Forum:Additions to Chat Rules

Forums: Index > Policy > Additions to Chat Rules

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

Policy:

Description of Policy: Additions to Chat Live! rules for using the featuer

Notes:
Supporting links or images:

Other Notes

Ever since the launch of the chat feature, there have ideas that have been thrown around and some good some bad. However, several have kept coming back, both influenced by past experiences, past instances in dealing with behavior, and a number of other things. Therefore, the following rules will be added to the Policies regarding Chat and they are as follows. Rules will be broken up by sections or a new section if applicable.

All rule additions are in blockquote form.

New Section: Accessing Chat:

“In order to utilize the Chat Live! feature of the Mass Effect Wiki, a user must accumulate Fifty (50) mainspace edits. Of these 50, 25 of these edits have to be meaningful edits and 25 can be small, correction type edits. What type of edits count are edits to any article. What types of edits do not count are talk page edits, user page edits, sandbox edits, user talk page edits, blog comments, blog space, forum space, or uploads. They must be mainspace edits and have to be meaningful edits that result in positive change. Edits are classified as follows:

• Correction type edits are classified as, but are not limited to, adding categories, fixing spelling errors, fixing grammar errors, fixing Shepard gender references, or small things of that nature.
  
• Meaningful edits are classified as, but are not limited to, rewriting paragraphs to make them more readable, adding several valuable player notes, adding new content, or adding missed content.
  
• All edits are evaluated by Admins for legitimacy and Admins and Chat Moderators reserve the right to kick users without notice or warning if they do not meet this criteria.
  
• Note that if an edit is undone, it may or may not count towards either quota.
  

A user must have a valid account with the Mass Effect Wiki for 14 days (2 weeks). Meaning that in order to use the feature, you must have been editing for 2 weeks before getting access to the feature.

If a Chat Moderator is uncertain if a user has meet the criteria, then they reserve the right to allow a user to stay or kick them at their prerogative and forward the case to an admin for review. The admin can either agree or overrule the decision but must respect the decision the Chat Moderator’s decision at the time.”

Under Grounds for Blocking Headline:

“If a user who has been banned from Chat Live! in the last 30 days, they will not be permitted to use the feature. Once the 30 day period expires after the ban expires, then and only then will they be permitted to utilize the feature. A user in violation of this policy will be warned, both in chat and on their talk page, and if they do not abide by the warning, they face another longer block.”

Under Consequences Headline:

“A user may question why they were kicked to the appropriate person, the person who kicked them, a Chat Moderator, or an Admin. Admins again do maintain the right to overrule Chat Moderators on this decision.”

Voting

For

1. As Proposer. Lancer1289 (talk) 06:53, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
2. Seems reasonable. It will weed out undesirables from the Chat.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 7:29, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
3. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:53, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
4. I have already said I supported this.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:09, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
5. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:56, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
6. I'm for this, though lowering the number of edits would be appreciated--TW6464 (talk) 14:48, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
7. Change of heart. It does seem like a good idea. Not like my vote is going to do anything though. Sqarkplugz (talk)

Neutral

1. meh. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 08:34, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
2. Meaningful mainspace edits can be hard to come by, so 25 may be too many. Neutral. BeoW0lfe (talk) 14:37, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
3. Agree with BeoW0lfe.--Zxjkl (talk) 06:17, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. I can understand the intentions behind the policy, but the current mechanism of implementation seems ineffective. 4Ferelden (talk) 07:12, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Against

1. Bad50cal (talk) 11:06, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
2. I don't believe that wikia's features are meant for a club of exclusives. --Ygrain (talk) 11:50, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
3. Against. Trandra (talk) 16:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
4. So just because I'm not one of editors I can't have my rights? I'm FULLY against new rules. Phantom Bootie Slap (talk) 17:38, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
5. STRONGLY against. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 22:46, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
6. Never. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 04:21, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
7. I strongly disagree, for reasons I shall articulate in the discussion section below. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 05:51, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
8. Opposed -Algol- (talk) 07:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
9. strongly against --DeldiRe 09:25, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
10. Opposed. Lksdjf (talk) 10:46, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
11. Opposed. Introduce a bit of Anarchy (talk) 13:03, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
12. Taxation without representation and all that whatnot. Opposed. HELO (talk) 14:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
13. Gotta be against. What if I can't see a problem with a page? I'm here for knowledge, I read knowledge. -- Trewsq
14. Strongly opposed, for the same reasons The Milkman posted below. Additionally, not every user can make "big" edits here. There will eventually be a time where our articles' paragraphs are already worded almost perfectly. Let's also not forget that there is not that much information left to add to the wiki—or at least information that is significant. What I'm trying to say is, not everyone will be able to make significant edits in time, giving few users a chance at chat.--Parax 20:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
15. Made up my mind—these suggestions penalize new users merely for being new users and value quantity of edits over quality of information given. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 21:07, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
16. Against for reasons I've hopefully articulated well enough below. TheUnknown285 (talk) 22:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
17. changed to against as it does seem a bit steep of price to reach.--Agentsmit58 (talk) 01:25, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
18. I have no problem with strict rules for chat, however I feel this would cause an influx of edits simply for the sake of unlocking chat. XxSick DemonxX (talk) 03:15, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Can you clarify the last paragraph "Under consequences Headline"? Are you referring to the moderator's decision on how to respond to the question from a kicked user?--SolitaryReaper (talk) 7:28, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

No, the decision itself. Admins have always had the ability to override Chat Mods on bans and lengths of bans. The decision whether or not to answer is theirs. If they want to forward the case to an admin, fine, if they want to answer it themselves fine. Lancer1289 (talk) 07:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

a bunch of consequences if this passes:

• weeding out chat undesirables (are there any?). good idea if there are more of this than people with genuine queries about ME.
• may will put off ME newcomers about the "unwelcoming" state of the wiki community however.
  • more blog/forum posts and RC clogging (as if it wasn't already) since people who see no real need to contribute (or can't because they're literally new to the franchise) will have to do so. except that the track record of unanswered blogs/forum posts speak for themselves: obvious questions get no answers, people with no wiki-cred get no comments. chat's one easy way to get their queries answered quickly and by the time they fulfilled the necessary criteria to participate legally they would've probably known the answer to their questions or forgotten about it completely.
• a bunch of chat regulars and blog regulars barely even meet the above stipulations. chat's going to be a lot emptier as if it wasn't already. unless the blog regulars take a break from throwing worthless opinions around and start caring about policy that threatens their "rights" expect them to clog the blogs even more if they're denied chat.
  • to that end, chatmods should probably shoulder the duty of spamming the link to this forum on chat (or even the targeted users' talkpages) as often as possible during the voting period. wouldn't be fair to deny proper representation to the targeted groups. plus those in disagreement won't have any reason to say "i didn't know about this".

as for myself, i mostly use chat to get people to confirm some things asap, so long as i get people who can confirm whatever it is i need confirming at the moment i don't really care. months or years for simple confirmation of disputed info on some things (people apparently can't be bothered to read article talkpages most of the time) is hilariously unacceptable and this is why chat exists in my book. doesn't matter if MEwiki newbie, chat regular, blog regular or admin. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 08:34, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I can see the pros and cons to this. Chat will become even more deserted with less traffic, yet at the same time more people will migrate back to blogs. However, more mainspace edits will also start to appear. If we are going to do this, we might consider doing something like this to blogs as well.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:40, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the recent mushrooming of blogs is something to be concerned about, as it drags people's attention away from mainspace edits. Also, the new chat policies will get us more mainspace edits and will dissuade people from being lazy.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 17:50, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

