Forum:Chat

I personally think chat should be disabled for a few days. If not, forever. I mean, the amount of arguments that happen there when no mod is on is astounding. And even where there is one there, they continue when they're told to stop. Having users come on chat with no edits isn't exactly a problem. However, some people need to understand that this place is an encyclopaedia - not a chatting site. There's other sites for them to chat on, so surely there would be much better. I'm not saying that chatting is a bad thing. It's not. Not everyone comes here to edit articles, and we need to respect that. But, something does need to be done about the amount of arguments we have here.

I remember just under a year ago this wiki was peaceful, like any other wiki. There were almost no arguments. This was when chat wasn't enabled. We're a wiki. The admins shouldn't have to worry about users falling out with each other. Sure, every wiki has it's arguments, but not every day. I'm not saying chat is what caused it, but if it's disabled for as little as a week, a lot of those arguments would cool off and cease. That is not a right, it's a privilege. A privilege shouldn't be misused the way it is. I'm sure half of the things said on chat would not be things they'd say on the wiki.

If you think I'm absolutely mad in saying this, then you should visit chat. There isn't always arguments and some times it's rather peaceful, but even one mention of The Hunger Games (which is what this wiki is about) can cause a huge argument. Isn't that a bit silly? People are getting criticized for their opinions on characters, which is absolutely silly. I don't even think people bother to read our policies. 21:48, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:


 * 1) First and foremost, this is a wiki. A WIKI. It is not a chat room, blog platform, or venue for gaming, fanon, or RPing first. The wiki mission takes precedence and supersedes everything else. Chat, blog, and top 10 lists are actually features that have to be enabled, they are not active by default.
 * 2) Chat is a privilege, not a right. Privileges are earned and to be retained the receivers must prove that they are worthy, capable, and responsible enough to continue to receive the privilege. If they can't do this, they lose it. If that is a shock, then welcome to the real world because this sort of thing happens all the time and if you pay attention, privileges are usually lost for good reason. If people know that chat may go away and still persist in engaging in the same sort of behavior that prompted such a possibility, to me that means that they haven't learned anything and can't self-regulate themselves.
 * 3) There is nothing wrong with chat until it becomes problematic and issues and problems arising there spill out into the wiki space and become a distraction and disruption. Since I've been here I've seen bad behavior lead to complaints, blog post rants, bans, and people getting frustrated and leaving. None of this activity is moving the wiki forward at all.
 * 4) Some people may leave because the chat goes away. Or they may stick around and make positive contributions whereas they would have spent their time chatting. However if the loss of the chat privilege results in an overall benefit to the wiki and its readers, then it is a worthwhile loss.

