FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Discord and Wiki changes discussion
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki


Salutations, users!

For those who are active or aware of the events happening in this wiki's Discord Server, the debate that things need an update, a change/revamp is being largely discussed. After some time it was suggested by Distusting that a forum post about demands should be made. Therefore, here we are.

I thought it would be unfair to come up with demands by myself since I can't speak for the entirety of the community nor I can classify my insatisfactions with the ways things are going as general insatisfactions, this is why I created this preliminary debate so we can avoid having divergencies in the de facto voting.

I'll be writing the demands made in the Discord server by the users so everyone can debate whether or not said demand should be included in the final vote. Furthermore, any user can add his own demands to debate and make their input of each issue being reported here.

Don't be afraid to engage the debate or make your own demands, the community is built by the collective and it would be the best for the community if you could show and speak your insatisfactions and demand change.

This post will be up for two weeks and the chosen demands will be included in a Forum Proposal post regarding the full delivery of them.

- Dragão Carmesim Red hammer and sickle 18:12, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

DisclaimersEdit

  • Please make this a civil debate and avoid personal attacks.
  • Please don't insult the admins gratuitously.
  • Don't do drugs.

Basic DemandsEdit

Poll finished on 5:46 pm April 7, 2019 (UTC).
Poll
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

Revision of the rulesEdit

The rule system is outdated and stuck in a time prior to the Discussions Forum and the Discord Server. The wiki admins and the community should work togheter to update the current rules and making it more flexible to the not-so-new social spaces. This would include further debate in order to add rules that are fit for /d and the Server. Which rules are added and which rules are removed or changed will be subject to debate later.

YesEdit

  1. Icon check DasisLeni (talk)
  2. Icon check CCodyy (talk)
  3. Icon check Laat the Survivor FO76 Single action revolver 18:30, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon check Saxhleel12 (talk)
  5. Icon check President Autumn User image president autumn signature 18:50, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon check With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:13, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon check A review and tuning of the rules to the community’s needs wouldn’t hurt. Although this subject seems a bit vague. What rules are needed and what rules need tweaking? Great Mara (talk) 19:18, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon check W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.GW.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk)
  9. Icon check They need a bit of a revision LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon check Pedro Washington (talk) 21:15, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  11. Icon check Regular review and revision is important. --L84tea Tea kettle 22:41, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  12. Icon check 100% in support of a review. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 23:32, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  13. Icon check --Obamacat.ind (talk) 09:09, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  14. Icon check The Dyre Wolf (talk) 11:31, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  15. Icon check--SchlepRock19 (talk) 03:29, March 27, 2019 (UTC)SchlepRock19
  16. Icon checkMr. Tophat Jones (talk)
  17. Icon check Reviewing the rules won't hurt anyone. - FDekker talk 10:38, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

NoEdit

  1. Icon hell no This forum is silly to begin with so I'm not just gonna give a regular no but a hell no!--Kasumi446 (talk) 01:01, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross Icon hell no |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 14:46, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

  1. Icon neutral I am almost certain that the rules already got a major revision since Discord was launched, but I am all for another revision as long as people are able to actually agree on solid rules that make sense for the community. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 03:06, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon neutral I can't vote yes for something that's not concrete. There is no substance here, what rule changes do you want to make? Which rules are outdated? ---bleep196- (talk) 14:18, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon neutralShould the rules be revised? Is there something I'm missing? Can't the rules already be revised now? Can't literally anyone make a forum asking for a rule change? Why is this question even here, much less the first "demand"?Fudgenuts (talk) 23:50, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon neutral as per bleep. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:08, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit


Discord AdminsEdit

The Discord server should have elected admins to manage specifically the server and deal with its issues.

YesEdit

  1. Icon check DasisLeni (talk)
  2. Icon check CCodyy (talk)
  3. Icon check Why should editorial staff be in charge of the social community chat? Laat the Survivor FO76 Single action revolver 18:31, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon check Saxhleel12 (talk)
  5. Icon check President Autumn User image president autumn signature 18:50, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon check With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:14, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon check the moderation team needs it’s own hierarchy to deal with the server. Most staff are too far spread between main wiki, /d, and chat Pedro Washington (talk) 21:19, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon check --Obamacat.ind (talk) 09:14, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon check Seen many admins and crats complain about feeling "forced" to moderate chat when they do not want to. This would free those people from feeling obligated while also allowing the people to vote for moderaters they feel are better equipped for the role. As of now admin is elected based on editing skill, which is important, but does not really take into consoderation their moderation abilities and social skills. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 16:39, March 26, 2019 (UTC)

NoEdit

  1. Icon cross Seems a bit redundant LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross Division in the name of unity. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 23:32, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon hell no This forum is silly to begin with so I'm not just gonna give a regular no but a hell no!--Kasumi446 (talk) 01:01, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon cross Icon hell no |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 14:46, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon cross I don't see the point in setting up another role when we are already have so many. This was originally going to be another "Neutral" vote, but I read L84tea's comment below, and I agree completely with the idea that this would only fracture the community further. Rather than introducing a completely new admin to complement the current admins, maybe existing admins should be more supportive of the chat instead. What's the point of being an admin when you are just going to ignore one or more aspects of the community? The same goes for bureaucrats, expect they ought to be even more supportive. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 03:06, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon cross See my comments below. --L84tea Tea kettle 03:44, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon cross This needlessly complicates things. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:18, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon cross --The Superior Courier (talk) 16:37, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon crossFudgenuts (talk) 23:27, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon cross isn't this exactly what chat mods are for? - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:08, March 29, 2019 (UTC)
  11. Icon cross There's alternatives, such as giving cmods more rights on Discord, or, my favourite, getting our admins more involved in the social aspect of the community. - FDekker talk 10:38, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

