Forum:Revote "Chat Live! Policy Expansion"

Forums: Index > Policy > Revote "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: Revote "Chat Live! Policy Expansion"

Description of Policy: To formally request that the wiki's administrators commence a new vote on the Chat Live! Policy Expansion

Notes:
Supporting links or images:

Other Notes

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

I do not believe that the administrators of this wiki took the proper action regarding the resolution of the Chat Live! Policy Expansion on January 7th. Regardless of whether or not canvassing occurred, it is not in the spirit of a community vote to simply discredit the entire majority of voters and decide to pass the policy in favor of those who proposed it. Therefore, I propose that the administration holds a new vote regarding the policy in question, as it should have been done originally. This re-vote must be scheduled to take place within one week of the closure of this vote should it pass successfully.

Voting

Yea

1. As Proposer --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:38, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
2. I shall vote as well. Implementing the policy despite the number of votes against it is unfair. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 00:00, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
3. I am agreeing. This was blatantly unfair, and it annoys me that the mods keep trying to insist that what they did was in any way professional or ethical.--RandomGuy96 (talk) 00:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
4. This is a democracy and unlike REPUBLICANS corporations DO NOT rule us, just as my confederate congressional rep once said during a similar type of heavy hardcore verbalized debate between the two conflicting sides of this conflict. Ardent Clerk Bosker Apologist (talk) 00:34, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
5. If only because a revote might stop some people around here from constantly bickering about this. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 02:03, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
6. Seconding LilyheartsLiara.--Zxjkl (talk) 02:07, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
7. I was leaning towards neutral when the voting for the policy began. After that whole fiasco, I will say that I will NOT make that same mistake. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 02:24, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
8. A bit predictable, but still... :) -Algol- (talk) 18:05, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
9. I missed this whole fiasco the Chat Policy. I'm in--TW6464 (talk) 19:09, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
10. Yea. It seems perfectly reasonable. EzzyD (talk) 20:30, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
11. My opinion is irrelevant by this point, but still. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 09:54, February 1, 2013 (UTC) Alright, time for me to step in :)
12. "This just oozes fail" - Yep, because quite clearly this ain't a democracy. Alexsau1991 ^{(talk page)} File:Goddammit.svg 02:15, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
13. Seems reasonable.. I'm game. Avg Man (talk) 04:28, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
14. I'm in J.C IS A GOD!! (talk) 17:04, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
15. This needs looking at again and with proper discussion. Garhdo (talk) 17:29, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
16. I'll leave this here. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 21:00, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
17. Sounds like a good idea? FrostGiant (talk) 02:52, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
18. Good idea because first vote was unfair or illegitimate and at least too much unpopular / It can stop the war between admins and the community / The current policy is too strict and led to a dead chat --DeldiRe 13:52, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
19. Thought I had already voted on this. TheUnknown285 (talk) 18:24, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

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

Nay

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

Discussion

Is this even allowed to happen? Whatever, I have already said more than enough about what I feel about this.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:44, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that voting is not mandated by Wikia. It was something the admins here implemented, and which we have on occasion felt it necessary to preempt. This is, of course, fully in keeping with Wikia's policies, which allow admins to make decisions regarding the policy of their individual wikis on an as-needed basis. In this case, the admins were uniformly of the opinion that the policy changes being proposed were needed. This, btw, coming from the perspective of the people who actually have to uphold the policies. I just thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that in no way was the decision reached by the admins a violation of any policy, either of Wikia or this Wiki. To use a real-world equivalent, what the admins did was the equivalent of a Presidential Executive Order being used in light of Congressional inaction. It was a decision made by the admins solely concerning a matter of policy and policy enforcement. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:52, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Legionwrex, it doesn't appear that, even if this passes, it would be binding or mandatory. After all, the purpose of this is to "formally request" a new vote. So literally, if passed, this would be a formal request for a new vote. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:55, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

