Fallout Wiki
Register
Fallout Wiki
Line 80: Line 80:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Administration policy/Conduct]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Administration policy/Conduct]]
 
| Published
 
| Published
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 86: Line 86:
 
|
 
|
 
| Published
 
| Published
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 92: Line 92:
 
|
 
|
 
| Published
 
| Published
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 104: Line 104:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Voting regulations]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Voting regulations]]
 
| Published
 
| Published
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcuts
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 164: Line 164:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline]]
 
| No changes required
 
| No changes required
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 170: Line 170:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Developer statements]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Developer statements]]
 
| Published
 
| Published
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 176: Line 176:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Dialogue]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Dialogue]]
 
| No changes required
 
| No changes required
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 182: Line 182:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Holotapes and notes]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Holotapes and notes]]
 
| No changes required
 
| No changes required
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 188: Line 188:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Non canon]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Non canon]]
 
| No changes required
 
| No changes required
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 194: Line 194:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Publications]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Publications]]
 
| No changes required
 
| No changes required
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 200: Line 200:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Terminals and images]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Terminals and images]]
 
| No changes required
 
| No changes required
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 206: Line 206:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Fallout canon]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Fallout canon]]
 
| Waiting for outcome of current policy discussion
 
| Waiting for outcome of current policy discussion
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|-
 
|-
Line 230: Line 230:
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Policies and guidelines/Sitemap]]
 
| [[Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Policies and guidelines/Sitemap]]
 
| Published
 
| Published
  +
| Added
| Needs shortcut
 
   
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 22:08, 30 May 2022

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Policy remediation process 2022

Howdy folks. The purpose of this forum is to inform the user base of the results of the Fallout Wiki:Policy Verification Project 2022 and the next steps to follow regarding this issue. Before I get to the actual findings of the project and the process we will follow to remedy issues found in those findings, I feel the need to give everyone some history to be certain everyone has a complete understanding of the issue, the process and the results.

Policy review project and findings

The purpose of the project was to determine what, if any, changes made to our policies had been made without going through the proscribed ratification process. The following is the exact wording, as stated for years, of how to amend or propose policy:

Any editor is free to edit policies and guidelines to improve clarity and readability. However, changes to the actual content or meaning should only be done with community consensus. 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.— Fallout Wiki:Policies and guidelines, (circa 2019)

Other than minor edits to correct grammar, punctuation, spelling, formatting, correcting links etc., the policies should not be changed in any material way by removing, adding or changing phrasing in any substantial way so that the meaning of the original ratified policy could be changed. It has always been established practice that any such edits that materially change the policies or guidelines are reverted to their original form and changes should be made through the forums. The review of policies and guidelines recently completed shows a significant number of changes to the policies and guidelines that did not go through the approved discussion/ratification process. For reference's sake, all of those changes can been found on the linked project page. Please note that the policy I quoted above is one of the policies that have seen unratified changes, and I quote the most recent version before any such changes were made, as that is the officially ratified policy. The process we used to determine if there were any unratified changes to the policies worked on a couple of basic principles.

  1. Since one of my primary responsibilities was to ratify all official changes to policy through the forums as a bureaucrat, I am certain that up until the time I left in 2018 there were no unratified material changes in the period of 2012-2018.
  2. Quite a large number of policies pages were written in 2009. The genesis of these policy pages is lost in time, but we worked on the assumption that any policy changes made before 2012 were essentially "grandfathered in" as accepted policy.
  3. Therefore, the period that was examined was roughly 2019-present. We found fewer numbers of edits to the policy pages from 2019-2020 than in 2021-2022. The greater majority, if not all the changes in 2019-2020 were either of the type allowed as detailed above, or were supported by a corresponding policy discussion and vote. Most of the unratified changes, which might fall into either the allowed edit or disallowed edit categories were made in 2021-2022.
  4. The basic process used to determine specific changes was to either:
    1. Check each specific edit to see if the change was material or was properly ratified.
    2. Check the diff from last known "good" page revision to the most recent to determine is any changes were material or properly ratified.
  5. We did not look at any specific editor making said changes. We simply looked at the changes made to determine if they followed policy. This was not an attempt to cast blame or fault on any specific editor/s, but a thorough examination to determine only the merit of the changes.
  6. Once an examination of changes to a policy was made, a detailed log of those changes was listed, showing support from forum votes where able.
  7. A suggested course of action was then listed that was based on the findings of those changes and how materially they changed the policy.
  8. There were a number of policies and guidelines that had few material changes. There were a large number of policies that had significant material changes that either removed, added or changed phrases or entire sections that materially changed the intended meaning of the policy, sometimes changing the meaning to the reverse of the ratified version.
  9. All policy reviews were then peer reviewed to be certain any changes found were categorized accurately.