  1. Icon neutral W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G Editorial mods shouldn’t be admins or mods on discord but mods on disscussions are already somewhat Qualified and gained community favor.W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk)
  2. Icon neutral The Dyre Wolf (talk) 03:22, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon neutral --SchlepRock19 (talk) 03:31, March 27, 2019 (UTC)SchlepRock19
  4. Icon neutral Mr. Tophat Jones (talk) 19:12, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

How would this differ from chat mods? Would this mean that our current admin role would become a wiki-only role, in essence separating the role structures of the wiki and the Discord, or is that not what you mean? If the role structures are separated, does that mean bans also become separated?
- FDekker talk 19:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Chat mods can only ban or kick, Discord specific admins would be able to manage channels and roles, etc. Dragão Carmesim Red hammer and sickle 20:02, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
Then why not give Chat Mods those privileges? LovinglyGaslight (talk) 20:03, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
This is why this is being debated, I agree with you 100%, alternatives can be also added to voting down bellow. Dragão Carmesim Red hammer and sickle 20:59, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Bring back chat mods? Though anyone who holds admin rights on Nukapedia should have the rights on affiliated chats though. Great Mara (talk) 19:18, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

IMO, electing separate admins for the wiki and Discord would further drive the two apart, which I understand to be the exact opposite of what we want to achieve. I agree with Great Mara that admin rights for the wiki as a whole should cover the affiliated Discord. --L84tea Tea kettle 22:45, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

I am voting neutral for this because I believe limiting the scope to focus solely on having a Discord Admin is too narrow. That having been said, I do feel that there is a fundamental lack of support for the social aspects of the wiki when reviewing the currently required qualifications for the admins when compared to the bounds of their authority. For the sake of clarity and voting, rather than post my thoughts under this heading, I will add it to the community sourced ideas at the bottom. Currently sitting on a rough draft but to avoid some of the concerns of vagueness aimed at other propositions here, I am going to try having it a little more polished and up before the end of the day. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 15:15, March 26, 2019 (UTC)


Private admin decisionsEdit

It's known that the chat had privacy issues regarding a few users and the suggestion of modding Private Messages recently. Even though some users try to compare the wiki management to irl court, police and political systems, shady practices of keeping the citizens away from knowing what's happening is not a badge to be proud of. Therefore, when an important issue is happening, admins should carry it on publicly in a channel made for admin debates, like a Parliamentary debate or a Congressional session for the Americans out there. The admins can debate wikia issues in a private room, but when it comes to punish or things that can affect users, it should be publicly debated.

YesEdit

  1. Icon check DasisLeni (talk)
  2. Icon check Assuming a debate is necessary, I think all decisions that may have opposition should be openly discussed Laat the Survivor FO76 Single action revolver 18:34, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon check Saxhleel12 (talk)
  4. Icon check transparency with the community is best. President Autumn User image president autumn signature 18:51, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon check CCodyy (talk) 18:52, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon check With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:15, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon check But we need to be careful about how this is done. Simply removing the admin channel from the Discord, making the channel read-only for non-admins, or adding rules to the admin policy on what should and what shouldn't be discussed in admin channels won't do the trick, because that will just result in admins using a completely different channel—in the worst case admins may have "shadow" debates in the background and then have a fake debate with a predetermined outcome in a public channel. To make this work we will need to find the right incentives in addition to clear guidelines. - FDekker talk 19:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon check I'm with Dekker, needs to be carefully done if it does LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon check the majority should definitely be knowledgeable and the staff shouldn’t have anything to hide anyway. Pedro Washington (talk) 21:23, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon check--Obamacat.ind (talk) 09:15, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  11. Icon check The Dyre Wolf (talk) 03:23, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  12. Icon check The more I think about this, the more I feel that a completely private room isn't necessary. Right now, a lot of things get said in the currently private room that likely would not have been said if the room were public. This is the entire reason behind the leaks we've been having recently. If the room was visible to regular users (verified wiki users on Discord, of course), perhaps some of the apprehension existing among regular users that have no idea about what is being said would be lessened. For severe cases, as what Mara laid out with underage users, could easily be discussed selectively in PMs. The new, partially-public room would need to adhere to stricter guidelines, like what FDekker was saying, but some transparency could be beneficial. The staff room should primarily be visible when discussing potential wiki changes. I also think bans could be more visible, per Distusting's comment below, although I do not think discussing potential bans ought to be kept private either except in very personal cases. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 16:30, March 26, 2019 (UTC)

NoEdit

  1. Icon cross When admins need to discuss a previous user’s ban history or potential underage user situation, they need a place to confer in private without putting said information on blast for everyone in chat to see. New users or unaware users don’t need to be aware of another user’s blocks or information. Having a channel set up that can be accessed by all admin rights holders is better than trying to organize mass PMs. Great Mara (talk) 19:19, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross^ LogoMakr 14Z3y6 22:13, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon cross Per Mara. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 23:32, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon hell no This forum is silly to begin with so I'm not just gonna give a regular no but a hell no!--Kasumi446 (talk) 01:01, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon cross Icon hell no |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 14:46, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon cross As an Ideal, I agree with this proposal. In practice, from my experience, every group of authority I've been a part of has a separate chat where decisions are made among staff members. This is due to a number of reasons, some of them having to do with the sensitive nature of events that may have transpired, others having to do with protecting certain staff members from being dragged through the mud. As a matter of history, its more likely that a ban will be more lenient when discussed privately with other staff members, then in the face of a public decision. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:22, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon cross --The Superior Courier (talk) 16:39, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon cross Per Mara but with caveat. Although I consider moderator channels necessary, they should be restricted to discussion of moderation-related activities and on a need-to-know basis. That is, non-moderator staff (e.g. patrollers such as myself) should not be privy to those discussions. We are not moderators, therefore do not have a right be a part of the discussion in that context. --L84tea Tea kettle 01:26, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon crossFudgenuts (talk) 23:29, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon cross I see no use of this other than causing way more unrest. If a person has a record or has been flirting with a ban for a while, I'm pretty sure that some users that don't like said user might lure him into a ban (have seen things like that happen). I think it's also good that admins can communicate about, for example socks, without those suspicions being public. If you want to compare it to real world, i could put it the following way: would you like the media to report on every single person that the police ever sees as a suspect? Do you think that the world would be better if the media always deleivers every detail of every police and even FBI investigation, especially before arrests are made or guilt has been proven? To me, absolutely not. I think it's good to have some behind the screens space and when actual action is taken, those actions can be appealed on a forum (or a talk page) here and then we are forced into transparency anyway. I think we have a good appeal procedure with sufficient transparency while not undermining the moderation capabilities of the staff. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:19, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