If you turn down the request, you won't solve anything. If you initiate a revote, you will. If you wish for things so return to normal here, avoiding the wishes of the community will do you no good. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 03:11, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

But by that same token, if we do, and the policy (which the admins unanimously agreed was necessary) is discarded, we won't have solved anything either. Look, don't think I'm dismissing this out of hand. I'm not. If, as appears likely, this does pass, the admins will seriously consider a new vote. I time to be pretty neutral in those discussions. With the Ygrain issue, I was leaning toward not closing the vote or banning until it became obvious that both Lancer and Commdor were pushing for it. Despite how we're being caricatured, th admins DO listen and we do care. That's what makes this whole situation (typified by -Algol-'s asinine blog) so frustrating, at least for me. But I digress... Your request WILL receive a fair hearing. That's what I guarantee. I can't guarantee it'll go one way or the other, but it WILL get a fair hearing. SpartHawg948 (talk) 05:04, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

If you allow a revote, you will solve the issue regarding whether or not the community views you as giving a damn about them by showing them that you will allow them to have some degree of input in policies that they vote on. If you do not allow the revote, this problem will continue. This actually doesn't have much to do with the chat itself, as I'm fairly certain that it will remain barren no matter what policies affect it. Any future problems don't stem from what you do with it. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 05:16, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I will ask, however, that you please abide by existing site policies, including (in this case) the site language policy, which remains in full force despite my attempts to push would-be reformers to act... SpartHawg948 (talk) 05:24, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

To close I have two quotes, one by Spart and one by me for everyone to chew on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lancer does have a point; we should have a discussion as to the degree of the problems which the prior policy change attempted to fix, whether the policy change accomplished its goal or went too far, and possible alternatives to the previously-created policy changes. I do have an inkling of an idea for an alternative to the currently-in-effect policy, but it will take me time to write out the idea, reference the pre-existing chat rules prior to the policy change, and compare it with the recent policy changes—plus I'd prefer to bounce the idea off of the community for feedback before putting it to a vote. But I do encourage a community discussion of the problem, the pros and cons of the previous policy change, and alternative additions to the chat rules. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 17:59, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Don't you just love it when moderators have a condescending, smug, and spiteful attitude towards the people they're supposed to be helping?--RandomGuy96 (talk) 01:42, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

"You want a revote, then propose something new, not go back to a hopelessly flawed system" - A helluva lot of people do not seem to view it as "hopelessly flawed". Those who do are in the minority, just as they were the last two times. Just sayin'. -Algol- (talk) 18:12, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Algol denying there is a problem when he never knew the situation, the circumstances, or anything about about the issue. Why am I not surprised... Lancer1289 (talk) 18:17, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

I know the situation. Also I know the problem. Though I view this problem from a bit different angle then you do. Let's just say that while I admit the problem with a theoretical evil troll coming to the chat does exist, I do not believe sacrificing an indefinite number of good users is really worth it. Doesn't tie with all "good faith" stuff you seem to talk about a lot. -Algol- (talk) 19:00, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Look who's talking. After what you have pulled in the last month, you have no right to say that. No right at all. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:28, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am exercising the gift of speech right now. Could you please specify what exactly did I "pull in the last month"? For the record, I do not wish to argue here, and I do wish to keep the discussion on topic, but I feel like I really lost the track of it because of your last comment. -Algol- (talk) 19:36, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

dude, you put up a blog bashing all the admins. I think that is what lancer is Refering to--TW6464 (talk) 19:48, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind hearing it from the man himself, but I wasn't exactly "bashing"... Too strong of a word:) In any case, it wasn't "last month". Not in my timezone, anyway. I think Lancer refers to a certain event in the chat;) -Algol- (talk) 20:03, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

A re-vote process seems quite reasonable given that the last attempt encountered problems. And to belittle the opinions of those who support such a process seems unbecoming of users whose job it is to moderated and promote a stable welcoming environment for their fellows. EzzyD (talk) 20:30, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

And yes, someone on the DA Wiki told EzzyD about this vote and told him to go vote on it.