Process to remedy

Once the policy review potion was complete, we had to determine the best course forward to determine how to return the policies to a ratified state. The community, as a whole, creates the policies that they then must abide by, and it is critically important for those policies to state what the community agreed to. To help in this process, we were referred by Fandom (through the community central roundtable discussion) to their resident policy expert Pikushi. After discussing the issue and determining possible courses of action, based on her recommendations, the process we have chosen to follow to return the policy and guideline pages to their ratified state is to:

  1. Inform the community of the scope of the issue. The policy project and this forum (which will be advertised site-wide) serves to do such.
  2. Bring each policy or guideline page into a sandbox as a subpage of this forum and revert all non-ratified changes back to their ratified form, while doing our best to preserve all good faith "allowed" edits, such as formatting, grammar, spelling, links, etc.
  3. While editing the policy or guideline in the sandbox subpage, all discussion should occur on that respective subpage's talk page, and not here, please.
  4. When the sandbox page is sufficiently completed, this corrected version of the page will replace the existing policy page.
  5. During this time, there will be no material changes made to the policy page under construction. All material changes will favor the exact wording of the ratified policies as much as possible. Any changes to phrasing or sections that make material changes will have to be proposed and ratified through the correct proposal/amendment process, but will only take effect when ratified.
  6. In the case of conflicting changes, as we work on one policy or guideline at a time, we will do our best to modify other policies so they do not conflict. It is important that every user has the ability to clearly understand what our policies and guidelines are so they can contribute without fear of wrongful corrective or administrative action from unclear policy.
  7. We have been asked specifically by Fandom that no administrative action be taken on users who violate the existing canon policy, as a new canon policy proposal proposal is already in the process of being written and will be up on the forums within days. I would like to extend this to any policy that has seen significant material changes. We do not want users to have corrective or administrative action taken against them for non-compliance with a policy that might not have been ratified properly. I ask the administration team to consider this point before apply and corrective or administrative actions.
  8. Please note that this does not include voting on each revision change. The reasoning for this is that the policies as they were ratified by the community at the time they were voted in are the correct policies. As is customary and established, revisions to policies or guidelines that are not ratified are to be removed unless they fall into the approved categories stated above. This is not an attempt to change policy, which would require approval, but a process to return the policies and guidelines to the pre-approved state, which has never required approval or a vote.

There are a large number of policy pages that will have to go through this process. I would like to save the the main policies and guidelines landing page and the sitemap for last, as they might need structural changes based on changes to the other policy pages. I will attempt to list the order we will look at each policy here:

Progress table

Policy Sandbox page Progress Template check
Fallout Wiki:Discussions forum guidelines Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Discussions forum guidelines Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Discord Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Discord Published Needs templates
Fallout Wiki:User conduct guideline Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/User conduct guideline Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Editing guideline Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Editing guideline Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Administration policy Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/Conduct Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Administration policy/Conduct Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/Reviews of permanent blocks or chat bans Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/Rights holder activity policy Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Administration policy/User rights requests Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Voting regulations Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Voting regulations Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Article layout guideline Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Character article Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Article layout guideline/Character article Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Creature article Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Article layout guideline/Creature article Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Item article Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Article layout guideline/Item article Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Location article Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Article layout guideline/Location article Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Article layout guideline/Quest article Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Article layout guideline/Quest article Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Bug policy Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Bug policy No changes required Present
Fallout Wiki:Content policy Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Content policy Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Content organization guideline Restored Present
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline No changes required Added
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Developer statements Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Developer statements Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Dialogue Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Dialogue No changes required Added
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Holotapes and notes Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Holotapes and notes No changes required Added
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Non canon Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Non canon No changes required Added
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Publications Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Publications No changes required Added
Fallout Wiki:Reference formatting guideline/Terminals and images Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Reference formatting guideline/Terminals and images No changes required Added
Fallout Wiki:Fallout canon Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Fallout canon Waiting for outcome of current policy discussion Added
Fallout Wiki:Image policy Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Image policy Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Notable loot policy Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Notable loot policy Published Present
Fallout Wiki:Policies and guidelines Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Policies and guidelines Published Added
Fallout Wiki:Policies and guidelines/Sitemap Forum:Policy remediation process 2022/Policies and guidelines/Sitemap Published Added

If anyone has any question, suggestion or comments on this process or related to the policy review project, pleases leave them below. Questons, comments or suggestions on any specific individual policy should be made on that policy's subpage talk page as they arise. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Questions, comments, suggestions