  1. Icon neutral Mr. Tophat Jones (talk) 19:12, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

Excluded votesEdit

  1. Icon cross Per Mara. In addition, I feel like this could easily loop back to the old chat logging bots we had on Wikia Chat. I wasn't around back then, but from what I've heard, people would read the logs and get really upset when they saw something that they weren't intended to read. Some sort of private communication is necessary for staff to smoothly operate. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 03:06, March 25, 2019 (UTC) Changed vote

CommentsEdit

I agree a bigger level of transparency may be needed, although there has to be exceptions. I agree with what Mara is saying, and I think that kind of stuff needs to be kept in private, rather than on display for the entire chat. I have seen users call for us to be public about doing bans, and we could probably improve on it, but users do get to know why they were banned, and a reasoning is also meant to be placed on their talk page. I don't feel completely comfortable about having ban discussions out in the open for everyone to see. It can often become personal. I do think that a report should always be possible to ask for, on any issue that has been handled in moderator channels.

Decisions that are about bigger picture things like wiki management and such is not something I see being problematic to keep public. At the present we do discuss these kinds of things primarily in mod channels, not to keep it secret, but because it is more natural to have it there. Some of this could be public. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 09:23, March 26, 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, in response to the recent leaked image on /d. It made it seem like these separate channels were places where elitist admins talked shit about the normal users. This is not the case. I, with other admins, do not stand behind the statements made by this user, it is his personal opinion, not the opinion of the staff. The chat rules are exactly the same in these channels, and I have warned users in the past when it comes to insults. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 09:27, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate your interest in aiding transparency. But given the circumstances, I hope you understand an assurance that all is fine when there is no way for those of us who are concerned to verify your position does very little to comfort anyone.
As someone who is not privy to the day to day, perhaps you or Sigmund could expand on the types of information that would qualify as "something that they weren't intended to read." Without greater context, I cannot help but read that with a negative connotation directed towards the person wanting to keep the message out of the public eye. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 12:33, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on applying the rulesEdit

Admins and chat mods tend to apply the rules based on their perspective or what they think about the issue, which is quite incoherent for one's trying to compare themselves to policemen or court officers, there's a law system, you follow it, it's not open to interpretations and it leads to incoherent decisions, unfair bans and general administrative disagreement. The rules - if voted for a new set of them or if not - must be followed according to how they're written, not how you interpret them.

YesEdit

  1. Icon check DasisLeni (talk)
  2. Icon check CCodyy (talk)
  3. Icon check the only gripe here is, how do you set the standard in a fair way? Objective enforcement is a tough thing to get right and it takes time. Keep that in mind With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon check Pedro Washington (talk) 21:24, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon check Obamacat.ind (talk) 23:13, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

NoEdit

  1. Icon hell no This forum is silly to begin with so I'm not just gonna give a regular no but a hell no!--Kasumi446 (talk) 01:01, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross Icon hell no |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 14:46, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon cross The way you word this "demand," in particular the last sentence, requires me to vote no here. Regardless of how rules are phrased, there will always be some sort of leeway in how people interpret them. They would need to be infinitely precise in order to be applied in the way you want them to be applied, and thus an infinitely long rules list would be needed to cover bases. Rules are written to be deliberately vague (within reason) in order to provide for discretion in the ways they are carried out. Also, serious/controversial rulings are already heavily discussed both in the public rooms and staff-only room, so the "consensus" already exists when necessary. In other cases, consensus is assumed when no one questions the decision. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 03:06, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon cross Moderators and administrators have always had discretion when making decisions about disciplinary action. Infinite precision on moderation decisions is impractical and impossible and I can't consciously support it. I believe it would be better to more effectively document our bans, and how they were carried out so that we can set precedence for certain actions over others. This would be more effective. As an example, see how the SCP wiki handles their bans. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:25, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon crossFudgenuts (talk) 23:31, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon crossThis is why we vote for admins. And your comparison is exactly the reason. Why do the judges at the supreme court matter? The law is there, but the judges there differ on interpretation. Every person applying the law has a slight different interpretation of it. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:38, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

  1. Icon neutral Moderator discretion is still important in making quick and effecient decisions regarding moderation. However, it is a well-documented fact that this has been abused by staff. Laat the Survivor FO76 Single action revolver 18:40, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon neutral This demand is nonsensical in the proper sense because it is not possible to have laws that do not have to be interpreted—but perhaps that's just a result of the phrasing you used. I think a better demand would be to have rules that are less ambiguous, which seems to be part of your first demand. Additionally, Laat makes a good point that should also be considered should the first demand be met. - FDekker talk 19:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon neutral In an ideal world, yes. But humans are subjective and even law systems have areas described to be "at discretion" LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon neutral Depending on circumstances bans could require a second mod to sign off that UR could be stated in description and a follow confirmation by banne could be done.If the situation requires quick action a review could be held when possible by additional modsW.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk) 13:41, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon neutral Far too vague of a proposal for any action. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 23:32, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon neutral The Dyre Wolf (talk) 03:28, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon neutral --SchlepRock19 (talk) 03:37, March 27, 2019 (UTC)SchlepRock19
  8. Icon neutral Mr. Tophat Jones (talk) 19:12, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit


Users should be able to defend themselves before being bannedEdit

When an user or more users are facing being punished by a ban, the matter will be publicly displayed so the user in question can defend himself, for this it would be necessary a new channel where only the admins and the user being judged can speak. The rules specify it that an user can plea for this ban, but this is taken care but one admin exclusively and the decision, again, is usually made by an exclusive admin. Note that some punishments would still carry an instant ban.

YesEdit

  1. Icon check I’d say a courtroom style channel between the moderators and banee may be a good idea, but it could also backfire badly. This is a tentative yes. Laat the Survivor FO76 Single action revolver 18:37, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon check CCodyy (talk) 18:54, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon check Most definitely yes. I've been banned for asking for medicine and literally nothing, hours after I said anything.
    NP definitely needs a way to defend yourself from badmin abuse *before* it actually happens, because after it happens, the appeal system is absolute garbage that is vwry often not taken seriously by staff. With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:19, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon check Yes but the debate should be contained
    maybe a discord room or channel even?W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.GW.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk)
  5. Icon check might not work long run but could be beneficial. Pedro Washington (talk) 21:25, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon check Technically this idea already exists and has existed since the inception of the Discord server, it's just that none of the staff really use it as such except in very rare circumstances. As of now, it mostly gets used to isolate unverified users that do not respond to a verification post in a timely manner (a rule I firmly believe should be either abolished outright or heavily rewritten [look up basically any other wiki chat and you'll find decent examples of verification done better. NP has one of the worst verification systems I've seen in my opinion. The Sims Wiki is probably the best example I can think of, and as a mod there I know it well]). Instead, it should be used more often as a time out chair, where a kick would be too serious but the user obviously hasn't heeded warnings, perhaps as an intermediate between warning and kick (the Dark Souls Wiki is a very good example of this system in action, as I know from experience :) ). In addition this room could be used as the sort of defensive room you ask for, though if both of these ideas are accepted, the rooms might be better utilized split up. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 03:06, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon check Between Sig and Sax, there is little else I could say. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 11:38, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon check Mr. Tophat Jones (talk) 19:12, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

NoEdit

  1. Icon cross We already have an isolation channel for users to defend themselves. I'm unwilling to give trolls a bigger stage on which to do their thing. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:27, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross User should not break the rules before being banned. Maybe that will help the situation. Just an idea. Fudgenuts (talk) 23:33, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon cross We already have an isolation channel for this purpose, and apart from that, by the time I actually ban someone, they are usually already beyond the point of any reasonable justification. Also keep in mind that a ban normally happens after a warning and a kick, in both cases a defense can be made prior. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:40, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

  1. Icon neutral DasisLeni (talk)
  2. Icon neutral I would support this in cases where a defense is applicable, but in areas where the criminal can say nothing reasonable for their defense (trolling, insensitive material, etc.) I don't think giving them the option to defend themselves is necessary. Saxhleel12 (talk)
  3. Icon neutral Sax pretty much summarized it. President Autumn User image president autumn signature 18:52, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon neutral What Sax said LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon neutral AllYourFavorites! (talk) 23:32, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon neutral This forum may be silly but this is the only positive vote you'll ever get from me. Sax pretty much said it.
  7. Icon neutral |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 14:46, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

I think that a courtroom makes it way too easy for trolls to pull off a show by grabbing everyone's attention. I think that the publicness aspect of this demand is not necessary per sé and that a separate channel with only mods and the accused might be sufficient for a fair trial. The records of the trial can always be made public afterwards.
- FDekker talk 19:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

As soon as we found out trolls only messing with us then I'm not afraid to swing Thor's Mjölnir towards their attention-baiting faces. --Kasumi446 (talk) 01:11, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

An actual criteria for the loose and very easy to manipulate Rule 9Edit

If the infamous Rule 9 survives an hypotethical new set of rules or if the current set of rules stays alive, some rules, specially the Rule 9 regarding ending subjects, should not be loosely amplied and have a criteria that's not ambiguous and convenient, admins and chat mods have used the rule to finish off arguments they're directly involved and that can be seem as an authoritarian censorship attitude. Whether new rules are voted in or the old ones stay, Rule 9 should be revised and added a criteria that removed its ambiguous and convenient usage.

YesEdit

  1. Icon check I hope it’s simply abolished Laat the Survivor FO76 Single action revolver 18:41, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon check Saxhleel12 (talk)
  3. Icon check President Autumn User image president autumn signature 18:52, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon check CCodyy (talk) 18:55, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon check r9 is the most abused, vague piece of garbage I've ever seen in NP. An outright removal isn't right but it needs very specific boundaries, challenges, and defense. for it to work well With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:22, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon check Absolutely. Rule 9 is the rule that needs the most revision given its vague and broad applicability. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon checkW.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.GW.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk)
  8. Icon check this among other rules need specific rulings. Pedro Washington (talk) 21:27, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon check I think rule 9 should stay, with a caveat that any admins directly involved in the discussion can't call it, and should probably leave enforcing to the neutral admin calling it. Great Mara (talk) 22:17, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon check This makes me nervous, considering the proposer's history with rule 9, but I'd support this basically for the same reasons that Mara said. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 23:32, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  11. Icon check Rule 9 shouldn't be abolished, but I definitely think its needs clarification. I'm always nervous about invoking it. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:28, March 26, 2019 (UTC)
  12. Icon check rule 9 sucks. It's a weasel rule that allows assholes to whine about their "free speech rights" being shut down while it's used by others to simply shut up people they don't want to hear. There is already a rule to cover every instance when this rule has been properly called into place. Don't be a dick. Mods already have the power to warn someone when they're being a dick and should. Everyone else using this rule is a bunch of snowflakes who need a safe space filled with comfort llamas.Fudgenuts (talk) 23:38, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