That's a big fat NO.Aleksandr the Great (talk) 20:56, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

1) Nope

2) Care to introduce yourself, anon? ;) -Algol- (talk) 20:58, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Shocker! More drama, that's just great.....--Legionwrex (talk) 23:43, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

"no voting encouragement, or canvassing was done in the main channel. "
Woah, that sounds like real drama, folks. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:51, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to a specific comment, Mittens.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:55, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

And finally, I don't really think it's possible to say that the problem is hypothetical when the previous vote has essentially opened with a list of six users that have repeatedly broken the chat rules, which is quite important given the relatively small sample size (overall activity in the chat). It's still there for anyone who's interested. 4Ferelden (talk) 11:32, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Quick administrative type note from your benevolent overlord. (That was a joke.) Barring a sudden and massive influx of "no" votes (which, in addition to being extremely unlikely, would also look all kinds of suspicious even to me), this is going to pass by a very wide margin. That being the case, here's what I'm thinking. Now, I'm still mulling over my position on a revote (mostly decided, but only mostly), and I definitely know Lancer's position (no offense pal, but you're not exactly subtle on the best of days...) but I do want to get Commdor's opinion since he was part of the resolution of the first vote, and I'm thinking of maybe asking a couple of more recently departed inactive admins (Teugene and possibly also JakePT) to get an unbiased outsiders take. So when this passes, I'd appreciate it if you good people could kindly give me one week (tops) before I get back to you with word from the admins. Now, since I'm a pretty notorious procrastinator, at the end of that week (that'd be Feb. 13th), if I've yet to get back to you, someone (anyone, even -Algol-) please leave me a message letting me know, and I'll do so ASAP (bearing in mind that I work, and time zones and all that...). Hopefully that sounds reasonable? SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:41, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

"I'm thinking of maybe asking a couple of more recently departed inactive admins (Teugene and possibly also JakePT) to get an unbiased outsiders take". So, people who haven't been on the wiki in a while? I'm sorry, but isn't that similar what set of the powder keg we have now in the first place? Serious question, not trying to start anything else. Avg Man (talk) 17:32, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

No, it's me going "huh... maybe the active admins really have lost perspective. If so, consulting a few of the inactive admins (the more recently active inactive ones, since they're the ones most likely to respond quickly) could be beneficial." Like I said, the idea behind that is to get an unbiased opinion from admins who were completely uninvolved in the original vote. I wouldn't be asking them to vote on this or any other proposal, merely asking their opinions of the situation as a whole. It's just a thought. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:30, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

A misunderstanding on my end then. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Avg Man (talk) 21:08, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

A policy was created at the same time as the chat itself. The recent policy changes that people had problems with but passed anyway were a separate proposal. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 02:53, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to it? As I said, I can't find it by browsing around the MoS or Community guidelines, so I suspect I'm simply looking in the wrong place. -- Dammej (talk) 02:57, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

No, you're not. The rules used to be there. No idea when they were removed. They should still be under the original chat policy proposal, though. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 02:59, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

The current one voted upon recently isn't an official Wiki policy; it was written up by the administration here, unless I've been reading things wrong for a while? FrostGiant (talk) 03:01, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Mass Effect wiki:Chat Policies.--Legionwrex (talk) 03:02, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Aha! My thanks Legionwrex. It seems that the only official link to this policy is on the front page of the wiki, in the news section. As an ancillary detail, it seems to me that the policy should also be linked to from inside the Community Guidelines. Thanks again! -- Dammej (talk) 03:08, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

It was no sweat, I have to link that policy so many times...--Legionwrex (talk) 03:10, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I sense a bit of exasperation there.