I am not anti-chat. Honestly if a chat is activated on a wiki it doesn't matter to me one way or another because that's not why I'm on. Everyone is different and I respect people's desire to chat, which some people find fun, but for me editing is fun. That is the highest and best use of my wiki time. Here's my rationale: this is an opportunity to add to the body of knowledge about a topic that I am interested in and care about with a potential audience of hundreds, thousands, or even millions. Talking about randomness in chat is not going to do that and is taking away from what I would rather be doing, which is why I don't go in there. I am here to collaborate with like-minded people, not try to get some new wiki friends so I can list them all on my user page. Broken Sphere (Talk) 05:59, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everyone comes here to edit, so I don't think disallowing the roleplaying blogs is a good idea. We've had them before I've even joined, and a lot of users enjoy doing them. I think it's fine if not everyone edits, because not everyone has to. I think it's fine that some people only create fan-made games because that's how they're contributing to the wiki. Yes, they could be moved to the fanon wiki, but I don't think they'd like that. We need to ask everyone here, we need everyone's opinions on this because it's not just a small thing. 06:06, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for creating any confusion. I did mention those briefly but only to serve only as other examples of wiki features that can be turned on and off. I tried to keep my discussion focused primarily on chat and didn't mean to imply that the other features are also part of the discussion of possibly being removed as well, although the same arguments can be used. To me the RP blogs and games are each individual issues that can be discussed on their own if necessary. I may not agree with them being on here but until the situation changes disallowing or discouraging them, believe it or not I do respect other users' decisions to pursue either or both because everyone has their own boat to float. Otherwise this thread is focusing on the chat, so let's keep further discussion on that topic. Broken Sphere  (Talk) 06:59, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you know that I agree with you both. Haybernathy, I already told you that I've considered disabling the chat many times for these exact reasons. The only reason I haven't done so already is that it's a move that would go against the wishes of a huge number of users on the wiki, possibly the majority of them. -TagAlongPam  ( talk ) 15:35, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * It would upset a lot of users, but really, there's no fun in chat anymore (I've even stopped going myself). All anyone does is tell people to stop arguing, and then everyone gets into an argument about the argument. There's still places for them to chat (like the fanon and the roleplay wiki) so they wouldn't be completely deprived. 22:37, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that disabling the chat would be a good idea, but only for a short perod of time. If it is disabled, lets say for 2 months or so, then people will have a chance to calm down. After those 2 months or so, then reactivate chat and see how it goes. If it continues the same then disable it permanantly. ~ilovepeeta~   "Because she came here with me. . ."  05:46, April 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I 100% agree with what the above user has said. This wiki has spiralled out of control because little to no decisive action has been taken. that HATHAWAY  runaway~  05:51, April 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with ~ilovepeeta~. Recently, today I saw a multitude of users doing wrong. I've also seen the number of kick bans rise up significantly. I'm thinking that we should disable chat for one month, so that things can cool down for a bit and we can return to our so-called "Golden Age" (which I joined at the near-end of the Golden Age) and see what happens. Maybe it's the movie that got users to join and just go on chat and go happy-go-lucky. The chat mods, I agree, they should be more strict, like not letting users do whatever they want. In some wikis, they don't even do chat! So maybe disable chat for one month, and then make chat again. I think the problem with the wiki are the new users coming just because of the movie, or they have nothing to do. I'm thinking that a regulation that you have to have at LEAST 15 constructive edits on pages to go on chat. I MEAN 15 CONSTRUCTIVE EDITS. FIGHTING! One truth prevails! 05:58, April 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually think that would be a good idea. By not letting a user on chat until he or she has 15 CONSTRUCTIVE edits would be a good way to keep the, "trolls"and some other users that come just because they had nothing to do, off of chat. This would result in less conflicts, and less problems with the rules. ~ilovepeeta~   "Because she came here with me. . ."  06:03, April 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well according to prior discussion here: Forum:Is the wiki's focus getting too social?, chat can't be restricted based on number of edits. Broken Sphere  (Talk) 02:56, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps disabling chat is in our best interest. Unless there's another way? —Haybernathy - talk 20:29, April 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * How about getting the opinions of the chat regulars and the chat mods? Broken Sphere  (Talk) 20:35, April 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, about not letting users with less then 15 constructive edits join chat is a really good idea, and I support it 110%. Even though chat cant be disabled to certain users, the chat moderators, and users on chat could check someones edit count when they join, and they would get kickbanned by a chat moderator if they did not meet the requirements, and would later need to contact a chat moderator or so when they have enough edits.
 * Another thing which has been mentioned, is disabling chat for a certain amount of time. I think that is great, however, I think it should be disabled for an unknown amount of time, till certain criteria improve ( constructive edits, contributions, etc.. ) as a way to motivate everyone. Lunix68 Talk 23:04, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there. I'm all for any solution really, as long as this mess is solved because it's been going on for far too long. —Haybernathy 03:02, April 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * From the perspective of a VERY active user and mod I have several ideas. I believe that shutting down chat for maybe a week or so will work. So that some of the people who don't actually make constructive edits to pages would leave. And maybe every month or so we could close the chat for a week. I don't know if that would help but it's worth a shot in my opinion. I think that possibly for kickbanning people before making a certain number of CONSTRUCTIVE edits is a good idea. This is just my point of view as a VERY active chat mod.
 * --- I'm a dragon... RAWR! or Anneliese a.k.a. Annie a.k.a. the awesome one a.k.a. the one with the awesome sig a.k.a. her royal highness a.k.a. queen of the universe aka Iluvgale