NoEdit

  1. Icon hell no I'm against abolishing rule 9. How are we gonna stop an offensively inflaming topics. This forum is silly to begin with so I'm not just gonna give a regular no but a hell no!--Kasumi446 (talk) 01:01, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross I agree with the idea of rule 9, but I also agree with Sak's comment about how staff aren't applying the rule correctly if they're using it to end personal arguments. Perhaps a friendlier term could suffice as well, but to me, I see "Rule 9" as a slang term rather than a needlessly authoritative command. I also think that regular users ought to be able to request Rule 9s, especially since the rule exists solely for the benefit of individuals that are uncomfortable with the topic at hand, within reason of course. This is how I've been applying the rule, and I commonly issue Rule 9s due to another person visibly showing discomfort, even when I personally have no qualms with discussion. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 03:06, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

  1. Icon neutral DasisLeni (talk)
  2. Icon neutral - FDekker talk 19:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon neutral The Dyre Wolf (talk) 11:41, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon neutral Mr. Tophat Jones (talk) 19:12, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon neutral I don't like censor, but I also don't like heated fights that can't be ended by other means than this rule or kicking/banning users - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:41, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

I want to break this one down a little as personally, I feel that anyone has the right to call close to a discussion, by redirecting, deferring, or refusing to engage. Moderators do need the flexibility to stop a conversation if they're going south, however:

  • "The Rule 9 regarding ending subjects, should not be loosely amplied and have a criteria that's not ambiguous and convenient"

I'm going to apply real life analogy to this one. How many times has a teacher/manager/parent had to say "enough now" to a conversation that was clearly getting out of hand? The problem is rarely the topic, but the behavior of the people involved, they're getting too loud, or they're getting too heated and someone is going to get hurt (physically or emotionally). Sometimes it is just not a good time for that conversation and it needs to be stopped for the time being. That in essence is what rule 9 is meant to be and is how it should be maintained.

  • "admins and chat mods have used the rule to finish off arguments they're directly involved and that can be seem as an authoritarian censorship attitude."

I'm going to go to the rule as is for this one:

Moderators should avoid closing discussions outside of a publicly made request when they are involved in the discussion (unless they are the only active mod).
Any user can ask a moderator to consider applying this rule, but should not be used as a "shield" for a user who has picked a fight and wishes to escape the consequences.

Any moderator using the rule to end an argument they are involved in is not applying the rule correctly. If they do it, refer it up. If referred up, those referred need to leave a visible mark if it was an unjust decision or could have been handled by another person present, thus making moderators accountable for their calls. (A visible mark doesn't necessarily mean a talk page warning, but something that means users can see that it was acted on.)

Frankly "I'm calling rule 9" has always sounded a little cheap to me. "This is going south, lets end it here" is more agreeable in sound and I'm sure more people can get on board with it. That said, if it is a two person argument and one wants to tap out, they are free to tap out, the other really should accept that and move on, this shouldn't even need a rule and I would expect a moderator to step in halt the pursuer if they don't respect that wish. After all it becomes harassment at that stage.

tldr; Do we need rule 9? Imo, no. Do moderators need to be able to reign in conversations that do not technically fall outside the rules from time to time? Yes. I'd like to see the abolition of the phrase "rule 9, move on" and replaced with a more "human" response to these situations. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 02:03, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Community demandsEdit

if you think I missed anything you can feel free to add new demands to below this topic, don't forget to add the yes, no, neutral and comment sections so you make everyone's life - specially patrollers - less miserable.

Demands?
de·mand

/dəˈmand/Submit noun 1. an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right.

Its quite telling that these are all listed as demands. Does that strike anyone else as entitled? You "demand" these rule changes? WTF? Seriously? You do have the right to "propose" rule changes, but not demand them. Perhaps that's the problem here, since it seems like all this is just a power grab over perceived slights that were probably the result of people's own shitty behavior and the inability to be responsible for their own shitty actions. This is from the polocies policy page:"To this end, the normal procedure for proposing new policies and guidelines or changing existing ones is to create a topic in the "wiki discussion" forum. Once the discussion has led to a final draft, call a vote. The vote needs to run for a week at minimum and at least ten votes are required for it to be valid; a simple majority is sufficient to pass. Voting requirements for those wishing to participate are that they must have a registered account, and have made at least one edit prior to the start of the vote". Why was there no discussion forum opened on any of these votes? None of these polls are valid since they do not follow the policy of hav8ng been discussed prior to a vote. I move to strike, your honor. Fudgenuts (talk) 00:09, March 28, 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which policy is that quote from? Im not overly familiar with them all verbatim. I'm somewhat shocked you know the rules so well being as you've only got 4 edits, and only one on an article. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 00:43, March 28, 2019 (UTC)
It's from the main policy page.
- FDekker talk 16:51, March 28, 2019 (UTC)