sh- this is completely unacceptable. THERE ARE ONLY THREE PAGES LINKING TO THE OFFICIAL CHAT POLICIES. THIS PAGE, SOLITARYREAPER'S TALKPAGE, AND THE WIKI'S FRONT PAGE. no wonder people are asking where it is. action must be taken on that. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 03:12, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I've added a link to the chat policies to the 'quick links' template, and I see that Temporaryeditor78 (well met!) has done so on the Community Guidelines page. Hopefully this is amenable to everyone. -- Dammej (talk) 03:27, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I hope that this formal request will lead to a new vote on this policy. And I also hope that the new vote will lead to a discussion on the chat policy as a whole and will not be a simple reject of the proposal. The chat need a new policy (as stated by admins) but alternatives are possible. --DeldiRe 13:58, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Hey is there gonna be a revote soon or something because it's 19 for, 4 neutral, and 4 against. So I think a revote is in order...--TW6464 (talk) 18:48, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

There likely will be but voting hasn't ended yet.Garhdo (talk) 18:38, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

thank you--TW6464 (talk) 18:48, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Options

Given the likelyhood that this vote will pass, and given the feelings that the large majority of the 'yea' votes seem to have about the original policy, I think it's pretty clear that the outcome of any revote will surely be 'nay'.

Administrators have also made it abundantly clear that a simple rejection of this vote will still leave chat open to a number of problems (though I'm still not entirely clear on what they were or how the new policy solves them-- more on this in the future).

Given these two premises, it seems prudent that we begin immediately to consider alternate options. Before we start talking about other solutions, we need to clearly define the problem. As stated in the original amendment forum, the summary seems to be (again, pardon my ignorance. I wasn't here for any original vote):

“

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:Chat_Live!_Policy_Expansion

If I were to bullet point this, it would be:

1. (Many?) Users (usually new ones) in chat are ignoring site policy
2. (Many?) Users (usually new ones) continue to ignore site policy and create sock puppets to get around blocks.
3. (addl. SpartHawg) Users tend to use chat for topics completely unrelated to Mass Effect.

Sound about right? (Serious question, people) Please tell me if my reading of the issue is off base.

First point I want to make: For the past few days, I've seen no one using chat (though I've only been on the wiki for about 1-4 hours sporadically each day). Is this problem really as widespread as the policy proposal makes it out to be, or is there some technical trickery behind the scenes that is automatically preventing people who do not meet the criteria laid out in The Policy from using chat? Or is it a seasonal/time zone thing? Or some other reason that escapes me? Maybe a combination?

Second point: The Policy is heavily weighted toward making administration of chat easier, but makes no mention of ways to improve the visibility of site policy to chat users. I think a good solution should have a bit of both.

I'll refrain from posting my thoughts on 'solutions' for now, because I'd rather get a clearer visibility of what the problem is before starting off on the wrong path.

Apologies if this is premature or if I'm coming across as too forward— I happen to really like the MEW and would prefer that everyone move past bickering and work toward a real solution that satisfies everyone, allowing everyone to focus on doing real collaborative work on the wiki. -- Dammej (talk) 02:32, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Well, just to answer your first point, the reason no one is on (anymore) is because ever since the enforcement of the policy they have pretty much deserted chat.--Legionwrex (talk) 02:35, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

