Thread:Monollama/@comment-5050406-20170823221021/@comment-27729796-20170823223441

We had an issue with a user a few weeks back edit warring and becoming arguementative/aggressive over certain VAs. Because we're dealing with real people here, not characters, it was decided we wouldn't put that at risk of happening again.

We have an active admin staff who are online with near enough 24/7 coverage who are extremely easy to contact through our walls, the forums, and twitter. Any reveals are added to the V3 article by Monollama usually within minutes. Any we have missed, we're extremely easy to contact and the new information can be easily added. It's important to us that all VA reveals are dealt with thoroughly, well cited and properly confirmed rather than speculative; we cannot trust the average editor to do that, and we don't want to be the source of that kind of problem. The fandom has had enough issues with the Bryce Papenbrook debacle, the poor guy has been harassed for months based on speculation, and we don't want to be the source of further speculation. There will also be a flood of the remaining reveals when the V3 NDA drops soon and we need to stem the flow of that to ensure they are handled thoroughly.

For the older games, the constant re-ordering of names was becoming a nuisance. They will be alphabetised in due course, because the VA pages are essentially portals and should be easily navigable. There's also the same issue of, yes, certain VAs are unknown or need citations, however, should an editor know something we don't know, we are easy to contact, and its important that we vett the validity of VA confirmations rather than allow free-reign for the same reasons as above; these are real people, and they require more stringent checks than any other information.