Line 24: Line 24:
#{{Support}} {{User:Remnant13/Sig1}}13:01,9/2/2012
#{{Support}} {{User:Remnant13/Sig1}}13:01,9/2/2012
#{{Support}} {{User:Ezere Fernandez/sig3}}02, September 2012, 14:45 (UTC)
#{{Support}} {{User:Ezere Fernandez/sig3}}02, September 2012, 14:45 (UTC)
#{{Support}} --{{User:Dark_Seeker_Kotsu/sig3}} 20:57, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:57, September 3, 2012

Forums: Index → Improvements and Issues →  Chat RuleForum_Icon.pngPost

Okay, this forum was opened because Ultraprime2 and Glass Heart think that there should be an edit limit on chat. Meaning that you must have ten mainspace edits before you are allowed to enter our chat, those who don’t have those edits will be forced to leave and not allowed in chat until they have the edits. The reason given for this is because a lot of new users come to the chat to troll and this would help prevent this. I think both of them have good intentions but I don’t think they care enough about the social side of our wiki to understand just how adversely this could affect it. True, this rule would limit the number of trolls, however, it is a double edged sword. Not every new user comes to chat to troll and disrupt chat. Putting the rule in place would not only keep the trolls away but it would discourage regular chatters from entering the chat as well. Now, I know some of you may argue that it’s not that hard to get ten edits, but if you aren’t visiting the wiki to edit in the first place, then you aren’t going to feel like getting the edits to get on chat. And it’s not fair that we make anyone edit who doesn’t want to edit. Our site is very free and fun. If a user wants to edit, they can. If a user wants to chat, they can chat. Telling someone that in order to do one, they must do the other is ridiculous and is putting limitations on something which doesn’t need limitation. Besides, the rule is somewhat ignorant in my opinion. The user trying to gain access into chat is only going to make ten edits and then never edit again. That’s not going to encourage any good editing. We’d only get a bunch of minor, likely erroneous, edits that serve no other purpose than to unnecessarily crowd up Recent Changes and Wiki Activity. In addition, we don’t have chat mods online at all time. So there’s no 100% way to enforce this rule. Furthermore, how many wikis can you think of that actually have this rule in place? Very few if any. And it’s for a good reason. The rule would be harmful to the social side of our wiki. I think it’s very obvious by now that the Fairy Tail wiki is far from the average wiki. We’re both an encyclopedia and a social site. Trying to force the encyclopedic side on those who come for the social side of the wiki is wrong and wouldn’t be helpful to our wiki by any means. As a matter of fact, the only wiki I know to have this rule is the Bleach wiki and here’s why they have it

Any user entering chat will be required to have a mainspace edit count of ten edits. This is because Bleach Wiki is a content focused encyclopedia style wiki. The focus of the wiki is to build information, not to chat. Users who use the chat should be editing in addition to chatting.

You read it right there. The Bleach Wiki has it because they are a “content focused encyclopedia style” wiki. It works for them because they aren’t really a social wiki, which is great. However, what works for one wiki doesn’t necessarily work for all wikis because our wiki isn’t a complete encyclopedia wiki. While we do put a lot of work into our content, we also put a lot of work into our social side of the wiki. Meaning that we’re more of a half/half kind of wiki so why would we take a rule that was designed for a completely encyclopedic type wiki and apply it to our wiki? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the rule itself. As a matter of fact, when I was a Policy & Standards Committee member over at the Bleach wiki, I was actually one of the people who supported the rule becoming a policy on the site. However, I supported it over there because it works for the Bleach wiki. It doesn’t work for the Fairy Tail wiki. As I said, what works for one, doesn’t work for all. Putting a harmful rule in place to make the lives of our chat mods easier is not something that I want done on our site. Anonymous users create a hell of a lot of more problems than regular users. Have I ever ONCE tried to contact staff and have them disable anonymous editing on our wiki? No! Why? Because I know that there are plenty of good anonymous users as well as there are bad. It means more work for me as an Administrator, but I suck it up and do the work because that’s what I’m expected to do. In addition, the rich text editor was a huge problem because it was so error-filled that it ruined a lot of pages. Did I ever try to have that disabled? No! Because I know that most new users wouldn’t be comfortable enough to use the source editor when they first start out. Fixing the problems created by RTE caused more work for me as an Administrator but I sucked it up. Chat mods are sort of like Administrators for the chat, and just like I sucked it up and dealt with it, they have to as well. If behavior is such a problem, then chat mods should be able to handle it. They have the power to kick and/or ban people from chat. So if a newbie is trolling then why can’t they handle it? That’s what their abilities are in place for. They aren’t for decoration. And if it is such a big issue, then either a chat mod or a regular user can just contact an administrator. There are five of us and we are always ready and willing to help out.