You're about right on all this Dammej. There was never a heavy presence in the chat to begin with, which makes the numerous issues and kicks troubling, IMO. One other issue I'd point out is that there were more than a few folks coming to the wiki for pretty much the sole purpose of using the chat channel, contributing little or nothing to the wiki as a whole, hence the edit requirements to use chat, which was one of the major sources of contention here. I don't think you are being premature at all. An alternative solution would probably be best. I know I've asked several times for people who dislike the proposals of the admins to make their own proposals in turn. Thus far, there's really been no response. SpartHawg948 (talk) 03:51, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps all new members could have the Style guide and Community guidelines linked to their page upon joining - rather than after their first edit, to increase awareness if the issue is people going on chat without making edits. However a chat function is a social tool so people shouldn't be punished for using it as such. Perhaps an admin, or a volunteering editor with significant edits, could always be present on chat to remind of site policy and monitor the chat. (obviously taken in turns) Garhdo (talk) 04:23, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your first suggestion is possible. To the best of my knowledge, it's only possible to provide those links after an edit has been made on a wiki. It's at that point that the editor's user page and user talk page are created. No one was being punished for using chat as a social tool. All we were asking is that, since they came specifically to the Mass Effect Wiki to use the Mass Effect Wiki chat channel, the conversation be kept to at least somewhat Mass Effect-oriented topics, and that preferably the editors also make at least some effort to contribute to the wiki. After all, there are many, many, many chat channels and social tools other than the Mass Effect Wiki chat channel. If they specifically seek ours out, asking them to keep on-topic doesn't seem unreasonable. And we already had admins, senior editors and chat moderators on the chat channel as much as possible. And a clear majority of those same individuals were clamoring for changes to the policy. SpartHawg948 (talk) 04:37, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I was absent for this kerfuffle so I wasn't aware of how well it was being handled previously.Garhdo (talk) 04:46, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, here's a solution: How about instead of passing some sort of stringent policy the chat moderators, you know, actually do their job? Why is this chat so fundamentally different from the others? You act like there's a much higher concentration of people not following chat policies or sock puppets but there isn't. You know how other chats deal with those people? They inform said policy breakers of their policy breaking and ban them when needed. Is that really so difficult? The reason most people haven't provided an alternate solution is ONE ISN'T NEEDED. You're creating a problem that when one virtually doesn't exist, at least not to extent that a completely different solution is called for. I'd gladly offer my services as a chat mod if it's volunteers that you are lacking. I'm well aware of the site policies and frequently on other chats. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 05:42, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

And here, unfortunately, we see part of the problem. Admins and chat mods doing their jobs report they're having major issues and ask for policy reform. And the response? Admins and chat mods are told that instead, they should just do their jobs. Sorry, Dammej, I'm not trying to take away from your attempt to mediate here, but the last comment was without any real basis in reality. Chat mods and admins doing their jobs is what started the push for reform. Of course, I'll happily relay to LegionWrex, Trandra, Lancer, Commdor and others that you think they just need to get back to work, Aleksander. SpartHawg948 (talk) 05:58, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude or make it seem that I don't appreciate the work you and other admins do. Like I said, if time is an issue, I'd gladly volunteer my free time to help monitor rather than discouraging new users who want to join the chat. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 07:34, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate the clarification. Your previous message did come across as a bit rude because of the fact that the entire underpinning of the changes to the chat policy WAS the experiences of the chat mods and admins in monitoring the chat channel. Absent that info though, your comment loses that appearance of rudeness. My comment was a bit rash, and I sincerely appreciate your offer of help. If, as appears likely, the chat policy changes are undone, we may very well be adding new mods. If so, I'll definitely keep your offer in mind. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:11, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Consider myself a volunteer as well.Garhdo (talk) 14:36, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion folks, good stuff. I've added your point about the off-topic convo above, Spart.

Alexsander actually touches a bit on something I wanted to bring up as well. Currently, the issue seems to be that moderators are having trouble keeping up with the volume of people that require warnings/kicks. The intention of the policy is to (presumably) reduce that volume. But I'd argue that it actually doesn't accomplish much in that direction. Consider the following scenario. Prior to the policy amendment, the kick/warning policy would be as follows...

1. User enters chat
2. User chats for a while
3. User does/says something against site policy
4. Moderator warns said user
5. User continues to ignore policy
6. Moderator kicks/bans

After the creation of the policy, I imagine it would be something like...

