|This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.|
This is a discussion for a few policy revisions I'd like to bring to a vote. The idea of this housekeeping vote is to pull together a few smaller issues that have been on the backburner, or a few items where custom and practice have evolved faster than the written policies. I'm open to adding more items to the vote, however items should be fairly small in scope.
Before the split and the webchat, this wiki used IRC as its main socialising hub. The wiki has moved on to webchat, but the rules and links to the ITC channel remain as a bit of an Appendix. The system is not in common use, but gets a prominent position in our navigation.
I propose we remove the links and associated policy pages for this.
Defining multiple account abuse
This has been sonething simmering for a while. I propose a formal vote to be held to determine if having a second account in use without notification should be considered abuse or not. Most of this has been covered in the (link) other forum, but it seems a perfect opportunity to wrap up a binding vote.
Edit before voting
There seems to be some confusion around if it is Wiki policy that all voters should have had a prior edit before voting. There seems to be a lot of practical precedent, but finding a written rule has proven elusive.
I propose we clarify whether being required to make an edit, or edits, should be required before voting, and determine if there is much point to the rule. On one hand, it was designed to prevent sock voting, on the other, we have bureaucrats with the check-user ability, so this may not be necessary anymore. Are there any thoughts on this rule?
Voting rationale vote
At A Followers suggestion, this may be the time to review the voting rationales rule. Does it need to be strengthened, or removed? Is it serving its purpose? What do you think? Agent c (talk) 22:23, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Changes to rule 1 & 2
In light of some recent events I propose a few changes to rule 1 and 2 of chat.
1. Personal attacks, bigotry and/or racist or sexist name calling.
I propose these two rules be amended/reorganised, rewritten, to a rule against attacks on the person, and a rule against behaviour that potentially makes the chatroom a hostile place for some users. My proposed rewrite would be
The possible reasons for blocking include (but are not limited to):
1. Personal attacks, harassment, sexual harassment, insults or bullying.
2. Racially Bigoted, Sexually degrading, homophobic comments or other hate speech.
(with all other rules remaining unamended)
This strengthens the current protection against homophobic and racially sensitive words, as well as helps prevent chat from being a hostile environment to women and other minority groups. The two rules are seperated by the target... things made against a person are rule 1. Issues non specific to a particular chat user are covered in 2.
Addition to kick/ban guidelines
I would also like to the following guidelines to the consequences section.
"Moderators are reminded that they have the freedom to deal with situations with a less firm hand if required... If someone intends a bit of good humour, realises their mistake, and apologises, there may be no need no need for a kick or ban if the moderator feels the apology is genuine and the lesson has been learned."
This guideline reminds mods they have the freedom to take issues on their merits, and to not place a ban or kick if they do not feel it is worthwhile in this situation - a person who is genuinely sorry for taking a joke too far learns nothing from a 3 day ban that they haven't learned from messsing up.
- Edit. Addition at Gunny's suggestion
"The use of kicks and bans for "joke" purposes is not permitted".
As a clarification on the inactivity rule I propose we firmly establish what the expectation is to prove activity for chatmods. There seem to be a few possible approaches
- Expect some sort of token editing... As a non edit position this makes little sense.
- Look for an actual regular return to chat - logs and/or other mod/admin observation
- Go by user declaration only.
Any other thoughts or suggestions on this?
Be nice to the newbies
Okay, so a lot of people are sick of people who come into the chat to ask a question that can be answered on the wiki. A lot of people are sick of those people who ask if there's any Fallout 4 news.
Now I can understand this, but its no reason to take it out on them. No more hazing the newbies. If you want to make a joke, fine, make it clear its a joke and follow up with the right information. If you know the answers on a page, link the page. if you don't know the answer, say I don't know or link the Fallout Answers wiki.
I'd like to add in "topics of Discussion" as a result.
"Users are reminded that many new faces to the wiki enter chat seeking game or wiki assistance. Users are asked (but are not required) to offer what assistance they can when possible, perhaps including article links, or links to the Fallout Answers wiki".