"more mainspace edits will also start to appear" You guys really think so? --Ygrain (talk) 18:02, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:05, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

As do I. I see more and more people in chat who have never edited the mainspace, are ignorant of site policies, and do not bother to read anything for that matter. This is still a feature of the Wiki, and therefore they should have to contribute to use it. It isn't an executives club, and the user who said that is really just using rhetoric to get their point across. It is also a rather insulting statement to say the least. And if a user cannot live without chat, then they really need to rethink why they are here. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:52, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

And I am going to say this now and I really do not care at this point what anyone says. If you really have a problem with this policy, then you need to reevaluate why you are here. This is not an extension of BSN, this is a completely different site. This is a content based site, not a social site. The Chat is a feature of the site, not the main focus of the site. The focus of the site is maintaining articles, keeping this up to date, and provide a source for all ME canon information. Content first, socializing second. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:00, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Very true. Most people on the chat are equating it to the wiki; it has become Mass Effect Wiki = Live! Chat, which is ridiculous and absolutely incorrect. People are supposed to contribute and enjoy the chat at the same time, not exploit the wiki for the chat's availability.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 20:11, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit as if you said that people shouldn't be reading the wiki if they don't contribute. Not what you meant, I hope. --Ygrain (talk) 11:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with people coming here solely for the purposes of chat? If they don't edit, but instead decide to join the chat room to talk with other users, how is the counter productive? Someone's motivation for visiting chat seems irrelevant, and I honestly don't see a problem with more chat traffic. It's not usually that busy, and with this policy in place, we'll likely lose even more people. This honestly sounds like a non-issue. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 12:37, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

If people come here solely for the use of chat, then in their eyes, this wiki is another BSN, which is not at all the main purpose of this wiki. This wiki is about content first, socializing second, and do not quip that I am quoting Lancer, its true, it has always been its true purpose, regardless of how people look at the wiki nowadays. I am a regular user of chat and I see people who are never seen in this wiki and are showing up only for chatting, thereby exploiting the wiki for the chat. Now they are taking advantage of the wiki for socializing. That's what is not right, all taking and no giving shouldn't be the case, but it is.

True, the chat traffic is not very high, but that is because the feature is relatively new. Implementing the policy is not for dissuading new users, its for making people understand what's fair, contribute and enjoy the chat, not taking things for granted.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 19:12, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Again, this all sounds like a non-issue. What's wrong with using the wiki for socialising? There's no problem with that. Those who come here to socialise will either do one of two things: make pointless edits that will have to be undone, or forget it all together. Chat makes this wiki more accessible to new users, which can lead to users naturally editing on their own. The only real reason I've seen for anyone wanting this is because they don't like the idea of someone socialising in a chat room where it can't affect them. Passing it however, has it's own series of detriments. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 22:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

"Chat makes this wiki more accessible to new users, which can lead to users naturally editing on their own." This statement really makes me shake my head because it is blatantly false. To date, the only reason anyone has come out of chat is when this forum was created. I can guarantee you 100% that if it did not exist, then everyone would just stay in chat and not care. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:12, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but again, I don't see what's wrong with this wiki being more user friendly. Having more people in chat will not harm the wiki, but forcing people to edit when they don't want to or even need to certainly will. This is why we shouldn't have achievements. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:19, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Notice how all the comments here are almost entirely by people who supported the vote. Interesting...--Legionwrex (talk) 00:02, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Because no one who votes against can come up with a real reason they oppose it. Or they don't want to be away from the precious chat for longer than 10 seconds for an actual debate. I have several reasons but I will keep them to myself for now. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:05, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would be the point I was trying to secretly get across.--Legionwrex (talk) 00:10, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and I am beyond caring. I feel that pointing out the obvious at this point is probably better for everyone. Lancer1289 ([[User

talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 00:27, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

It honestly seems to be the other way around. I've yet to see a valid reason in favour of this beyond not wanting people to socialise, which doesn't hurt this wiki, and can in fact, help it. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 22:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

While I do think it is reasonable for users to have to earn a privilege, I can see how it would turn off newcomers—or encourage new users to quickly make numerous low-quality edits in order to (try to) meet the criteria. I think that newer users should have a "grace period" where they have some time to meet the fifty-edit requirement, during which time they would still be required to have a (lower) certain number of edits in order to use the chat. As it stands now, I'm on the fence about this idea. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 00:48, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing. Grace periods only work if people actually edit and get familiar with the rules and policies. They actually have a grace period of 2 weeks before they can use it, and allowing them in sooner doesn't make sense because someone can spam the required edits in a hour, get on, then proceed to violate policies which they know nothing about. The rules and policies here will ensure that users know those policies beforehand. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:04, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Chat is supposed to encourage users to come and chat with other users and be part of a community alongside a comprehensive wiki. I feel this will not only act counter against the feature itself, but also harm the main space as well. This could easily result in an influx of pointless edits made for the sole purpose of getting into chat. This is very similar to achievements. I can respect not having them, because after all, they can result in people editing just to boost for achievements. Also, as I said, this discourages new users from using the chat room. Chat should be a quicker way of gaining information and talking with new users, not an exclusive club for people who are here just to edit the main space. For more than any reason, I believe people come here because they love Mass Effect, not because they want to edit pages. Now some do, but not all. This also doubles as a community of fans. I understand that this wiki has tighter regulations and more comprehensive policies when it comes to editing, and I'm fine with that. This is a high-traffic wiki for a popular game. The end result is, of course, a clean and concise wiki. However, there is no need to restrict the community aspect like this. This can encourage unnatural edits, as I've stated, from people who just want to get into chat. People should edit where/when they see a problem, or a lack of information. In addition, I feel that this will increase the amount of forum threads and blogs that are, to be frank, utterly meaningless. I really see no point in restricting who can and cannot enter the chat room. I don't see what is gained in doing this. This wiki's chat room, as with many others (even the popular ones), is rarely overpopulated, so I don't really see the point. A chat room can help make the wiki more accessible to new users, but having to wait two weeks and make 50 edits feels like a needless restriction that will either discourage the new user from becoming part of this project, or encourage them to make unhealthy edits and create short, pointless blogs that could have been otherwise served better as a chat room discussion. Doing this doesn't really yield any benefit, and having more people in the chat room can't really be viewed as a bad thing. A chat room full of users on the other hand, can promote conversation and discussion amongst the community members, which itself can be a boon for this wiki.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 06:04, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Quick question addressed to Phantom Bootie Slap: What do you mean by "So just because I'm not one of editors I can't have my rights?" Several things puzzle me here. First off... how are you not an editor. Anyone who makes an edit is an editor. Secondly, how is chat a "right"? Where is the right to unimpeded access to a Mass Effect Wiki chat codified? Who guarantees said "right"? Third, if you're not here to edit... why are you here?

