the admins step in and reprimand, or they were not and then you leave them be. There is no middle ground.
And as I said a debate was raging, yet it was about the attitude of a user, not opinions on the ending. In this case both Lily and Alek should have been reprimanded, or left alone, as I described above. They were either in the wrong or they weren't. By stepping in and discussing the ending you created the very situation you have created this policy to remove. You made no effort to calm the flames beyond basically saying 'everyone shut up you each have opinions but the ending still sucked get over it.' And if there was already flamewars over the Indoctrination Theory why, oh why, would you invite an I-Theorist in to fan the flames.
You say you want the flamewars to stop, and that you want admins and SE to step in and stop people being rude, yet in the two most recent instances you have fanned the flames AND failed to reprimand the people posting rude remarks. In effect you are proposing a policy that you have yourself shown you cannot follow, so why should the community support you?

Garhdo (talk) 23:35, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Whoa now, I never insulted anyone without provocation, don't point the finger at me.Aleksandr the Great (talk) 05:21, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
And yet they don't get reprimanded by anyone. In the first example, I was trying to end a flamewar. Maybe I didn't go around it the best of ways, but at least I tried. In the second, I was notifying someone who was being made fun of in a blog that they were being made mocked. And I specifically told Ironic not to do what he did. It's not my fault he chose to completely ignore me. As to why the community should support me, is because the only reason I made this d*mn policy to begin with is because multiple people (and I'm pretty sure you were one of them) specifically supported the idea of this policy! If you didn't want this, you shouldn't have led me to believe you did by telling me. Whatever.--Legionwrex (talk) 01:15, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
@Alek - I meant no offense. My point was that in Legion felt you and Lily were flaming he should have taken steps to reprimand you both. He did not.
@Legion People's opinions can change, which they obviously did when they discussed this change here. Some who supported you there are still supporting you here however. The fact remains tat you did nothing to end the flamewar in the first instance, and in the second you had been involved in the youtube argument and knew exactly what Ironic was like - inviting him here was asking for trouble and you knew it. Garhdo (talk) 10:58, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, just stop pointing fingers Ghardo. I have already said I am not above flamewars, however in both those situations you paint is as if I am the big, bad, instigator. I tried to end the first one, pretty much no one else can say that they did. As to the second, Milkman shouldn't have created a blog mocking someone if he wasn't prepared to deal with them. I believe telling Ironic that he was being made fun of was the right thing to do. What he did after that is beyond my control.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:51, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Firstly my name is written right there is it that hard to spell it right? I understand you are not above flamewars, but as I said where you could have taken action to end this particular flamewar, which I will reiterate was not about the bloody ending in the first place you didnt and instead joined in! And what of Milkman's other blogs mocking Indoctrination Theorists and their ludicrous comments? Why not link them to BSN and allow every raving moron to come here and spout their madness? The fact was you were mocking Ironic on the youtube thread where he came up with most of his nonsense, and it seemed almost as though you bought him here to carry flaming him.
You say you want the flamewars about the ending to stop. IMO they generally have, with the only two recent instances being less about the endings and more just general arguments. instead of creating a restrictive new policy or prolonging those arguments by joining you should instead have used the powers that you have on this wiki to step in and reprimand the people who are arguing. The fact remains that when you had the opportunity to end the last argument using the abilities already at your disposal you did not. Garhdo (talk) 18:29, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
And the ending started it. You say it wasn't about the ending, I disagree. Clearly it had some relation to the ending. I didn't join in, my point was that I and others didn't like the ending, other people liked the ending, everyone let the issue die. That is more than what anyone else did. I didn't have direct contact with the BSN people, and there were like 50 of them he quoted. I did, however, have direct contact to Ironic via youtube PM, and I was actually on good terms with him, so I decided the morally right thing to do was tell him he was being mocked. You can say I was wrong, I disagree. And frankly, I am a bit afraid to use my powers to reprimand people at this point, given that the majority of people seem to have "admin abuse fever". But I still tried to stop it. The fact of the matter is that this all has no purpose to this discussion, regardless if I attempted to end flamewars back them, I am doing it now for people I though wanted it done! This is what I'm talking about when I mentioned to Spart I am feeling attacked, pretty much all of your comments here have been accusatory, or at least they seemed that way.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:48, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
I apologise as that was not my intention. I am simply trying to point out that there are existing ways to combat the problem, yet no-one seems willing to use their powers to do it. But my other point is that this isn't really a problem anymore surely? Garhdo (talk) 19:19, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Banning discussion of certain topics because they're contentious? Seriously? I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable enforcing this policy. SpartHawg948 (talk) 00:31, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I only did this because multiple people said they wanted it. Ironically most of them are voting against.--Legionwrex (talk) 01:15, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
It is not because we voted against that we do not support your initial goal: stopping the flame war --DeldiRe 01:29, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Because multiple people said they wanted it doesn't seem sufficient justification for imposing Orwellian speech controls. Seriously, what the hell does it say about us if we okay using profanity one week and forbid arguments about the ending of the trilogy this wiki is based on the very next week? Cognitive dissonance, anyone??? SpartHawg948 (talk) 01:39, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
All I'm saying is I'm not the one (or at least not the only one) who wanted this. I'm a bit frustrated because multiple people said they would support such a policy, and now that I did what they wanted me to do, they are suddenly changing their position on the whole issue. Frankly, I'm also feeling like I'm being a bit attacked here. I really don't care what happens to this proposal anymore.--Legionwrex (talk) 01:44, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
See, the problem is that there are all sorts of mixed messages there. If you're not the one who wanted this, why propose it? Why vote for it? If you really don't care what happens to it, why be frustrated at the lack of support? For that matter, why be disappointed at the lack of support if you're not the one who wanted this? I don't think anyone is attacking you, but this proposal is, IMHO, just terrible. Especially, as I mentioned, in light of the recent language policy vote. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:02, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say I didn't want this, I said I wasn't initially the only one. The frustration more stems from the sudden 180 many of the opposers did in their ideology on this issue. I said I was feeling attacked, that doesn't mean I was, but I certainly felt some comments here were very accusatory. And finally, when I say I no longer care, I meant that as in starting that moment, I no longer cared.--Legionwrex (talk) 02:10, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
It's one thing to say you want a policy about something. It's another to actually vote for that policy. It's like how people are constantly saying "there ought to be a law" about things they really don't want laws about. This policy opens the door for ever more intrusive policies about what topics people will be permitted to talk about, and what topics will get them banned. And that's not a good thing. At all. And it seems like some of the people you're talking about saw this and voted accordingly. SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:17, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
You do realize this isn't banning ending talk, right? Just the flamewars, civil discussion regarding the ending would be A-okay under this policy. But I suppose it's all a moot point anyways at this point.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:51, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
What I realize is that this is a vaguely worded proposal with lots of wiggle-room for abuse. For example, you say it's a ban on flamewars. That's not what the proposal says. The proposal is a ban on "uncivil discussion". No definition is provided for what is and isn't "uncivil discussion". So yeah, I do realize this doesn't end talk. Just talk deemed "uncivil". Incivility is in the eye of the beholder, though, hence my objection. SpartHawg948 (talk) 21:44, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. When I made this proposal I pictured everything going a lot more smoothly, obviously I was wrong. I really don't care at this point, since the people I made this for don't want it. You can go ahead and close it if you want to Spart.--Legionwrex (talk) 04:20, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.