Re-electionsEdit

What if we began holding re-elections most of the points above are asking about mod restrictions and power. What if once a year or so we held re-elections each mod could say what they’ve been up to and the community can vote if they still support that user and his/her actions. A way to keep the community’s concerns and issues vocal and to sort out bad mods or when there service is no longer necessary.W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G
-Sounds wise. Would add a requirement for mods and admins to actually be active, and would weed out staff unnecessary or uncommitted for the role due to absence. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:51, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
There is precedent for this. My view is that reconfirmations are not a good idea because there are admins who regularly disappear for longer periods of time because of real life, and reconfirmations will remove the incentive for them to return. As a result, you might lose some very good admins.
- FDekker talk 19:56, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
Then maybe if there are extended IRL issues then they apply for some kind of leave? I dont want good admins to leave, but if they're applying for extended leaves that go on too long, there's little point in having them at the top and if they're so eligable for the post then they could easily regain their position upon their eventual return. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 20:00, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
Except that you'd get the inevitable "Wait who are you?" posts become people don't seem to recognise them. But perhaps it would be an idea to demote such admins to a role like content moderator where they will still have access to most of the major editing tools without being able to ban or kick.
- FDekker talk 20:07, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
If "Who are you?" posts happen, they evidently left for too long or didn't make enough of an impact to be remembered. I somewhat agree with what you're saying, though I do think there should be a newer, specific role that just puts across "Hey, these guys arent gonna really be around for a while" so the Moderator role doesnt get muddied with inactive members and just contributes further... LovinglyGaslight (talk) 20:20, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

( I come around pretty to give technical support, which is often needed. If you asked me to show up once every so often, see if people actually remembered me or not, then I'd just quit. This is a hobby, not a job and if you're going to make it a job I'll just leave. I have enough work as it is. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:27, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Something similar goes for Energy X: I sure didn't know who Energy X was until he suddenly started creating hundreds of pages. I knew of him, but didn't know him. Regardless, I think that this is not a very important issue with regards to the current discussion of Discord and wiki changes. We could have a more detailed discussion about this in a more specific forum at a later date.
- FDekker talk 20:29, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
Putting staff on regular votes will make staff too susceptible to momentary changes in popular opinion. It also prevents part-time staff like Saka from being able to come in and fix something on occasion, without having to work 24/7. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:44, March 25, 2019 (UTC)
I intended it to be more of a review on what everyone has done/been doing and if they are needed or still wanted but you’re right it would likely become a popularity contest and a issue with inactive but effective staff members —Preceding comment was unsigned. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!


Social AdminEdit

The departure of Agent C and Saka, we now have a single member of the administration, Paladin, who has the prerequisite number of /d posts to qualify for the position of moderator, though I would argue that his inactivity on the platform (no post since November) would not meet the “be active for 2 months” requirement. As it stands right now, there is a visible lack of interest on display in the administration. There is no “voice” from community.

One possible solution would be to add a minimum level of social engagement to the existing admin requirements. However, I believe the displayed lack of activity stems from a genuine lack of interest, not malicious intent. If the admins and ‘crats wanted to be active in this aspect they would have been before now, and while adding new requirements such as “____ number of post on /d” could eventually provide the kind of representation so many users are calling for, it does little now to affect change now when division is as great as it has been in recent memory. And, if it’s applied begrudgingly to valuable editors whose attention is best spent elsewhere, then I do not know what kind of staying power that requirement would have. It would not be reasonable to require a mandatory minimum number of posts on an ongoing basis, and it may even cause valued editors to shy away from attempting advancement. And, at its worst, good editing etiquette does not automatically translate to an even temperament or friendly disposition… which can be troublesome whenever contrasting opinions are being thrust at one another.

For this reason, I propose the creation an admin position which specifically focuses on the social platforms, the same as the current Admin requirements focus on editing. There is a precedent for this with the past Chat Admin, though I would like to incorporate a /d into the fold as well. While there is value in editorial skills, that alone does not translate to community involvement nor does it bring with it an innate knowledge of the concerns of the social users. As a serious exercise in self reflect to any members of the administration, how many of the names do you know here first hand? How many users do you have enough of an established opinion of to either trust as genuinely hoping to contribute and how many did you react with confusion as to whether they were trolls and anarchist? How many of the issues discussed here and elsewhere had been brought to your attention through your own casual observation, rather than as a result of this violent eruption?

I firmly believe that were there an admin or admins who could present a more unified voice for /d and discord that much of this could have been avoided. Or at the very least, been carried out with far less drama along the way. And a dedicated social role would help bridge the gap of legitimacy between the various moderators and 'crat level. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 03:20, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

YesEdit

  1. Icon check The Dyre Wolf (talk) 03:20, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon check I think admins should have experience with the social parts of our community if they have the most power over them. It’s really more common sense than anything Laat the Survivor FO76 Single action revolver 14:20, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

NoEdit

  1. Icon crossYou're kidding, right? Admin is a toolset. Just like dmod is. Are you even aware that dmod has the all the same tools that admin does that apply to discussions? The other tools that admin gets are only used on the article pages. You did know that, right? Please tell me you knew that. You didn't know that, did you?Fudgenuts (talk) 23:56, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

NeutralEdit

  1. Icon neutral I'm in favor of adding increased social requirements, but I'd like to make the system a little more dynamic. I would like to open the door to subroles of the administrator, where users can fulfill two sets of requirements, as I think it would better serve everyone to have a couple paths, then one stringent path set in stone. I was originally going to propose this following Autumn's vote, but you seem to have jumped my proverbial gun, so I'll lay it out here and then you can decide whether you want to change this or not. The policy as it stands:
The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:
  • You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.

The policy as I would propose it:

The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are listed below. For bullet points 1 and 2, applying candidates must meet either the main or sub bullet criteria.

  • You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module, or template namespace (I.E. talk page, blog, and forum contributions do not count).
    • Alternatively, you have made at least 2000 posts on the discussion boards.
  • You have made at least 200 posts on the discussion boards. (I.E. a candidate with 2000 edits must make at least 200 discussion posts.)
    • Alternatively you have made at least 200 edits in the article, category, module, or template namespace (I.E. talk page, blog, and forum contributions do not count). (I.E. a candidate with 2000 discussion posts must make at least 200 mainspace edits.)
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.