Removal of "No Dolan"
Lets face it, this has become a bit of a joke on the rules. Even mods are constantly using Dolan. Lets get rid of this part of the rule that talks about deliberate distortions. Either that, or we start enforcing it, which I see no real reason to do.
This "edit before voting" has been discussed in the past and has been continuously enforced. Perhaps having it in written form in our policy namespace is good, but challenging the rule and wanting to get it down in writing is not the same thing. --Skire (talk) 20:21, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I look at this as a form of voter registration. While I can check all the linked IPs that an account uses, or all the accounts that an IP uses, I can't find all the bare IPs someone without an account uses. Requiring at least one edit prior to the vote ensures that I can use the tools to make sure there's no fraud. Well, not exactly no fraud, but at least I can check accounts that are made without the use of proxies.
- I would also like to see the "no joke kicks" codified. Something along the lines of "no misuse of the moderator tools, even for fun". I've asked everyone not to do it, and while it's a behavior that has stopped, I understand that some disagree with my position on it. I believe it's important to show users we take our responsibilities seriously.
- Oh, and you got ninja'd Forum:DB:Policy_clarifications_pending_votes. 20:33, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to see the "edit before voting" policy made official and replace the "rationale requirement for voting" as we currently use it. If a user has made an edit to our wiki, they have a right to vote on policy changes, moderator requests, etc. without having to provide reasoning should they elect not to. I understand why we have this policy, and we should encourage proper voting etiquette, but it shouldn't be law. ōrdō āb chao 02:52, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
All of these changes make sense, and will only help to make the wiki a more clean and friendly location. After yesterdays "incident", where I posted a picture link and made an inappropriate caption accompanying it. I think we all woke up a little bit. I offended certain members on the wiki and I'm deeply regretful that I let myself get so far carried away with it. I have already offered private apologies to the offended parties, and I would like to put it out on the public forum. I apologize if I have offended anyone else through the posting of degrading or inappropriate links in the past couple months.
There's been a lot of racy stuff in chat lately, other than the degrading commentary towards women, a lot of so called "ball busting", some of which has been directed at certain admins and mods. I am going to step out of my formal role for a minute, it has to fucking stop. These rules are a good first step towards it. Walking into chat and being assaulted by the same ridicule and insults day after day makes a person not want to set foot in chat at all. I've seen several new users get driven out by the unbelievably hostile environment that can sometimes take over the chat. I won't name the parties responsible, because they know who they are. I've heard things like "just ignore it and they'll stop." That's not how things work, and that's not how we as a wiki work. When we ask someone to stop, Admin, Moderator, Chat Moderator, or regular user, that person should stop. It's a clear indicator to all involved that the person no longer finds the joke at his expense funny, and may even be getting hurt. I've asked the parties politely several times to stop, and they vehemently refuse to.
This is not the only thing that the parties mentioned seem to think it's OK to do. As Admins, we are as we have said many times before, users who have proven that we are capable of handling the responsibility of extra rights on the wiki. We're not authoritarian overlords by any means, but there seems to be a distinct lack of respect among the chat moderators and moderators for those users who currently hold the title of Admin. I've been on the receiving end of it, I know that Leon has been too. There even seem to be a couple regular users in chat who have the same attitude. I've got some news for you guys, Chat is not a wholistically separate entity from the wiki. It is a subsection and therefore sanctimont to the EXACT same rules and policies of the wiki, as well as those specifically laid out for chat. The mentality that chat is separate, and that users who use it and only it are an entirely separate community, and therefore play by their own rules has got to stop. Sorry for the rant, just need to get this out. ---bleep196- (talk) 20:57, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with bleep. I'm not in chat much, nor have I been particularly active recently, so I have to base my opinions on others words. I have heard of numerous instances which show a distinct lack of respect. Things said in chat do have weight, and should be treated as such. I'd say that everyone in the community needs to take a hard look at our chat and determine a) if chat is being used appropriately and respectfully and b) whether or not we have the correct users in place to correct issues should the prior be an issue. ōrdō āb chao 02:46, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
A return from inactivity should be seen as a return to regular editing or chatting, which means that sporadic edits or chat pop-ins months apart do not count. In general, there has been no conflict over whether a user is considered inactive. To my understanding, they understand their inactivity and have no problem with rights removal per our policy.
