Forum:Discord and Wiki changes discussion

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

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 18:12, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Disclaimers

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

Basic Demands

Poll finished on 5:46 pm April 7, 2019 (UTC).

• 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 user's votes.

---

Revision of the rules

The rule system is outdated and stuck in a time prior to the Discussions Forum and the Discord Server.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.

Yes

1. DasisLeni (talk)
2. CCodyy (talk)
3. Laat the Survivor 18:30, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
4. Saxhleel12 (talk)
5. President Autumn 18:50, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
6. With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:13, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
7. 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. 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. They need a bit of a revision LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. - FDekker ^talk 19:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

---

Discord Admins

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

Yes

1. DasisLeni (talk)
2. CCodyy (talk)
3. Why should editorial staff be in charge of the social community chat? Laat the Survivor 18:31, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
4. Saxhleel12 (talk)
5. President Autumn 18:50, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
6. With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:14, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

No

1. Seems a bit redundant LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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)

Comments

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 20:02, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Then why not give Chat Mods those privileges? LovinglyGaslight (talk) 20:03, 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)

---

Private admin decisions

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 raised 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.

Yes

1. DasisLeni (talk)
2. Assuming a debate is necessary, I think all decisions that may have opposition should be openly discussed Laat the Survivor 18:34, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
3. Saxhleel12 (talk)
4. transparency with the community is best. President Autumn 18:51, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
5. CCodyy (talk) 18:52, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
6. With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 19:15, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
7. 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. I'm with Dekker, needs to be carefully done if it does LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

No

1. 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)

---

Consensus on applying the rules

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.

Yes

1. DasisLeni (talk)
2. CCodyy (talk)
3. 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)

Neutral

1. 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 18:40, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
2. 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. 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. 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 mods —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

---

Users should be able to defend themselves before being banned

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.

Yes

1. 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 18:37, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
2. CCodyy (talk) 18:54, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
3. 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. 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)

Neutral

1. DasisLeni (talk)
2. 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. Sax pretty much summarized it. President Autumn 18:52, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
4. What Sax said LovinglyGaslight (talk) 19:35, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

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)

---

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

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.

Yes

1. I hope it’s simply abolished Laat the Survivor 18:41, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
2. Saxhleel12 (talk)
3. President Autumn 18:52, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
4. CCodyy (talk) 18:55, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
5. 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. 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. W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.GW.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk)

Neutral

1. DasisLeni (talk)
2. - FDekker ^talk 19:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Community demands

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.

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)