You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.

This is what I would propose in place of your suggestion. ---bleep196- (talk) 16:25, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

  1. What about the risk of cutting off a potential technical arm? I appreciate that for 99% of admins who only really ever use the block/protect function this is a reasonable requirement to have (as your core function is essentially moderation) but what about the technical whizzes who have no interest in the social areas, but having admin would be a major boon to the wiki as a whole? I raised this concern below as well as I do worry you would be cutting off an essential part. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 09:06, March 28, 2019 (UTC)
    Your concerns are very fair, its something I've always been worried about with regards to the editing side of the wiki. I honestly don't have a clear answer for both sides, and while 200 discussion posts may not seem like a lot, unlike edits, it tends to be easier to reach those requirements (if we also included Siggy's suggestion, think about how easily you would have accelerated past these requirements from your posts in the discord.) It's important that we hear all sides of the argument, and while I don't want to alienate any one side, its clear the community feels underrepresented. I'd like to make strides that better bring them into the fold, so that we can teach many of them the editing skills to contribute both to the wiki and the community side. This I think would be a step in the right direction, but we need to do more than just that.
  1. This is just a proposal as it stands, but I think the issue is complicated, on one hand opening the door to social requirements may handicap our editing branch. That said... we've gone out of our way to deny administrator requests in the past where it was clear users didn't have a lot of interaction with the community. Given the extended nature of our community today, and the changes from yesterday, we have a sort of problem where Administrators aren't interacting with the community anymore because its no longer directly attached at the hip to the wiki. I don't want to limit our gifted tech minded editors, but there is a clear disconnect between the wiki and the community, and If mend that disconnect I think we can pull in more contributors. This may not be the best/most efficient way to mend the disconnect, and I'm aware of that. But I brought it to the table knowing it would start a conversation.---bleep196- (talk) 16:56, March 28, 2019 (UTC)
    I agree something need to change with the how the rights are given, I think the main problem is that we are looking at numbers too much. I think we need to look more at demonstrable ability and finally classing chat/discussions/content moderator, administrator and admin as right with equal voice between each other and equal with the community as a whole. There also needs to be the understanding that bureaucrat is not a role that gives supreme power, but is essentially a role given to people that are have a significant majority of trust from the user base. There shouldn't be a barrier beyond genuine concerns preventing an appointment. That said maybe moving rights votes purely to a vote of consensus would be beneficial. No ticking the box and walking away, say why you feel they will/not be a fit for the role, "I think they're chill" or "they don't like me" are not reason enough to give or refuse power imo, "They have demonstrated X, y and z" is certainly reason to consider if an appointment should be given. After all in the event of a contentious vote this is what bureaucrats look at and it is what decides if a decision is accepted or overturned. In theory, that should remove all blockers to all roles for those with the right skills. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 17:31, March 28, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon neutral I agree completely with Bleep, with the added stipulation of chat posts fulfilling the social requirements. I do not think chat posts have the same strength as diffusion posts, though. Bleep, for example, has over 2000 posts in the Discord server, and I wouldn't exactly call him active for a long period of time there. I would consider myself active or maybe even only semi-active, and I have over 16000 posts in chat. I don't know what reasonable values would be, but I think they should exist as an alternative to discussion posts. If bureaucrats ever get quantified prerequisites like almost every other staff group, I think they should have similar baseline edits/posts, except perhaps larger values and they would need to meet all three prerequisites. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 17:06, March 27, 2019 (UTC) Apologies if this was difficult to read or has strange quirks. I typed this on mobile.

CommentsEdit

All feedback is encouraged.