As for chat stuff, everything proposed sounds good. I see some water-tightening of some certain rules' wording, as well as other stuff to make the chat have a more amicable atmosphere. All the rules and addenda thereto I am in agreement with, in principle. --Skire (talk) 22:38, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
WikiSide policies seem pretty sound, and the IRC really should have been booted when chat came to fruition. Chat side I'd say inactivity needs to be based on the logs and asking other users with chat moderation rights about the activity of the user with rights. Thought the logs can be sporadic at times, they're still the best source of activity logs.
Not sure on the amendment to rule #2 though, seems a little over complicated for a simple rule. Just adding "hate speech" should cover everything without prioritising current hot topics, as the usage of hate speech does change with the times and we need to make sure our rules can change with the times without needing to amend them regularly. Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 00:39, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Everything here I can agree with. There is only really one minor point that I'd like to bring up:
- Do we really need a vote to remove the no Dolan rule? I'd like to remind everyone that it was added in without discussion nor vote. So it seems to me that if the rule is a joke, that it might as well and be removed without discussion nor vote. Some Assembly Required! 23:30, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed with Leon 100%. As a matter of fact, any rule/policy added without prior approval of the community via a vote should be removed immediately. 23:32, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
I think the chat is friendly to newcomers. Compared to the vault's days, we're very good to them. The no dolan rule I agree on Leon with. "Anything, for the family" 23:40, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
Re: Inactivity & maintaing special rights.
Imo folks often have real excuses for an extended time off. Deployment to military service. Homlessness... Major events that would seriously keep them away.
- Just showing up one day to fufful the most basic requirment is not proper conduct for a leader or any person of special athourity.
It seems to me the list of mods and admins that we have not seen in far to long is extensive. It is easy and popular to be here when a new game comes out.
- My point is, those with special powers should make a special effort to be here more often.
SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 06:28, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
|Policy vote forum overview|
|Guideline||User conduct guideline|
|Amendment 1||Comment policy · Vote · 18 January 2011 · 4-3|
|Amendment 2||Talk page blanking · discussion · Vote · 11 March 2012 · 16-4-1|
|Amendment 3||Signature image size · Discussion · Vote · 24 January 2013 · 8-3-0|
|Amendment 4||Multiple accounts · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 8-2|
|Amendment 5||Article talk pages · Discussion · Vote · 15 October 2013 · 8-2-1|
|Amendment 6||Plagiarism enforcement · Vote · 27 August 2015 · 13-0-0|
|Amendment 7||Mandatory edit summaries · Vote · 8 October 2021 · 18-10-2|
|Amendment 8||Editing user and talk pages · Discussion · Vote · 8 April 2022 · 11-0-0|
|Amendment 9||Multiple accounts and block carryover · Discussion · Vote · 8 April 2022 · 11-0-0|
|Related topics||Administration policy|
|Policy vote forum overview|
|Amendment 1||Temp Chat moderators · Vote · 13 January 2013 · 12-3-3|
|Amendment 2||Kicks and bans · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 14-1-1|
|Amendment 3||Discord rules · Vote · 15 April 2018 · 14-2-3|
|Amendment 4||Deleting messages · Discussion · Vote · 20 February 2021 · 7-0-1|
|Related topics||User conduct guideline · Discord moderation|
|Policy vote forum overview|
|Amendment 1||Voting rationales · discussion · Vote · 3 October 2012 · 12-3-1|
|Amendment 2||Voting requirements · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 8-7-2|
|Amendment 3||Voting requirements · Discussion · Vote · 4 August 2020 · 16-0-1|
|Amendment 4||Quorum and simple majority · Vote · 17 November 2021 · 12-2-0|
|Related topics||User conduct guideline|