What I’m essentially trying to say is that wikis that get too strict tend to lose members and they lose them fast. The Fairy Tail Wiki used to have a slim number of edits per day. I, along with a lot of other users, have worked tirelessly to improve the wiki and make it more appealing. The chat used to have absolutely no one in it, but due to the copious amount of users joining it, it became the hot spot that it is today. Do we really want to ruin that? The more strict our chat gets, the more users will avoid it. This 10 edit rule sounds good in theory, but take a second to analyze it and you’ll realize just how harmful it is to our wiki. As I said, Glassy and Prime had good intentions when proposing this rule, but I don't think they understand just how negative the effects of implementing it.

You can support or oppose this rule below. I did not place a neutral section because that doesn’t help the voting process. If you are neutral, just leave a comment in the comment section. The support/oppose sections should have nothing but the votes. Please leave all reasons in the comment section so that we may keep the voting sections clean.



Simply put the #{{Support}}/{{Oppose}} ~~~~. No comments in the voting section please!


  • At least 100 edits
  • At least 3 months on the wiki
  • Never received any serious or lengthy blocks due to behavioral issues.


  1. Support Support - Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:40,9/2/2012 
  2. Support Support - RedFemaleKnight 04:59,9/2/2012Blahblah.gif
  3. Support Support - Éclair MovieUltraprime2Let's talkChibi Mystogan 06:47, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support Support - Remnant Sig13:01,9/2/2012
  5. Support Support - Ezere FernandezLaxus Sprite02, September 2012, 14:45 (UTC)
  6. Support Support - -- Dark Seeker Kotsu   20:57, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


  1. Oppose Oppose -  Rai  Talk     04:34,9/2/2012
  2. Oppose Heavily Oppose - ChaosKnight 04:48, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose -  ☆ MDM ☆ ┌∩┐(◣_◢)   05:00, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose - Fairy Tail Grand Master<F.T.G.M. >Mavis Full BodyAcnologia Avatar07:07,9/2/2012
  5. Oppose Oppose -<<< Rora*** 12:01, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Oppose -KokorochaS13:11,9/2/2012 13:11, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Oppose - RelikzBickslow Doll3Talk 13:19, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Oppose - Herme 15:43,9/2/2012
  9. Oppose Oppose - Miskos3 Message 17:02, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Oppose - --  Troll King                         20:20/2/Sep/2012 20:20, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Mega-Oppose -Chibi StingMega Chibi Cobra 23:10, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Oppose - Gemini PNGLeandro Pereira 23:11,9/2/2012 23:11, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Oppose - Gildarts CliveNatsu and Happy 09:20, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Heavily Oppose -  Rina1230 Talk  Wendy wektor 17:45, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Owns all other Oppose -Niji 20:30, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Oppose - Suzaku 鈴の朱雀Sabertoth markRufus Lore GMG 20:37, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


Jakuho, didn't Ultra say that the requirements is 100 mainspace edits? Also, the Pokemon Wiki and Sonic Wiki (as far as I know) also have the Edit Requirement rule. In fact, unless I'm mistaken Pokemon Wiki was the first to enforce it on Wikia. Glass Heart (GHeart) 04:40,9/2/2012 

Yep. Both pokemon and sonic count in the "very few if any" category.   Rai  Talk     04:49,9/2/2012
Ah, you were talking about the voting requirements. Not that I remember, and even if he did, I would've taken it out anyway, considering that it doesn't take 100 edits to the wiki to give your opinion on chat.   Rai  Talk     05:38,9/2/2012
Most of the people on the chat are opposing this rules, but they can't vote because of the time restriction. ChaosKnight 06:24, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
The time restriction and voting edit restriction is in place because we don't want people coercing others or asking their friends to vote this way or that way so as to rig the votes. And Glass is right, for the prevention of coerced votes, I wanted 100 article edits to be a requirement but if you're against that, we'll leave the requirements as they are.
Éclair MovieUltraprime2Let's talkChibi Mystogan 06:43, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ok I know that I am new to this wiki and its ways and I with the position I am standing on, I don't have any rights to criticize about this wiki's ways but this is wrong. It is indeed true that bringing a rule like this will filter all the Serious members from "just-there-cause-they-can" members but forced edits are never a good idea. This wiki's chat is one of its wonders, its one of the reason why I come to this wiki regardless I don't know 60% of the members on that chat ( ._.) .. .. its really rare to see a large community like this gather in one place everyday to talk their hearts out, invite and welcome new members with same spirit as yesterday. I been to COD wiki, MLP wiki(don't ask why), Avatar Wiki and other popular wikia(ok OP wiki too I guess) but none has this kinda system cause they all welcome new members with open heart, not check-point guards that will check their edits and then let them in. Wait, I am making no sense >_> .. .. ok overall I Oppose this Idea cause I want this wiki to maintain its welcoming atmosphere. I love it.  ☆ MDM ☆ ┌∩┐(◣_◢)   05:13, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. :)   Rai  Talk     05:38,9/2/2012

I have stated this in the chat, but I'll say it here just in case. The chat rule is essentially rule forcing people to edit. Forcing people edits will encourage vandalism on the main articles more than meaningful edits. People can just change one letter over and over until they get 10 edits to get on the chat.