Its frustrating that this is going to be a slow process. More frustrating that it was allowed to happen at all. I plan on kicking off a ban audit this week to see if any bans occured either directly (red), or indirectly (amber), as a part of unratified changes.. However I might have to limit it to just the Wiki ones... As the Discord rules were replaced completely they would all from that change go into the red category from the date of that change. Agent c (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There's only, like 3, dozen policy pages. I hope to do them as quickly as possible. There were a number of subpages, like the refence policies, that should be pretty quick and I'll try to do all at once. Depends on the availability of my time. If anyone wants to help, it would certainly speed things along. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Need to shift perspective

I will start by saying that I agree that significant changes to policies ought to be voted in. However, as highlighted by the investigation, we had a non-trivial number of antique policies. It should also be considered that in order for a policy reboot to happen within protocol, we rely on users to vote on a high frequency basis.

A large number of these revisions were to remedy problematic, deprecated, or contradictory verbage. Additionally, a large amount of the consensus for these policies was held on Discord. It is for these reasons that I suggest that we likewise "grandfather" in these numerous policy revisions, as was done in the past. Instead, I recommend to instead focus on which policies are actually problematic, rather than dragging this out beyond what is necessary.

I really appreciate the intent and effort that went into this, but I don't think that it is the best approach. The people this is trying to do right by are the same people who will become pestered with vote requests. Scribe-Howard(talk) 02:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem there being that Discord is not, even in the policies as published, an acceptable means for consensus to be established. as such any change relying on it is void ab initio.
Discord is a great tool for discussing stuff, the policies in their published form allows it to be part of the discussion phase, but it by its very nature limits participation to those who were on it at a specific time. It is not a method for establishing what true consensus is... and there are some pretty major changes that essentialy bypassed the consensus phase
If the changes are useful and positive, lets do it the right way.
If that doesnt sway you, let me try this. If i were to against the rules slip in a new "No Howards" rule, how long would it have to go unreverted before it dhould be adopted?
Agent c (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Mr. Howard, while I appreciate your position, and please understand there were many courses of action that were considered in order to remedy this situation, this is the course of action we have chosen and you are welcome to disagree. You may feel free to propose anything in a forum to amend the policies as you wish. We, and the Fandom representatives we have spoken to, feel it important to return these policies to that which was voted on and ratified. End stop. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you realize the irony in unilaterally deciding to revert everything in a secret Discord server which current rights holders are not allowed access to? I would have loved to participate in the policy decision had my invite request not been denied. Scribe-Howard(talk) 23:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This is why I fought strongly for this to be voted on prior to being implemented. There was to be no official action taken on the wiki as a result of those focus group discussions without community input and voting. Just because Fandom suggested this course of action didn't mean we were required to follow it. The community should've had final say in the matter. -Gilpo1 (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
That is precisely why they are being restored to their most recent voted on version. The community did have it's final say. When the polices were voted in through the mandated policy creation and amendment process. They did not have a vote when the policies were changed without any discussion or vote forum. If anyone wants to reinstall any of the non-ratified changes, they are welcome to do it in the proscribed process. The review project was up on the wiki for almost a month. There was ample opportunity for everyone to have input. Most chose not to. Before I undertook the process to restore the policies to the ratified version, I took input from a large number of people in a number of places. The decision to do so was not made anywhere but inside my head. If I have made any mistakes in removing content from the policies, please point me to the forum vote that I missed. I will gladly add anything in that I somehow missed in the review process. If anyone disagrees with restoring the content of the pages to the voted on form, please point me to the part of the policies that supports this.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Heh, Ironic, the community may have had its say in the old policies, but they did not have its say in you reverting them, if this was to be achived, you should have sent this invite to every single member in the nuka discord, only then would it be fair to the community, instead you do this behind a discord where only the rights holders were invited too, and 3 fandom employees, in which one joined due to a descision in a ROUNDTABLE, WHICH IS HIDDEN FROM THE COMMUNITY. You Gunny, have had your focus group make OFFICIAL DESICIONS like the unbanning of Sigmund Fraud without input from over half the current nukastaff, and have had Cor and Intrepid mass revert hundreds of pages out of nowhere because a descision was reached in a CLOSED DOORS DISCORD, and had edits of people washed away after unsourced/false content removed was removed from these pages. But i guess you give a care about the fate of labor as long as you can get your instant gratification.
You Never Got The Communities Blessing For Your Current Actions Gunny, they didnt agree to this, you did it without you asking them, you know you could have done the focus group discussions in the-editorial-ballpit in the Official Nukapedia Discord Server, you know this right? then you could have had community input because then the active editors could have interacted with you views and claims. But no, you created a discord server that you only invited rights holders too, and not even all of them, just over half, no community members except one person, but one average editor can not represent the entire site, can it? No, It Can Not. Mug | Talk 02:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

( The community never approved those changes that are being reverted. Do we require votes now to remove unauthorised changes? and as we told you before the decision to undo Sigmunds ban was done by Jspoel after being approached by Ecks who chose to approach J by himself. I would appreciate it if you stopped lying.

