Forum:Discussion: Personal Information & Policy Equality

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Discussion: Personal Information & Policy Equality

Due to recent events, I have found it necessary to bring forth a couple of new discussion points for the community to discuss and consider, with a potential vote following this forum in 2-3 weeks from now.

So let's jump into this:

^寧靜 00:59, May 6, 2019 (UTC)

Violations of discussing personal information

---

When I was an administrator, the administration did not discuss personal information at all unless it was public knowledge, and I even had my rights temporarily removed for a week, for the simple act of actively discouraging another user from revealing rather controversial information about themselves.

So I find myself fairly concerned that the current administration/moderation team sees no problem with discussing sensitive matters that break their own rules, while going out of their way to not only ban users for a violation of the infamous Rule 3, on and off-site, but to actively use Rule 3 as a way to protect themselves from people who call our their toxic behaviour in the private sectors of the Nukapedian Discord server.

So here are the points of discussion that I was to present to the community on this particular aspect of the rules:

1. If users cannot discuss personal information that violates our policies, then why are our rights-holders exempt from those same policies? Exclusive channels do not invalidate our policies.
2. Should said personal information be removed from the security channels? If the rules are being broken, offending material should be immediately expunged, from both the server, and the server logs.
3. Should violations of this policy immediately result in a perma ban, regardless of ban history? It is NOT the job of the administration to ban users; on the contrary, it IS their job to actively mediate and alleviate controversies around the wiki, seeking rehabilitation over permanently and irrevocably removing members of the community from Nukapedia.

Comments

Whistleblowing

---

It has also come to my attention that an administrator, of all people, stated in the Security Desk of the Nukapedian Discord server, that no actions can be brought against anyone for anything they say in these private channels, since the personal information found in these channels are Rule 3 violations, and anyone looking to blow the whistle on their peers will essentially be blackmailed with a perma-ban in retaliation for their actions. This is on-top of a prior bureaucrat having, in the past, unilaterally inventing his own personal rule on his profile stating that anything incriminating that he may post in private, would be met with a ban should it be leaked. This was without community consensus of any form, mind you.

This is in stark contrast to the fact that these security channels are not a protected right voted in by the community, and numerous leaks have confirmed numerous rights-holders violating the polices and guidelines that they were voted in to uphold; not to break themselves.

So for the second conversation I'd like to have on this channel, I'd like to take this chance to hear the community's thoughts on whistle-blowing, and whether reporting abusive and rule-breaking content in the private sectors of the Discord server should be a protected act if confirmed true.

Comments

Just a few things:

• "on and off-site" - Unless I'm misunderstanding this, are you saying that people have been banned for violating Rule 3 while not within the sphere of Nukapedia? Stuff that happens off-site is typically not actionable, so I would wanna know a recent example of this, as none come to mind. Though I have admittedly been pretty scatterbrained this weekend.
• What should be done about discussions of COPPA violations? It is, quite frankly, unavoidable to discuss "personal information" when that personal information is what necessitates the ban.
• Staff sometimes talk about themselves in the Security Desk because it is a secure channel away from people they don't want to hear it, and that is to be expected. A "whistleblower" knows this and is only worsening the situation when they include that personal information in a capture of the Security Desk, even if they're trying to report abusive content.
• I don't see the relevance of a prior bureaucrat's actions to current events when they're now a prior bureaucrat.

AllYourFavorites! (talk) 01:29, May 6, 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Yes; two users were recently banned for actions they partook in through DMs and in other servers, and there is currently a witchhunt going on seeking to ban myriad of other users because of the Security Desk mass leak a bit back.
• Ban them. As a prior sysop, I am telling you and every other administrator that it is as simple as banning someone the second they publicly admit to being underage, and then removing all information pertaining to that fact. Some of y'all make things out as waaaay more complicated than they really are.
• Doesn't matter. Rule are rules, and rights-users are not an elite sect of users that are exempt from the rules. If rights-users are using non-community sanctioned private channels to bypass the rules in our community-sanctioned Discord server, then maybe their competence needs to be re-evaluated.
• The past is a tool for learning from mistakes and growing from them. A bureaucrat was allowed to invent rules to suited only himself for selfish purposes, and he was never questioned or reprimanded for his actions. That means it can be done again, and we need to discuss how something like that can happen in the first place. If you cannot see the significance, then I'm not sure how I can help open your eyes on the matter. ^寧靜 01:40, May 6, 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• The thing is that the leak is using Nukapedia resources, which brings it into our jurisdiction. You don't take a confidential document from one business and show it to another without expecting something to happen. If you think it shouldn't be confidential, then sure, bring it up for debate, but as it is, it's still confidential at the time.
• Still, a reason has to be outlined for why that person was banned. You're right that most times it doesn't warrant a general discussion, though.
• Rule 3 only applies to revealing personal information about others. If somebody talks about themselves in a private channel, and somebody leaks that information, then they are violating Rule 3.
• I understand that and completely agree - I just wasn't sure of your reasoning for bringing it up. Apologies.

AllYourFavorites! (talk) 01:53, May 6, 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• You have it wrong - those channels are technically not an official part of Nukapedia since the community here never voted on them. It's the administration's/moderation's job to bring it up for debate. As it currently stands, the ongoing witchhunt is a rogue movement that should be scrutinized since a very dangerous and new precedent is being set.
• No; it doesn't. Especially since Wikia Staff have admitted to us in the past that they don't care if we uphold COPPA or not, and we are not the responsible party for handling COPPA violations anyways. That would be Wikia's job, and their job only - Nukapedia just has a history of picking and choosing when to help.
  • Either way, as I said, rights-holders are not exempt from the rules that they enforce. Can you explain to me why they should be? Because during my generation, a huge number of our current rights-holders would have been removed from their positions by now. Or at least incentivized to cease their actions by having their rights temporarily removed.
• And I have a screenshot proving that the administration is willing to permanently ban users for leaking anything, whether there's any personal information or not, simply because there is personal information in the security channels. Rule 3 now has the potential to silence anyone who calls out rule violations in the security channels.

^寧靜 02:49, May 6, 2019 (UTC)