1. User enters chat
2. Moderator looks up the user's credentials
3. User has more than 20 edits
4. Moderator checks to see if 15 of those edits were reverted for good reason in the past 2 weeks
5. User does not meet requirements, moderator informs them of such.
6. Moderator kicks/bans user

That's perhaps a worst-case scenario. But the point I wish to illustrate is that there's still a lot of manual work that needs to be done by the moderator in order to enforce this new policy. Namely the monitoring of chat and manually informing the user of why they're getting kicked, then manually kicking.

I think some empirical details of before/after workload for a mod would be good to inform this discussion as well. I'm still dealing largely in the hypothetical.

Regardless of whether the above is true, it sounds to me that what we could really use is some way to automate some portions of the mod job. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of stuff like...

• A swear filter that automatically warns the user and blocks the offending message
• A message that appears at the top of chat for that user (near to or included with the 'welcome to mass effect wiki chat' message) informing them that they should stick to ME topics and read the site policy.

Are either of those things immediate no-goes for us? I haven't looked too much into what features are available for the chat tool. I also think that increased moderator presence would certainly help to reduce an individual moderator's workload, as Aleksander pointed out. I of course would be happy to help as well. -- Dammej (talk) 03:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

One chat site I regularly use has a feature whereby an automatic warning pops up every few minutes, regardless of any chatroom behaviour, and warns that certain behaviours will lead to a temporary ban from the chat feature. It works well and very rarely to admins need to actually enforce the procedure. When they do on the first infraction the user is blocked from chat for an hour, the next time for a day, then permanently. Could something like that work here? Even if its a stock message created by admins that the chat mods would have to manually post every few minutes?Garhdo (talk) 04:11, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

---

a swear filter for chat seems to be stuck in wikia labs' feature requests section. also, link to said chatsite plz. if it's on wikia, there's a good chance we can "borrow" the code for use here. if offsite, odds are we'll still be building extensive custom jobs of our own. and there lies another aspect of the problem.

we have no dedicated devs (we do have part-timers) :p .

an increased number of chatmods is always a good idea, since we have more social gadflies on the wiki at the moment. drawn from the usual blog denizens perhaps. a problem with chatmodding is that sometimes there may be people on but those with stars are just there to intervene when someone breaks rules rather than being an active participant in whatever ongoing discussion (can't blame people if they're watching porn in another tab now can we). so we'll need guys who have no problem with being friendly enough to engage in genuine convos to avoid a chatroom with apparently many people but zero activity.

---

T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 05:36, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't provide a link as it is a chat feature of a larger dating and networking site, not a dedicated chat site. Also the chatmods should perhaps be people who do or would use the chat and engage in the discussions, rather than people appointed just to oversee it. Garhdo (talk) 05:41, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

well this is awkward. mittens now closed the voting. technically we aren't allowed to edit here further (see the tag above) so where should this discussion be continued T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 05:49, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to continue the discussion here, as we are not discussing the vote but rather a new implementation to be proposed in the vote following this in a week's time. Garhdo (talk) 05:56, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Admin Response

All right, I'll keep this short, sweet and to the point. After some discussion, the admins have reached an agreement. By a vote of 2-1, the active admins have agreed to hold a new vote. To make sure there's no confusion, the admins are unanimous in their opinion that the chat policy changes were warranted. That having been said, the manner of their implementation was clearly the cause of much angst within the community. It was for this reason that the admins have agreed to hold a new vote. If, as is almost certain to be the case, the chat policy is voted down, new steps will be required. Some measure of compromise will be necessary here, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

The new vote will not be conducted on this page, nor will it be done on the original forum page. A new forum will need to be created. And, until such time as the new vote is concluded, the policy changes will remain in place. Whoever wants to start the new forum, be my guest. It won't be necessary to duplicate in full the original page, with its policy details and explanations. Simply linking to the original page, where the policy proposal can be found, will suffice. At this time, commenting on this page is CLOSED. Please refrain from further comments here or in any other section of this page, as they will be deleted. SpartHawg948 (talk) 08:31, February 13, 2013 (UTC)