People are making this out to be something it's not. It's not a policy meant to exclude people, and it's certainly not (IMO) excessive. Many other wikis have similar policies, and many other wikis have much stricter policies. You can't VOTE on Wookieepedia without racking up a certain number of mainspace edits. The admins will literally see who voted, check their edit history, and throw out the votes of people who don't qualify. THAT is an exclusionary and excessive policy. This is not. SpartHawg948 (talk) 06:45, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me but the sore state of civil and human rights in North Korea doesn't make me feel any better about issues in my own country. I do not care about other wiki’s rules, what concerns me is this particular wiki of the game which I enjoyed more than almost any other. I also believe that a main purpose of a wiki is to share information, not to be edited, and that “open” here correlates with “equal” - a principle the breach of which I find absolutely unacceptable, as well as the condescension showed by some users towards “undesirables”, or to some users' low participation, not realizing that this might well be due to work and family duties or lack of editing skills, none of which should bar the person from being able to use a wiki feature. I see no problem with newbies going to the chat, as it is a quick way of making oneself familiar with the wiki and the regulars, and ignorance of rules can easily be rectified. If they keep breaking the rules, they can get banned like everyone else, based on the current rules. Barring all newbies from the chat because some of them may have misbehaved is application of collective guilt, and that is something I cannot agree with, either. --Ygrain (talk) 11:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

North Korea has nothing to do with any of this. The main purpose of this wiki is to read and add canon, valid information. Unfortunately, most people are only doing the first, and not the second. All it is are 50 edits, some users can make that in a day. It is not a hard thing to do, and people can fit it in. All this policy asks is that you contribute a little bit in order to get access to a secondary feature, and that is fair and reasonable..--Legionwrex (talk) 15:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Truly, North Korea has nothing to do with our issue - the "sweet lemon" or "it ain't that bad as compared to others", a huge lot. And it doesn't matter in the least whether 50 edits are doable or not (and, BTW, it is rather entitled to throw out such general statements about users whose background you know nothing about - FYI, I consider myself pretty profficient with English words, yet I'm still uncomfortable about wording encyclopaedic entries), as there is no justified reason why such a requiremenet should be in practice in the first place. Your work is being used by thousands of people who never contribute, or even leave a word of appreciation for the huge undertaking that the wiki is; discriminating against the ones who do care enough to stay seems really over the top.--Ygrain (talk) 17:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's not entitled, it's a fact. He wrote a whole paragraph perfectly fine in English, he can add a sentence or two. There is a justified reason, many people are coming here solely for chat and not even looking at the policies (given that you are not a CM, you can not know how annoying it is), with this policy, we give them the ability to use a secondary feature in exchange for a little work (which apparently, is such a bad thing now days). Additionally, I find the fact that many of these users first edits are voting down this policy to be ironic, to say the least.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Legionwrex, but unless you have contributed yourself to an encyclopaedia which is not in your native language, I'm afraid you are not fit to judge what is or is not a difficulty for a non-native user, so, have you? And please, don't lecture me on annoyance of dealing with the unruly and repeating things over and over, I'm a teacher. True enough, I get paid for it, but on the other hand, no-one held a gun to your head to make you a Chat Mod, or have they? Also, I see you use the words "priviledge of chat" - so, is this really about priviledged and unpriviledged users? --Ygrain (talk) 20:09, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

He created an entire paragraph in English. If he doesn't no English well enough to make a sentence, I highly doubt he knows it enough to have a casual conversation on chat. I really don't care that your a teacher, you are not a chat moderator, and you don't know the stuff we have to deal with, so don't act like you are all experienced with it. Don't take my words out of context. Chat is a privilege, not a right on this wiki. Users need to drop the entitled feelings they have for it.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:00, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Chat isn't a privilege or a right. It's a feature and a tool that can improve the wiki. I would much rather have an editor who makes 5 minor albeit helpful edits over an editor who makes 50 pointless edits that add nothing to the wiki itself. You're advocating boosting here, and quality always beats quantity on a wiki, this one especially. A self-righteous attitude isn't going to attract more users to this site. 50 edits may not seem like much to you, but to a new user, it's daunting, especially given how comprehensive this wiki is. Not all users are fit to edit, but they can exchange ideas and help the community in chat. If "I think they should because I don't like seeing other people socialise" is the only reason, then simply ignore it. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 22:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

No, Chat's only purpose is, and has always been, to socialize. The only person whoever used it as a tool was Temporaryedito78, and that's it. I have already answered all of these points before, I won't do it again.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:39, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

First off, it can have other purposes. Second, so what? That doesn't hurt this wiki. You need to look at the big picture here. Chat can help ease new users into this wiki. It makes it more accessible to them, which can lead to them editing. People should only edit when they see something in need of editing. They see a mistake, or missing information, and they add it. What we do not need is people actively editing for the sake of editing, leading to harmful edits. Are you going to ask that we also add achievements as well? --The Milkman | I always deliver. 22:47, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

What is up with you and these achievements? What do they have to do with anything. Incase you haven't noticed, people never follow the policies on chat. I almost banned TW 1 minute ago because he broke policy, and how long has he been here for?--Legionwrex (talk) 22:52, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with chat helping ease new people into the wiki is that once they get a taste of the chat, they will spend all of their time on it, thereby ignoring the wiki completely. Maybe they came here to contribute, but they will get complacent and not contribute anything, instead only focusing on chat. They also do not read the chat policies before joining and expect moderators to spoon-feed them. This policy is not about introducing achievements, its about building some standards for those who are unable to do it themselves.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 23:02, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Actually Chat has yet to have one other feature apart from socializing. That is all people do there. When someone correct them, tells them about site policies, or tells them to get back on topic, just about everyone resists, blows it off, or does not care. Chat is nothing more or less than a feature, and one that should not be the dominant focus of the wiki. We are a content site, socializing comes second, not first. So far, just about everyone voting against thinks it is the opposite way around.

Milkman, get off of the Achievements bandwagon, no one here wants those, and they will not come anytime soon. So stop arguing about it and dancing around the subject. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. No one wants that. Why? Because it encourages boosting. This policy does the same exact thing. I agree, we shouldn't have achievements. They can be detrimental to this wiki, just like this policy. This policy serves no purpose, and in no way improves the site itself. It only serves to encourage meaningless edits and deter people from editing at all. The benefits? Less people socialising. Because that's so bad. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:19, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Why are we are if it is not to edit ? First, the main point of this wiki is to find relevant information about an universe that we all like. After that if we can see that some information are lacking or are false we can begin to edit but why do we need to edit when it is not needed ? I do want to do my best for this wiki that i really like but : - English is not my mother language - I work from 8AM till 19 PM, when can i find the time to make plenty of edit ? - I have no skills with photoshop or equivalent so i will not upload bad screenshot for the pleassure of uploading screenshot and overwhelming the servers in doing so - The wiki is already full of information, there is not much we can be added, at least if you want to meet quality criteria - When a new content come in the universe of ME, the new edits are coming so fast that you don't always have the time to be the first, and there is no point of rushing to be the first and risking a bad/wrong edit.

For those reasons, do i have to be banned from the chat despite the fact that i m a great followers and that i try to make relevant remarks when i think that it is relevant ? This new chat policy willl not meet its objectives and will have too much side effects to be implemented. Nevertheless, it can be usefull to have some low restrictions to avoid spammers and vandals flooding the chat.--DeldiRe 09:47, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just by the fact you typed that comment shows enough understanding of english to make minor and some major edits. It's only 50 edits, you can fit it in.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should judge this policy in relation to other wikis. Better does not necessarily mean good. I don't really see the need for this, besides weeding out editors who don't make a specific amount of edits in certain places. What are the benefits to such a policy?

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 06:50, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

The benefits are already states and Spart hit the nail on the head with what this is going to do and what this is to accomplish. Lancer1289 (talk) 07:14, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with more chat traffic, and I don't really think this will encourage more constructive edits. If anything, this will lead to edits made purely for the sake of being able to chat. It's like I said with achievements. Why don't we have them? Won't it also encourage more editing?