 * The edit restriction to chat is a good idea, but there are a few potential issues:


 * A chat mod has to be on or an admin active in order to promptly kickban. Regulars and veteran users also need to be active in screening new entrants into the chat room who they rarely see or are not familiar with. I'm not sure where the majority of chat users are coming from geographically but chat is on 24 hours a day. The ban needs to be long enough that someone can get their edits in within a reasonable amount of time. However if they then bail after getting kickbanned or don't do anything right away it would have to be longer.
 * New users need to know what the chat policy is, that there is an editing restriction, and that it will be enforced. This is something that has to be made as clear as possible before someone even sets up an account here or comes over from another wikia to try and cut down on "I didn't know that" rationales when people get kickbanned and then complain about it. The welcome message is one way to do this but if someone creates an account and begins chatting without making any edits they will not receive this. Another way is to highlight this somewhere prominently on the main page and/or on the chat sidebar (see Bleach example below). A chatban template could be set up explaining that lack of sufficient good edits is the reason for banning and that the user can only appeal after they meet the requirements. If they appeal too early they will be automatically turned down. Make it clear that actions speak louder than words and that whining will not help them.
 * New users need to know exactly what a constructive edit means. Personally I would disqualify several classes of edit (user space, user talk, blog post, blog comment, file upload, minor edit) from this, meaning that only main space edits would count. I would count anti-vandalism edits as constructive.


 * I mentioned this in the other thread but am reposting it here as an example of an editing restriction in place:


 * "I noticed on the Bleach Wiki that to chat you supposedly need 10 edits to articles to go in there. However I was still able to enter without having fulfilled this requirement. The first thing I saw was a bot greeting saying that there is a new chat policy and linking to it and I still saw the 10 edit restriction, but was still able to comment. I don't know how their chat is moderated since no one was on at the time. However there is an editing restriction limiting editing to registered users only. When I clicked edit without being logged in the log in screen came up."


 * Going back in today, it looks like the bot will repeat the message in the event that you do not meet the edit requirement. Their Chat Policy does say that if you fall short of the editing requirements that you will be asked to leave until you meet them.


 * As for periodic shutdowns, it doesn't look there is any good time for chat to be turned off because disputes can happen at any time regardless of the time of day or if it is a weekday or weekend. This also creates another administrative task to handle (activating and deactivating). Broken Sphere  (Talk) 05:39, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think it would be best if we add an edit restriction. However, if we were to do what Bleach Wiki does, we'd need a user with a bot, and we'd also need to know how to set that up. I'm all for doing it but I have no idea how. —Haybernathy 05:49, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Popped in again just now to check if the bot is on 24/7. No bot on (or any other users) and I got on chat no problem. It looks like whatever they have is only helpful up to a point, i.e. serving notice, but they cannot restrict chat based on edit count either. Broken Sphere (Talk) 16:21, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should take a vote, then? We're not really getting anywhere. We should also message Godisme (because it's his bot) and ask him about how he did this. Of course, we'd need a bot too. —Haybernathy 22:18, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

A good idea for chat might be to try and incorporate chat moderators with time zones, trying to cover certain timezones. Also, since a lot of the admin-related blogs get shuffled away ( with all the activity ),

I also suggest adding this onto the Community Corner, and with all policy related blogs, or admin related blogs to add the category " Wiki News " to the blog so it is attached to the list, making it easier for anouncements and policy changes.Lunix68 Talk 22:43, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with adding an edit limit on chat. Some users would go and spam 15 comments to get on chat, so what's the point? I'm more in favor with disabling chat for a month, in hopes that wiki will turn back to what it wa slike when I first arrived: A cool wiki where you could edit articles and discuss the HG in the comments of relative blogs. Necterine411  Questions? Comments? Concerns?  23:27, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Vote
Because nothing has been decided, a vote will take place. Pleas sign your name and a reason under the solution you agree with.

Add an edit limit

 * 1) Iluvgale: it would keep some of the people who don't actually want to help this week from being on here/ creating more constructive edits.