I'm going to be honest, placing a social requirement on admin requests sounds nice, but when you look at the tools that come with admin, that requirement actually could be damaging to the wiki itself. Admin is a hell of a lot more than the ability to moderate and block people (this is just the most visible part). Admin's have access to the Mediawiki namespace, which is a space full of complex pages such as CSS, JS, filters etc which can require a technical hand. If you block the socially incapable/unwilling, but technically minded users from taking this role, the ability for the wiki content itself is stunted in the process.
As for social admins themselves, that would be the combined chat and discussions moderators. They combined have all the essential tools to manage the users of the social spaces, including blocks, kicks, right to issue warnings. Practically there is nothing they need an admin to get involved with.
The real problem is all voices are equal (although bureaucrats have a final say, but that is a different matter). Anyone can challenge a staff decision where it is believed to be incorrect (this must be demonstrable). All your doing with the Social Admin is adding another title to the mix. The problem is that users don't use their full range of powers in most situations.
I want to turn this around on its head. Considering user roles with the same rights do not have an actual hierarchy and users have more power than they believe, what can be done to encourage users to use the powers they have? Users make up the majority of people, they have the biggest collective voice and that voice is often more important than those in power at shaping the community. Staff generally has a great depth and understand of the rules because they are the ones who have to interpret it on a daily basis, but mistakes can be made and they should be challenged by those who see the error. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 09:35, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
As I said, a mandatory social requirement added to the existing prerequisites is an imperfect solution that may have unintended consequences. And new hurdles for future applicants to jump does nothing to address the lack of investment at present, which I believe is a root cause of the current schism. I felt this talking point was necessary to help explain why it would be beneficial to recreate a new, dedicated position rather than expand the minimum standards, and this why I opted for a separate administrative position in the vote. If the current wording led you to believe the vote was for both, please let me know and I can try to clarify the language.
I believe that this would operate in a greater capacity than title only. For instance, there are a small handful of rights (relating specifically to discord) that are highlighted above. More importantly, however, I believe this adds a stepping stone of sorts for social users to eventually promote to ‘crat with increased legitimacy, which is why I do not believe this is a different matter, at least not entirely. As it stands, there is voice no from the social users within the ‘crats once voting closes, despite the ‘crats authority not only affecting editors and editing decisions but any decisions regarding the social spaces of Nuka as well. Short of having some sort of community liaison who could be present during these final talks (not a bad compromise honestly), social users have no choice but to attempt taking to the traditional ranks.
And it is in the social spaces, specifically Discord, that the issues have been compounded and ultimately brought this entire situation to a head. For starters, there have been veteran editors and even some current and former admin who have taken to Discord calling for the removal of the platform and discounting the voices of the social users…with surprisingly little response from the rest of the staff, even those who previously voiced the importance of Nuka being a community, not just a wiki.
Unfortunately, the challenge from the social community has been met with contempt or condescension, and between staff conflicts in public spaces or leaked messages from behind closed doors, it became terrifyingly clear the administration is not operating on a unified front. I do believe that the community power should be a valuable tool in shaping the direction of the wiki, but when social users are being told by senior editors that they do not matter and that the ‘crats will ultimately side against any attempts at influencing the status quo regardless of the popular vote, can you imagine a less empowering scenario for the wiki? The atmosphere may ‘’incite’’ a user response but it will not encourage one, and given the current dichotomy, I believe this to be a crucial distinction. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 11:14, March 27, 2019 (UTC)
I'm tackle the first two paragraphs together I think. If there was a request from SSJRusticus (the original /dmod) a year or two ago, there wouldn't be the controversy we are seeing with the vote today, purely because he had the respect of both discussions and administration as a generality, because he actively tried to gauge all ends, whilst maintaining a voice for discussions. Personal, I don't a Discussions or Chat Moderator should be obstructed from being a Bureaucrat and I agree fully that there should be more representation. In the current era of Fandom, to be a good bureaucrat you need to have a broad understanding of all angles (which before anyone raises J being absent from all but the wiki itself, doesn't mean he is now a bad choice, his strong focus in one place makes him a benefit as BC in a slightly different way).
I get a feeling those final talks have been overhyped, just from the way you mentioned them above. All we ever did as bureaucrats was look at the votes, look at what was said and interpret that information. If there are no perceivable risks, such as evidence of potential misuse of powers in the case of rights requests, or an opening to reputational damage from a rule addition/removal a majority vote will pass. Hell, I've seen it where the bureaucrats have batted something about openly in the common room because they can't come to an agreement just to get a feeling from other users before going back before. Having a bureaucrat available that really understands the discussions side of things will help in those dicier situations, but the majority of it is about reading what has been said and counting the numbers. Not being an admin before should not be a barrier, but being a user who does not engage with all sides when it comes to "wider wiki policy" and doesn't listen to all sides will be. All users want to feel that no matter what side of the fence a representative comes from they will listen to all sides on a matter. Although I don't have much of presence, nor do I hold any rights anymore, people still do come to me about both wiki and /d issues, because although I come from the wiki side, I'm willing to listen to the discussions and chat sides. My tl;dr; is admin should not be a criteria for crat and it shouldn't be seen as a benchmark.
I am aware of the idea of pulling the discord from a conversation with a current staffer a week or two ago. My response was essentially I get where you're coming from, but I don't see it going down well. There are significant challenges when it comes to Discord, because unlike the old chat function we had, chat is not a premium, screenshots can be taken and shared easier, satellite servers with no real affiliation but comprising of echo chambers of specific groups and view points adds much to the challenges and rationale of shutting it down and going back to the old chat. I see the reasons, I can see why closing it is tempting, but things do have to move forward. As much as it is for the moderators to handle moderation issues and keep the discord functioning, users also need to challenge individual behaviours, question what they are being shown on all sides and decide where the truth lies. Neither side on this debate is doing enough to solve the problem and from what I have seen and heard, both sides are actually inflaming the situation. If I were to theorize as to why there is little response from the rest of staff, I'd say they are tired of it all, it is just another day another dollar, another little piece of drama.
when social users are being told by senior editors that they do not matter and that the ‘crats will ultimately side against any attempts at influencing the status quo regardless of the popular vote, can you imagine a less empowering scenario for the wiki? The atmosphere may ‘’incite’’ a user response but it will not encourage one, and given the current dichotomy, I believe this to be a crucial distinction.
Senior editors saying as are narrow minded. Discussions exists because of the wiki. Retention exists in part because of the social circles that exist alongside the wiki. Anyone saying the crats will vote against any attempt to influence the status quo is ultimately wrong. This place is a small town community with big city operations. Everyone knows everyone in a way, but the wiki and community is also very liquid, things move and change all the time. Before I took to admin 2 years ago the wiki and discussions were largely independent of each other, with the exception of Agent C. I did a lot to bridge that gap, I had a one wiki mentality, which this is. /d, discord and the wiki are symbiotic in relationship, each feeds the other in some way. As for the leaks themselves, from the one I've seen, what was released was designed to show staff in a bad light, it doesn't show what happens next, or what happens before. The statement out of context looks bad for staff, but is it really all there was to it, does it represent a unified stance? Or was there a larger counter statement that occurred? What is the leaker's intent in releasing this one statement? I agree when you say the atmosphere may incite a response but not encourage one and I suspect there may be intent to do so. It is actually helping to drive a wedge than heal a wound. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 13:28, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

ResultsEdit

This first part of the discussion is finally over! Thanks to all who engaged on the debate to make the community a better place. The second part of this bad boy will be posted soon.
- Dragão Carmesim Red hammer and sickle 02:16, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

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

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+