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 07:17, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

25 mainspace edits, seriously? I don't have that many on DA wiki, despite being somewhat notable member of the community, who uses the chat frequently. But nobody had an idea to deny me the opportunity to use it.

What if a person really wants to edit, but does not have 25 mainspace edits yet, and finds the guidelines unsatisfactory? This person might ask for advice in the chat, because it's fast, convenient real-time conversation. You're denying the opportunity.

I don't see any point to this at all, unless you really want to make the chat "a club for the privileged", like the VIP section of Afterlife. -Algol- (talk) 07:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if anything chat can become a "club for the people who are capable a making edits". It may be fine on the DA wiki, but we're not the DA wiki are we? We are asking tit for tat, 50 edits for Chat privileges. It is not a hard thing to accomplish.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Why make it a club? That only serves to exclude people. Not everyone can make 50 edits. Keep in mind how comprehensive this wiki is. You are encouraging people to go out and make pointless edits and pointless blogs. Hard or not, there's no reason to implement this. It accomplishes nothing. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 15:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

strongly against : I don't believe that wikia's features are meant for a club of exclusives. I'm a great follower of this wiki and i do some comments on talk page or some minor edit when i see that it can be relevant. Nevertheless, i do not meet those criterias. Do you think that i do not deserve to acces the chat ? This new rules policy could be push away new comers from the wikia. For me, before editing it is really relevant to learn about how the wiki is made and how the edition must be done. Pushing the edit to have access to the chat will lead to useless and irrelevant edit in an "edit run to the chat". However, to avoid spammer and vandals, the rules could be soften like subscribed since one week or something like that. But more will lead to push away new comers in the mass effect universe or new comers in this wikia. Is that what we want ?--DeldiRe 09:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Chat is a privilege that the admins added, it is not a right. You functioned before fine without chat, you can do it again. 50 edits are not hard, stop acting like they are.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:33, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

That isn't an actual argument in favour of it. You may be fine with 50 edits, but forcing people to edit unnaturally for the sake of editing is pointless, can lead to boosting, discourages new users, and stifles the community. So far, the only reasoning you've presented is "I can't tolerate other people who don't work as hard on the project as I do." Not everyone has to or even wants to. If they want to chat without editing, and it doesn't harm the wiki, there's no problem. To say that people should be stripped of a feature, merely because you feel they aren't working as hard as you, strikes me as intolerant. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 16:03, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

That is an actual argument. This place is for information, not socializing. All we are asking is that you help contribute a little bit. As to "unnatural edits" (whatever that means) a valid edit is a valid edit, it doesn't mater if it was natural or forced.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:23, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just saying, wouldn't it just be a unnecessary obstacle? on the chat, Legion said 'just go edit on the walkthrough, minor edits' Introduce a bit of Anarchy (talk) 16:54, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that people are taking this policy personal and making 50 MS edits before using Chat such a big deal shows a lot about what this wiki is coming to. Perhaps chat should have never been implemented in the first place.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:28, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Milkman's argument is essentially the same as mine. Not every user will see corrections or improvements to articles, and editing will necessarily decrease as less information flows into the wiki, either from the Mass Effect universe or from user knowledge.

Editing for the sake of editing is a pointless gesture; the small edits that I do from time to time are my attempt to reduce verbosity and colloquialism, and to spruce up the grammar. I don't want to see edits that only attempt to change the style in which the information is conveyed and that don't attempt to reduce the verbiage that can clutter this site. If an editor wants to do that, he or she should be prepared to rework the entire page to make it flow in a particular fashion. Lksdjf (talk) 17:40, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, edits like that will be reverted. This wiki had a steady stream of edits before Chat, heck, it was even larger. If anything, this policy will increase MS edits no matter how you cut it.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:47, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

It seems my use of the word "undesirables" have sparked off a lot of protests. Let me make this clear, that was not meant as an insult to any specific group of people on the wiki. It was more of a general statement. Since the introduction of the chat, there have been a lot of new people who have been visiting this wiki. Since I am a regular chat user and I see people who are not even familiar with the wiki policies and treat them as jokes when reminded about them. So are we going to have chat filled with disrespectful people who come in here thinking they can do whatever they want and expect not to be reprimanded for it? We do need to take a hard line on such people, thereby implementing this policy, which will familiarize them with the wiki policies, teach them to be a bit more respectful of the policies and eventually make them valuable contributors. Its just infuriating that people are treating the wiki as another BSN with nor regard for rules and regulations. So, again I am saying, the word "undesirables" was not meant for any existing group of people already present on this wiki.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 19:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

This is what we call "pouring out the water as well as the baby from the bathtub." The proposed measure affects not only brand new people but a considerable portion of regulars, and it affect well-intentioned newbies, as well. If people break the rules, they are to be warned, and if they do not heed, they are to be banned from the chat. If somebody causes a problem, do take a hard line - at a particular person for a particular offence, no generalisation. Perhaps it might be a good idea to put up a sign, e.g. "just ME talk and no swearwords, please" just next to the chat feature, to make them aware that the chat is regulated. Also, you can bring other chat users to participate and maintain the regs and help the newbies make their way around.--Ygrain (talk) 20:09, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Your comment shows just the problem. People do not read site policies, because they do not know they exist or they just do not give a care! That said, I have noticed that some people just do not care. There are also others who think that the Chat feature is an extension of BSN and/or not subject to the rules here. Now this will make them aware of policies before they can engage in a feature of the site. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:18, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

People on chat are breaking too many policies, Ygrain. They either harass other people, or break language policies. They even resort to whining when their horribly messed up edits are reverted. This shows people are not respecting policies and taking things for granted. This new policy will educate them about the rules of the wiki, as they are apparently incapable of reading about them on their own. This will be good for everyone in the long run. This is not a vendetta against non-contributors, its only a means to familiarize them with policies so that they don't get themselves into trouble by breaking policies. People need to drill this inside their heads: This is not an extension of BSN--SolitaryReaper (talk) 20:28, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I can feel for your frustration, SR, but this is not the way. For each barred unruly individual, how many prospective contributors will you lose? I agree that a solution is required, but not this one. Find another way - "There's always another way", remember? It's easy to fall for the hard line just because you can, but its results are always counterproductive in the long run. I cannot, and will not, support this.--Ygrain (talk) 21:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Not many if they are willing to do some light editing.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Though I am against you on this policy, Ygrain, I do respect your views. Its not casually we "for" people have cast our vote. The current state of the wiki is not as good as you think. People have repeatedly broken policies and despite the warnings, they have continued to do so. People who are never seen on this wiki are coming in hordes to the chat just for socializing. Do you think they will even consider editing at one point or the other? No, they won't, they feel the wiki is a nice social place and they can play the fool on the chat. Its not as if the policy is asking too much, its asking people to contribute something, which they can do without much difficulty.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 21:48, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

You know what I find absolutely hilarious about this whole thing, just about everyone arguing against the new rules, who have little to no mainspace edits, only can come up with "chat will now be a VIP club", or will not even put a comment. If that is your only reason for voting against, then that isn't a reason, that is just an excuse. Only one person had made a reasonable argument against it. Everyone else is on the "VIP" bandwagon, which is not what this is about. I find one vote completely off the wall because it was taxation without representation, your vote would not count. So that really needs some thinking over.