Sure, there are trolls that comes to the site, but majority of the trolls only stay for a day or two at best. And if they stay much longer, they're almost always banned by chatmod or admins already. Some even only comes for 10 seconds just to drop off one trollish sentence, which is not even enough time to check, react, and kick, let alone ban.

The rules will only hinder what the site represents, an information site where everyone can come and have fun without being restricted. I want this site to be a place where everyone can accept everyone, not a site where only people willing to work can stay. Forcing people to work will rarely, if ever, gets any positive result. Therefore, I oppose this rule. ChaosKnight 06:15, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

As the others already mentioned. One of the greatest things about this wiki is that it is a social site and Admins aren't too strict about not article-related edits clouding the RA feed unlike most wikis. Now, if the 10 edit rule is placed, the RA feed would be FULL of useless edits that would need constant checking, creating headaches for any long-term vandalism fighter. I personally think that if this rule takes effect, the wiki may never be the same again. If this chat mod thing is such a bore then like it was suggested before. APPOINT MORE chat mods! I know I won't be able to become a mod *sad face* but I stay awake for about 14 hours a day on holidays and I am not the only one. If this is a SERIOUS problem, then I suggest strengthening the chat mod rights, cause sometimes(like day before yesterday) a troll comes along but it takes so many hours to get him banned. Never-the-less I oppose this rule. Fairy Tail Grand Master<F.T.G.M. >Mavis Full BodyAcnologia Avatar07:20,9/2/2012

I can understand apprehension in activating this rule but as a highly-active user of chat, I feel that it is in our best interests to have this rule so as to limit the number of bums and invaders we have crossing around. These guys have no intention of helping our site and are just here for the sole reason that they found the site randomly or their friends pointed them there. Our chat should put the users of the Fairy Tail Wiki first. We want to have fun with our community and we want it to grow but at the same time and the chat users suffer a lot with these mass invasions.

As far as it goes with edit quality, all it would take is a run of Special:Editcount to see if the users in question are OK to be on chat. Yeah, we want productive edits and we can just check it out through their contributions whether they are or not. Anyone above 30 isn't really worth checking over but if they have exactly 10, it wouldn't take very long for us to inspect them. I'm personally willing to undertake this as much as I can. If we do this, we effectively prevent them from using the "letter removal" method to gain the edits and we'll still have reason to kick them if they try entering it. If they try coming in without productive edits, we tell them they can't. I'm inclined to assume that at least some of them will edit well and fix any grammar errors they find.

This is not a matter of chat mods being incapable of controlling those who misbehave. All of them are capable and no more are needed, in case that was in doubt. If the rule were implemented, the current mods can handle the control.

This rule would also pretty much make us immune to chat invasions, which we've definitely faced as of late. These guys show up with their friends in the masses and randomly begin talking about things which we weren't talking about. That's not respectful at all. There are also those who are actually proud of the fact that they don't edit here.

I've seen a lot of "I don't wanna edit this place." and to be honest, I don't like it. There are plenty of forums and chat websites for them to go to and discuss anime/manga where they don't have to work at all.

I hope this doesn't negatively affect anyone's opinion of me. I respect the views of those who agree as well as those who disagree.

Éclair MovieUltraprime2Let's talkChibi Mystogan 10:20, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

The fuck? Herme wasn't in on this? He told me this and I told him what a bad idea it was, but I didn't think that they were that serious about this whole thing. RelikzBickslow Doll3Talk 13:22, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

^ This reminds me of "That" Project :D Remnant13 Talk 13:26,9/2/2012

Well, I've initially supported the idea. However, there are indeed bad points about it. One of them I know very well, that is the Newbie User that comes to the chat asking for help. I've seen plenty of them, and whenever I was able to help, I helped. Getting this initial support is good for them, so allowing newbies on the chat would be a better way to gain contributors than kicking them from the chat. I supported it because of the good part about it, (avoid the chat trolls) and because I've heard that it was a adopted by other wikis as well. But now, seeing the oppose argumentation, I've changed my mind. The good part of the idea doesn't compensate its bad part.
Herme 15:41,9/2/2012

I'm against this because while this may help to get rid of the trolls and what not, it'd also get rid of innocent newbies and that's not the way to go. Miskos3 Message 17:04, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that i wanna see how far they can tolerate me then we can kick them XDD  Rina1230 Talk  Wendy wektor 17:46, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.