This Faux outrage about "hidden" discords by people working on hidden wikis in their own discords is very anusing. Agent c (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

And the community never said what you and gunny are doing is alright, did it? They never agreed to the mass reverts you're doing. And the focus group was hidden, only rights holders knew about it, which is about 20 people, out of hundreds, if you posted the focus group link in the nuka announcement channel when the discord was first made for everyone to see then i wouldnt be saying it was hidden. Im not lying, you're trying to act as if it was public, when it wasnt, because no one knew of its existance except rights holders. Mug | Talk 23:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Community approval is not required to undo inappropriate changes to our policies. The community already gave its approval for the existing policies. They did not give approval for a rogue editor to rewrite them. The unilateral changes were invalid from inception. Further, Fandom's policy expert recommended, in no uncertain terms, that the policies be restored to their community-approved state. Additionally, we do not reward the behavior of rogue editors by humoring their actions. We are following standard practice here, and I struggle to see why you, a former rights holder, are confused or upset about following the rules of this wiki.
intrepid359FO76NW Overseer5/26/22 [10:25pm]
You do understand how hypocritical that is, right? You don't care about community consensus at all. You just want to remove Kate's policies, all of which were brought in via discussion through the monthly meetings of the minds. This framing of Kate as some "rouge editor" is slanderous at best. As others have pointed out multiple times throughout this sham, many ways of getting full community consensus were ignored in favor of backroom bullshit. At least you came out and said community consensus wasn't needed before you and the others started making these changes. Thats the most honest thing any of you have done. Zealous Champion (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
All of "Kates" policies are not being removed. Only the ones put in without the correct process being followed. Even in the version of the policy as was changed without authorisation, MOTM was not a valid way to change a policy; it only allowed for the discussion phase to be skipped, not the voting stage. I would suggest Zeal if you like any of those policies that you do the right thing and call a vote on the ones you think should be retained so they can be adopted correctly. Alternatively, if you can locate a vote for any of the removed parts, I'm sure putting them back will be no problem. Agent c (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
At any point has anyone gone and read the MOTM archives? It was mostly discussion. I remember a couple of meetings going of for hours. Things were discussed in depth and there were disagreements brought up constantly. I know I sure spoke up on proposals I disagreed with. Things like the currently running vote on fan created art being added were discussed in depth and nuance there. I clearly recall advocating for its limited usage, and compromising that it should be clearly stated when a recreation is used. The discussions weren't held on the forms here, sure, but its disingenuous to say that they were skipped at all. If I recall, there should even be a few votes and discussion posts on here the directly mention the MOTM discussions and the consensus reached through them. Things were done in a different way, yeah. Might it have been the wrong way? We can argue about that till either we all are old and geriatric. What stands is that these things were discussed publicly in an open channel on the official server. All were welcome. That can't be said about how things have been done now.Zealous Champion (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
At any point has anyone gone and read the MOTM archives?

As per published policy at the time before the unauthorised changes were removed

In lieu of a discussion forum, minor policy addendums can be discussed at Meeting of the Minds.

If we presume this policy was inacted correctly (it was not), MOTM discussions are still not an authorised place for a change in policy to occur, it only allows for the discussion phase to be skipped, and only allows it in the case of "minor addendums". As votes did not occur at all, we do not need to ask whether or not these were minor addendums as even they still need a vote.

If I recall, there should even be a few votes

Those where a vote an be located are remaining with the voted version restored.

Might it have been the wrong way?

Its not a question of "might". Its clearly and demonstratably wrong. This is autocratic decision making at its finest.

What stands is that these things were discussed publicly in an open channel on the official server. All were welcome. That can't be said about how things have been done now.