People, what is so hard to understand that this is not an extension of BSN, this is a content based site. Not a social site. I find that for some their first edit was on this page laughable, ironic, and a whole bunch of other things that I will not say. This is not meant to turn Chat into an exclusive club, it is to make people understand that there is a point to the chat, which is not just for socializing, but to also make people aware of site policies. Many of the users who made their first edits here are, and have never been aware of site policies, because they do not read them and they do not care. Chat is a feature of the wiki and you should have to contribute, even a very small amount, 50 edits is not asking a lot yet people keep making out to be like we are asking you to rewrite the entire site, people learn to evaluate what is exactly being asked of you because all of you are blowing this way out of proportion, before you can use one of the nice features of this site. Is that really so hard to ask? According to 14 of you, it apparently is asking you to move the world. Sad really. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:00, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do agree that users should contribute to the site if they want to use the features. However, meeting a specific number of edits does not automatically make someone a worthwhile contributor, nor does not having made a specific number of edits mean that someone has not contributed enough to the site. Having the requirement be "X number of edits" means that someone who makes numerous small edits receives more credit than someone who has made a small number of substantial and informative additions to the site. Even without having to meet a specific number of edits in order to use the Chat, the "user must have had an account for two weeks" further restricts users not based on contribution history but merely the fact that they are newcomers. While encouragement to contribute and follow the rules of the site is always a good thing, this suggestion penalizes new users based not on whether they've contributed to the site or followed the rules but merely for being a new user. That attack on the people against this idea at the ending of your comment is simply uncalled for; people disagreeing with the means by which you wish to ensure users contributing to the site and knowing the rules does not automatically mean that they all do not think that users should have to contribute or follow the rules. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 21:02, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

He never said it does, however it does prove that they know policy before they join chat, and it helps clean up the wiki. No one is being penalized, it is not like you are forced to edit, you will simply have to deal without chat like we did about a month or two ago. Big deal. If people are really serious about Chat and nothing else, then this is probably the wrong site for them.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:16, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

This is such a stupid thing, and the "oppose" votes are so obviously ridiculous and without reason. There has been one semi-good argument against this policy, that is it. This shouldn't even be up for voting, the admins should just be able to adjust the chat rules.--Legionwrex (talk) 20:41, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Not hoping for an argument, but I am curious as to whether you would say the same on it being a vote if it was in the supporters' favor.--Parax 20:53, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Obviously no. My whole point was admins should be able to pass this without a vote, however if it is already in the supporters favor, then there would be no need to say it.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:03, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, every user can make big edits unless they are either lazy or don't try. There is no excuse. All they have to do is go through walkthrough articles, or wait a day until Omega is released.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:06, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't see laziness as a reason for not making "big" edits. Some day, there won't be any "significant" information to add. Say the Mass Effect series went to a complete stop. No more sequels, prequels, DLC, etc. Eventually, there won't be anything left after a while. Now, with that in mind, I also point you to LilyheartsLiara's comment above.--Parax 21:10, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

And eventually the sun will explode; doesn't mean it will happen soon. The fact of the mater is if a user really can't find a edit even after Omega is released, they are most likely half-a**ing it. As to Lily's comment, I will reply to it.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:16, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Point made. However, soon or not, it will happen. Sure, there will be Omega, but what next?--Parax 21:20, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Future MP and SP DLC, then eventually that new Mass Effect.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:24, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just going to point out that for some of us (Europe by the look of it) our chances for getting good edits from Omega are reduced to nought because you have a full day to work through a few hours of gameplay and make your edits before we can download it. Not blaming any of you but you would think that by the time we got into the 21st century, it wouldn't be that hard to sycronise release times for these kind of things.Midnightpiranha (talk) 21:26, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

For Leviathan it took over a full week to get all the info, and Leviathan was smaller than Omega. One day off is no excuse.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:31, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

It was more that the major points that come to mind will have all been and gone very quickly, then people have to scrounge out on other things like weapon mod locations.Midnightpiranha (talk) 21:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

People are just mushrooming excuses for the sake of not wanting to edit. This just shows how some of the "against people" have been pushed against the wall and are unable to find worthwhile arguments to their cause.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 21:39, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to get Omega immediately when it comes out. Some may not be interested until they hear reviews, some may not care for DLC, and some may not be able to afford it now. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 21:41, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Then they can go through the walkthroughs or levels and classes of things they do know and make edits. There is no excuse.--Legionwrex (talk) 21:44, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with Reaper here and that just about everyone arguing against has had their first edits on the wiki on this page, and that says something. They just do not want to edit, abuse our site policies, ignore our site policies, and take advantage of what we offer. on BSN, you cannot post in the respective forums unless you own the game. So people think this is an extension of BSN. This is again a CONTENT based site, NOT A SOCIAL SITE. And just about everyone arguing against has got that mindset. They think this is an extension of BSN, when it IS NOT. This is a separate site, where the vast majority of people in chat, and that are arguing against this change, do not care about our policies. They just want to talk and take advantage of us and what we offer. If you just want to talk, go to BSN. If you want to talk here, we just ask that you contribute as well. Is that so hard to ask? From all of the arguments, apparently that is again asking people to perform brain surgery. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:51, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Reaper? I'm pretty sure it was me who said that.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:00, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I am also going to throw this out, because I seriously do not expect an answer from anyone who this is directed to. To anyone arguing against, is it really so much to ask that you make 50 edits to the mainspace of the site that provides you with the features that you use to socialize? Is it really so much to ask that you help improve the site before you can use some of the features? Is it really so much to ask that you spend two weeks familiarizing yourself with the site, its policies, and everything else before you get access to features of the site? If ANYONE answers "yes" to any of those three questions, then you really need to rethink your priorities in life and rethink why you are really here. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:57, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that users should help improve the site before they can use some of the features. But I do not agree that someone is not a worthwhile contributor unless they have made a specific number of edits—that their contributions should be judged by quantity over quality. I do not agree that someone cannot know the rules and policies of the site unless they have been on the site for a specific amount of time. By the way, I'm very content with my priorities in life. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 22:12, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that you did not answer the question, you danced around it, like I predicted. The fact is that "quality" is a subjective term. I know for a fact that some of the people voting against, consider a spelling correction a "quality edit" and it is not. Which is why the extension is set up the way they are. They have to make quality edits, but they can also make those correction type edits. Some wikis have a policy where you have to make 50 quality edits before you can even use the forums, chat, blogs, or even vote. We do not. The quantity vs quality argument is circular logic and really is not an arugment because "quality" means something different to everyone. Which is why it is defined. Something you clearly overlooked. And again the fact remains that we've had more people violate rules in chat since it was set up, than we get in an average month of people not following site policies. So clearly there is a problem. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:18, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

---

1. I have often found this Wiki to be very, very uninviting for edits. A well-meaning desire to maintain high-quality and sourced material has been taken to an extreme. There is too much of a willingness to hit the undo button (and sometimes accompanied with a comment that is terse at best) or to add the delete tag. Edits are reverted because or articles deleted just because the material is also buried in a very small part of a mostly unrelated article or because they fail to meet some unclear, subjective, and amorphous definition of relevance or quality of source. There have been plenty of times in which I have been reluctant to make an edit, especially a substantial one, out of fear that I'm going to waste my time. Seriously, if you want to encourage editing, loosen up.

2. Article talk page edits and uploads can be worthy additions to the blog. Talk page edits can serve as a route to make suggestions or seek clarifications on the article before changes are made, potentially avoiding edit wars. And shouldn't uploading pictures to articles in need qualify as a meaningful edit?

3. Just who is going to be the judge of whether or not an edit qualifies? Don't the admins have enough to do without sifting through users' contribution lists? TheUnknown285 (talk) 22:25, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

To address each point. 1: We evaluate every edit, the fact remains however, that a large number of them are edits that either violate some site policy, or are just flat out unneeded for one reason or another. 2: That is what talk pages are for, so I have no idea what your problem is with that. The fact is that many people just see them as forums, which is why they are the way they are. If everyone were to use talk pages like that, it would not only help, but I'd enjoy it. 3: What types of edits are defined above, which everyone clearly overlooks given everyone's statements. I firmly believe that so many of the against votes are there just because they don't want to lose their precious chat, not because they actually read the policies, and your third point is just making that case more and more obvious. And if that means extra work, then that's fine. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:30, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a content wiki first but that doesn't mean that the social aspect of it needs to be ignored. Some people may just want to socialize. Should the be discouraged simply for doing that if they're not being disruptive? Even if someone is being disruptive you can always direct them toward the site policies and warn them so they do not repeat this. This measure just seems completely unneeded and plenty of other wikis with chat have managed to work perfectly fine without it. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 22:33, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

As Lancer said, this is not an extension of BSN. If people just want to talk and socialize, they can go to BSN and chill all day. This wiki has been mushrooming with socialites and the real work is being neglected. Its a huge wiki, lots of things need corrections and/or updates. Socialites are distracting as they overshadow the wiki's true purpose. Warning them is no good, they either haven't read site policies or simply do not care, which leads to them being banned and the start of their moaning that they were unaware. People are taking the rules too lightly and need a wake-up call. This policy will do just that.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 23:18, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

The fact is they just do not care. You already said it Reaper when you said that people expect things to be spoon-feed to them. People already do not read site policies, and warning them does no good, so this would make them familiarize themselves with the policies. Lancer1289 (talk) 23:22, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

People simply prefer the community here or aren't really into the BSN, I know quite a few people that absolutely DESPISE it. How exactly does socializing overshadow the wikis true purpose? Can this wiki not be content focused yet have a devoted social community? Nukapedia comes to mind as a perfect example of this. I just feel that we shouldn't be punishing all the users for the mistakes of the uneducated few. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 23:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is when socializing takes over, as it has done. We have more people who just come here for the blogs, chat, and other social features than anything else right now, and that is sad. This isn't about punishing anyone, despite what everyone seems to believe. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:18, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

And? Lancer, I get it. You don't like that people are socialising. But is that a bad thing? No. There is nothing wrong with people coming here "just for the blogs" or just coming in for a chat, when it doesn't affect the main space. I can understand if it isn't your thing, but please try to be tolerant of the wide range of visitors Mass Effect Wiki gets. If someone joins to stimulate or take part in the community, so what? That's their business, and it doesn't hurt the wiki. These people aren't going to suddenly find all the places in need of editing because you stifle the community. They'll do one of two things. They'll boost (which is exactly my point about achievements), or just leave altogether, and not make any edits. Chat can ease newcomers into the wiki, and encourage them to take part in the community. By restricting chat, newcomers will likely resort to short one-sentence blogs and forums that could have easily been straightened out in chat. The concern that this wiki might turn into BSN is as much of a non-issue as it a slippery slope. I've yet to see how a large community hurts a wiki. You want more people editing? Encourage the community to grow, don't stifle it. Take a look at other high-traffic wikis. Nukapedia and Dragon Age Wiki both have large bustling communities, but they're not harmed by it. In fact, I'd say that the community has been a boon. More people means more editors. Will they all make 50 main space edits? No, but they can help in their own small way, and in the end, I value a few quality edits over several that need to be undone. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:29, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

You have now completely and utterly failed to understand my point, but considering that over 75% of your edits are on blogs, maybe it is just that you are so busy there, you cannot see the problem. The fact you are defending this like you do supports the statement that you could care less about the mainspace and you only care about your blogs and all of the comments and flamewars that result from them.

We have had more issues with all of the social features, blogs, chat, forums, and even user talk pages, than any place else ever since the release of ME3. The social features are distracting from the mainspace because when everyone wants to socialize. It jams up the RC, causes monitoring problems, or things get overlooked. Admins, and even other editors have been putting out fires that come up on social spaces almost nonstop since ME3's release. Doing this, reading comments, handing out warnings/bans, responding to official things, prevents them from monitoring the mainspace or editing it because they have to keep monitoring the social side to make sure that no one is breaking site policies. There have been times where there are over 50 blog comments in an hour, and since I was the only admin on, instead of working on a project to improve an article, edit an article, add content, or just look around for things, I now have to read all of those comments for policy violations and if necessary act on them. How is that fair? How is that productive? How is that not the social site dominating the content side?

The fact remains that more users have broken site policies on blogs, forums, or in chat, than in the mainspace. This is because people in the social side do not care about site policies, do not care about the content of the site, and just do not care because they think this is BSN mini. You want to socialize, then fine, we just ask that you contribute to the site in order to use them. You, and everyone else, keep making this out to be we ask you to perform brain surgery, when really what we want is that you help out because you can. Everyone who spends so much time on the blogs, forums, or chat, can easily take 10 minutes to improve an artilce. But none of you, with three exceptions, seem to want to because you all do not give a [redacted]. You just want your precious social apps and nothing else. Well Facebook exists, use it.

As evidence of this, SolitaryReaper has been adding content to a lot of mainspace articles because they are missing content. Content that could have been added by users who are so engrossed in social features, but they did not. Why? Because they do not care about the site, they do not care about site policies, and all they care about is the precious social features. You want social features go to Facebook, go to Twitter, go to BSN, this is not a social site. There is no problem with a little socializing, but when it takes over, something that you, nor can anyone else seem to see, it is an issue.

You, and everyone else is making this out to be something that it not. This is because you all have come to a content site, and keep trying to force your social site values here, and it will not work. This is a content based site, not a social site. You keep arguing that there is no problem with a social side, and there is not, but you and everyone else arguing against this want nothing but a social site. You all could care less about the mainspace. You have less than 150 mainspace edits in over a year, and almost 1,900 blog comments. It is clear to me where your priorities, and a lot of others lie. You are not here to improve the site, keep it up to date, fixing thing, adding things, or anything else. You all care more about your precious social apps than the site itself. You could all care less about the mainspace and if you say you do, then you are FLAT OUT LYING.

I have resisted saying this until now, but I am now fed up with this and all of the rhetoric because you all have no logical arguments. The admins where given exclusive control over the chat rules when it was set up, and we did not enact these policies. Why? Because we think they were not needed. However, since it has been up, we have seen problem after problem after problem, and it seems that we should have done this in the first place. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:17, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

This is getting very heated. Perhaps we should all take a second to calm down.--Legionwrex (talk) 02:41, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

I do care about the main space, but I only edit there when I feel it is necessary. I don't go out of my way to find something to edit, I edit when I see something that needs editing. I understand that there is some basis for it, but what little good that would come from this is largely outweighed by its detriments, which we have listed at length. You think the community is a problem? Wait until people are boosting for edits. This creates more problems, and worst of all, it's already on the main space. Harmful edits on the main space that distract from other main space problems is undoubtedly worse than social squabbles.

You continually say it's easy, but that's not a reason for establishing a new policy. Not all of us want to or even need to. Think about all the edits you undo/rollback; I've have to undo my fair share. You want to actively encourage those people to edit more? Not everyone can edit, and considering how strict and specific the policies are (which I'm fine with by the way) and how comprehensive and well-kept this wiki is, making 50 edits seems like a daunting task. It's not as if there is this massive abundance of articles that need editing. Sure, some of the walkthroughs could use help, but not everyone has that technical knowledge, so editing isn't so easy. You shouldn't stifle the community aspect of this wiki, simply because they aren't working as hard as you. I'v made plenty of helpful edits around this wiki. Should I be denied chat? I came to read and join the community first, not to edit. A wiki is something that should be enjoyed by all, not edited by all. This is supposed to be a place where people can come and share knowledge and information about something they care about. Adding tighter restrictions will not help the reputation this wiki has, and will certainly lead to less constructive editing.

You say that these people could have easily added that information if they weren't so engrossed in the social features, but there is no proof of that. Don't blame the chat room because no one else added that information. Solitary added it because they knew that information. Not everyone can. All over Wikia, I see people who discuss pages in need of editing, without editing the page itself. They do this because they are afraid. They're inexperience prevents them from editing. They say that something should be changed, but they don't want to mess anything up. Someone else will then pick up on it, but did that original user help? Yes. We can all contribute, but not empirically. It's a collaborative project, and in the end, what matters is that the pages look good and contain helpful information that is easy to find by the reader. The attitude of those who contribute is irrelevant.

I know you're worried about social aspects taking away from the main space, but consider this. Those people who don't have enough edits? They'll communicate in blogs and forums, flooding the wiki activity with their pointless questions that could have easily been rectified in chat. What happens in chat stays in chat for the most part.

Again, all of this sounds like you're injecting your own personal feeling into this. You sound upset because not everyone is here for the same reason as you? How is that fair? I don't edit as much as you on the main space, but so what? What is so inherently wrong with me editing on blogs more than the main space? Nothing. I'm here for the community first, but I do care about this wiki, which is why I'm here now. This is bad for the main space. Don't drag others down out of spite, simply because you feel they aren't working as hard. Do you know how many main space edits I have on my adopted wikis? A lot. I work hard bringing those wikis up from nothing, with little help. And then other people come along and edit casually, and take part in the community. So what? I don't care. They're enjoying the wiki I worked hard to improve. I don't need other people to join the wiki for the same reason as me, so long as it doesn't directly affect the main space. I welcome them and try to be friendly to them, because I know intolerance won't get them to edit. In the end, they do come back, and they do edit. They don't need to be denied access to a wiki feature until they make an arbitrary amount of edits first. Not all of then can or even should edit that much. What I do see however, is people joining up and making a few helpful edits, and then nothing else. They don't hurt the wiki, they help it. In a small way sure, but again, quality over quantity. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 02:51, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Once again it is clear that you completely fail to understand the entire situation. You completely ignored and did not even come close to addressing my entire point, actually my entire paragraph about the constant and persistent problems with all of the social features that really do not happen elsewhere. Why? Because people in those social features think the rules do not apply to them. Thanks for completely ignoring that for whatever reason. Me thinks you did not want to address it because you do not know how because it is the truth. I have three questions that you did not even address in any way. How about all of the flame wars on all of your blogs that I have had to put out, ban people, and that clog up the RC because now I have read comment after comment for policy violations. People in chat have repeatedly shown resistance to follow policies, keep things on topic, read any site policy, and when told of them, resist to change, or get back on topic. This happens a lot in all of the social features actually.

All of your arguments come down to you not understanding the situation and saying that "it could be resolved in chat". That isn't a reason. That is an excuse. You claim that people will flood the mainspace, which will make it worse. I cannot even come close to taking your word for that because of your lack of experience with editing anything outside the blogs. Getting 50 edits, 25 small ones, and 25 meaningful ones, really is not that hard. Will it take time? Of course, but it will benefit from people working on it.

Until you address my questions about the persistent problems with all of the social features, I will no longer comment, and perhaps I will not comment further because I have learned that arguing with socialites is arguing with circular logic. It just keeps going back to the same problems and when something serious comes up, they will just ignore it. Lancer1289 (talk) 03:15, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

What people in the social features think the rules don't apply to them? Your condescension here really isn't needed. I'm merely stating the detriments that will come as a result of this, and it honestly seems like you're handwaving it all.

I apologise for the heated debates, but I honestly don't view that as extremely detrimental to the wiki. It's an exchange of information related to the topic, and none of that spilled over into the mainspace, so it isn't a problem. This policy? It actively encourages mainspace editing, from people who don't need to, and in places that don't need to be edited. What concerns me however, is that you complain about blogs and forums, yet you want to restrict who can and cannot chat, which ultimately leads to more blogs and forums.

Again, this feels like your own personal experience and feelings. You're making a broad generalisation about people who use these social features. I mainly stick to social features, but I do keep an eye on wiki activity and I undo my fair share of vandalism and unnecessary edits whilst I'm here. That's whilst I'm here. It's a positive by-product of my being here primarily for socialising. We're not all rule breakers, and believe it or not, we are all here for the same reason. Because we love Mass Effect. That's what matters, not whether or not you work as hard as other people.

Saying my argument is invalid based on my edit count on this particular wiki feels like an ad hominem. Focus more on what is being said, and not the person saying it. You said I've ignored your points, but it feels like you've also ignored mine. I say again: wasn't the whole point of not having achievements because people would boost? --The Milkman | I always deliver. 03:34, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Milkman, nobody is denying your contributions to this wiki. You have been a valuable contributor, despite focusing a lot on blogs, you really do care about the true purpose of the wiki. But you have to understand that most of the regular chat users do not think like you do. Most of them showed up on the wiki only after the chat was introduced. They were not aware of the policies and needed to be directed to the chat policy page. Maybe their initial intention was to contribute, but socializing took precedence, wait, let me correct that, socialization became the reason they use the wiki. If asked why they are not contributing, their reply "Why bother? Other people can do it. We are just here for chatting, getting to know people" If that is not taking advantage of a situation, I don't know what is. This policy is not over-generalizing about people, its a generalization based on hard facts.

You are correct to say we are all here because we love Mass Effect. People should show that love by contributing to the wiki, not sit around all day and say "I love Mass Effect so much". They need to do their part as well. Its not too much to ask to make some useful edits. Its not as if their god-given civil rights are at stake, but the "against" people are acting exactly as if they are.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 06:16, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that removing that chat option for those people will change that. Those that are here solely for chat might not edit, but preventing them from chatting won't change their motivation for being here. They'll either make a lot of edits in the wrong places or be discouraged from editing at all. Out of necessity, this wiki has strict editing policies. I prefer to keep my eye on the wiki activity page for vandalism and edits that need to be undone. I may not make as many contributions as others, but I try to help in my own way whilst I'm here. I can understand that not everyone is like this, but some are. I don't think that everyone who comes here to socialise needs to edit, because to be blunt, not everyone should edit. In my past few years as an editor (and on some wikis, an administrator/bureaucrat) I've encountered plenty of users who, whilst not necessarily great at editing, can contribute ideas and keep an eye out for trouble. We can all contribute to this wiki in different ways, but 50 main space edits isn't it. To you and I, that may seem easy enough, but to a new user, that's a daunting and discouraging task, especially when so many of their edits will end up being undone. We should be welcoming new users with these social features, and use them to ease newcomers into the wiki. Denying them these features and frustrating them further by undoing their edits (and they will be undone, trust me) will only turn more people away from this wiki, resulting in less positive edits.

And so what if they do sit here all day and say "I love Mass Effect"? So long as you make the rules clear, and hold people to them, what's the problem with people taking advantage of only the social aspect of this site? Some people simply prefer that. Strict policies work fine for the content and canon on the main space, but that shouldn't spill over into the community. There's nothing inherently wrong with someone's reason for coming to this website. If they don't want to edit, they don't want to edit. Taking away the social features won't change that; it'll alienate them. If some of those people make some good edits whilst their here doing their own thing, then I'd say it was worth it. There are better ways to go about making sure policies are enforced and people are editing the pages in need. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 12:46, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, looks like things have changed quite a bit since the last time I was here. Seeing as I haven't used the Chat feature at all, I'm not going to vote on this. However, I feel that I should share my 2 cents, if that's alright with ya'll. I love this wiki. Its dedication to being precise and factual is a very welcome feature that has helped many users (myself included) find the information they were looking for easily and effectively. The way a majority of users have followed the policies, even when they disagreed on them, was something that made me want to keep coming back. I've been here for a year and a half with but 90-something edits, and every one of them has been in a blog or forum or whatnot. I don't have the ability to look at the coding to the games, so I can't find the exact properties of each ability, armor piece, and other such things, or if said properties are actually working properly. By the time I take a break from playing the game/DLC, someone else has already put the info I know onto the wiki. When I look at the page for a certain character or a planet, the things I know are already there in a well-formatted way that I am unsure of how to improve upon. So, when someone who has thousands of edits says that others must have 25 edits to "mainspace" pages, I feel that they've lost sight of how hard that would be for everyone who comes here to do, especially when we have dry spells between content releases. As always, I shall abide by whatever is decided here, regardless of my personal opinion. *mutters*I really need to start coming back here.

P.S. To Legion, Spart, and Lancer: After all the time I've spent reading through different blogs and such here, I feel as if I know you guys a little. You always want what is best for the wiki, and you do everything you can to keep improving it. As someone who can (for this issue, at least) say that they are on the outside looking in, you guys are sounding like entitled, self-righteous a**holes. People that are new to the wiki will see comments like the ones you leave here, and it will just serve as something to push potential contributors away. And the fact that I know ya'll aren't like that at all really, really bothers me. --CommanderCousland (talk) 03:56, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I can understand how it might seem like that (although I still stand by everything I have said) but quick question; Why did Sparthawg get lumped along with us? He barely even commented and did nothing.--Legionwrex (talk) 04:00, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I'm running low on caffeine right now, so his name probably just ran together with some others. I agree with one of your earlier comments, everyone just needs to take a step back and cool down a little. I think what tends to happen is we get caught up in the moment when reading a reply that disagrees with (what is in our own opinions) flawless logic, and we respond as if said reply was attacking us. I feel that everything would be much better if when everyone read a reply, they took a couple of minutes to think about it, then came back and read it again while actively trying to interpret it in a non-hostile way. Then again, that's my opinion formed by my logic, so others may disagree with me on that. --CommanderCousland (talk) 04:33, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

You just insulted some of the "for" people for expressing their valid opinions. We are presenting our opinions as clearly as possible and sometimes have to be harsh with our words because people are too stubborn to understand. This just shows the "against" people are still not getting the clear picture, either because they don't want to or because they are incapable of understanding basic English. We have clearly stated our opinions which are not based on their emotions but based on raw, hard facts. I am tired of repeating myself again and again, but I guess its still not enough to get the point across. Too many people have begun to think of this wiki as an extension of BSN, they come in here with no regard for policies, no care for the real purpose of the wiki and bad-mouth the wiki authorities when they are reprimanded. Their excuse:"We were unaware", which is just plain ridiculous. Do they expect moderators to spoon-feed them and teach them to behave as responsible individuals? Before joining the chat, people are expected to be aware of all the rules and regulations. I am a regular wiki user and everyday I see people whom are never seen on this wiki but show up only to chat. They do not give a [redacted] about the rules and moan and whine when they are punished for breaking policy. Disruptive behavior, cursing, harassment are rampant on the chat. They care nothing for the wiki and are only intent on socializing, thus overshadowing the true purpose of the wiki. The admins have been forced to introduce this policy because there is no other way to educate these people. It's a shame they even need to be educated at all.--SolitaryReaper (talk) 06:01, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the edit ceiling needs to be brought down to 30. I'm also afraid that in its current state, this policy will lead to a lot of low-quality edits that would need to be reverted by the admins. If the "Welcome" message to new users is updated with links to the Concentrated Effort and its sub-projects and if you can somehow display alert message warning of the edit requirement when new users try to access the chat, (this is so that we don't see blogs asking "why is the chat broken?", etc.) then I will probably support it. 4Ferelden (talk) 07:12, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

It's becoming difficult to follow the various threads, so I'll adress the issues here. @Lancer: Wouldn't it ease your job if you didn't have to read every single blog comment for yourself? If you relegate some of the responsibility to the blog regulars, and let the blogs self-regulate to an extent, while making it clear to everyone that they are to respect adressations from the fellow users to tone down, you would have to step in only if someone specifically demanded your attention. You don't need to adress everything yourself, you can ask others to help out even if they don't have admin status. I'll be glad to help in sort of moderating the discussions if they get over the top, and I'm sure many others will do so, as well. I can understand that socialising is not your thing but you must understand, as well, that you may not be able to keep the wiki the way it used to be simply because of its nature: an open encyclopaedia, not a private undertaking, and that users' requirements for it may be changing. The social aspect may be used to enhance, not detract, and a well-built community will take off a lot from your shoulders.

@SolitaryReaper: I have suggested some measures above, such as making a fool-proof sign right on the main page, and the same I suggested to Lancer: get the chat users themselves engaged. And if you have to ban ten, twenty, fifty people, do so - on a fair warning, each approached as if they were the sole offender. That's the hardest part of it but it will pay - your approach will be just, and the message will get through, such news always do. You only need to wait out for some time. --Ygrain (talk) 07:20, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the people who only use blogs and chat really don't deserve responsibility , as they have not proven it. The social aspect has yet to enhance anything. I have seen a decrease in edits since chat was implemented, and the MS vs Social edits ratio is now like 1:10. The only person who ever used chat as a way to "enhance" was Temporaryeditor78, and that's it. You keep saying that chat will help this wiki, where's your proof, as I have shown mine.

Additionally, we shouldn't have to do any of that stuff is the point. If we just kept banning users over every little thing (which I am not necessarily opposed too, if with just reason) wouldn't that be more of a disaster for chat then this policy, and would decrease the traffic more than this policy would.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:27, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

"the people who only use blogs and chat really don't deserve responsibility" - now, that was uncalled for, not to mention that you are not entitled to decide who is deserving. We may have had our difference but you have had my respect - won't you consider taking this back?

And, the wiki is not just the pages but the people around it --Ygrain (talk) 16:23, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

I may not decide, but I have been here for over two years and have witnessed multiple SE and Admins positions being bestowed, and not anyone of them was given to a person who is solely interested in the social aspects of this wiki. If you want responsibility, prove that you will use it right and that you deserve it, others wise, don't complain about it.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:36, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw

This proposal is officially withdrawn. This page is now an archive and not to be edited further. Any further edits will be reverted. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:49, November 27, 2012 (UTC)