These changes are no different to the times where Kate reverted another user's change for lack of process, except in who made the changes. Agent c (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


Anyone that argues against reverting what appears to be sweeping unilateral changes made to policy, or takes the position that such non-voted changes should simply be left alone, should be assumed to be acting against the community. It is against the policies of this wiki to make such changes without the community's consensus. Reverting the unilateral changes, as this project aims to accomplish, is the correct thing to do under the rules, and attacking these efforts shows a lack of care for the community and also shows total disregard for the rules. LaymansReign (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess we're gonna do this? Ok, well, buckle up folks. I'll start my response to Mr. JustDoggo2YT above with correcting certain assertions they seem to continuously make: The focus group server was not, and never was, "secret". A secret is something you don't tell people about. Not once did anyone ever tell people to keep it a secret. In fact, quite the opposite. It's existence was widely advertised. That's the opposite of a "secret". It was invite only, yes. And I had (and still have) very good reasons to make it so, if for no other reason than I was my initiative and my server, I can do whatever I want with it. No one was forced to join, or contribute. A fairly large number of people were approached and declined joining. A few people joined and left. A few others joined and didn't really contribute much. That's all cool. But to take the fact it was my private server that I placed access control on so that I could run it in the way I needed to to serve the purpose I wanted it to serve and twist that around to "it's a secret server" is disingenuous at best. And speaking of disingenuous, the claim that I "only invited rights holders too (sic)" is a very bold lie. At its creation, of the original 6 people, only two were rights holders. At it's height, only half of the people involved were rights holders. Currently, less than half of the people still there are rights holders. When I decided to reach out to a broader audience of users to gain input on the issue I wanted to examine, I specifically reached out to a couple, I believe it was only 3-4 people, and asked them who they thought might be a good idea to invite. The first round of invites was entirely based on the lists of folks those people provided and it was a mixture of people from discord, discussions and the wiki. As I invited more people in, I specifically grew the list of people invited to get a mix of discord, discussion, editors, rights holders, non-rights holders, current, old and even banned people. This was on purpose. I wanted a broad range of experiences and opinions so I could make sure I was being informed with as much information as possible.
This was for a very specific reason: 'To identify a problem, you have to thoroughly examine the problem.' I'm not afraid to ask anyone for their opinions. Everyone is allowed their own experiences, feelings and opinions. They are all valid to them. But never misunderstand one simple point: This was my initiative. My choice. My decision. I ran it the way I wanted to because I felt that was the best way to accomplish my goal. Broad viewpoints, everyone on an equal setting, everyone able to have their say without fear of repercussions. The honest truth about this is that I could not have done what I wanted to do on the official discord. Not even pointing to the fact that I do not have the ability to create channels and roles to facilitate things, I can guarantee that if it were held here the initiative would have failed. Too many people were too afraid of the environment that existed when it began to have contributed comfortably. You can ignore that fact if you want, but that does not make that fact any less true. At the end of the day, it was my circus, my clowns, I put the tent up and I ran the show. Because that's the way I knew it needed to be done. You can like or dislike that all you want, but to presume that I have to have anyone's permission to discuss anything, anywhere that I want is, quite frankly, bullshit. No one is entitled to tell me what to do in my own time, in my own space, on my own initiative, for my own goals. Those goals were not nefarious, they were intended to determine what problems existed here, what their root causes were and what could possibly be done to remedy them. And it worked. Magnificently. We certainly were able to determine a number of problematic things that contributed to the environment here and the problems resultant from that.
To ignore all this is your prerogative. To blatantly say false things about it is not. The assertion that the decision to unban Sigmund was made there is blatantly false, just ask the people involved in the decision, yet you continue to make it. I am left with only one conclusion: You are making your decisions on this issue based on a purely emotional standpoint. You did not block Sigmund. You did not delete a bunch of content from the pages. You did not completely change policy pages to read in some cases the opposite of what had been ratified. You seem to be responding to the things discussed there and actions taken here from a position of outrage, an emotional reaction, yet none of these things being done are directly related to your actions. The question is why? I can only assume you feel entitled to outrage for one of two reasons: You completely disagree with the events that are occurring from standpoint of personal disagreement or you are outraged because you feel these actions paint someone you feel the need to protect in a bad light. Or both. You're entitled to those feelings. That does not necessarily mean those feelings are based in the reality of the situation. You can feel that it is ok to ignore policies. You can feel it is ok to engage in acts that show an incredible lack of judgement. You would be wrong on those counts. Real things were done that were wrong that were found through this process and in the Fandom community roundtable discussion and need to be corrected. You can feel differently, and that's your right. Everyone has the right to be wrong.
As for the changes I'm making through this forum to the policies, I've laid out my case for why and how. Again, you can feel free to disagree. Anyone can. If you feel that I'm doing anything at all that is against the policies of this site, then by all means, please report my actions to an administrator or to the bureaucrat. I'm confident what I'm doing is the correct thing to do. The simple proof of this is that had I still been here when they happened, I would have immediately reverted those changes. I only do so now, because I only became aware of them now. I don't necessarily fault any one user for the actions they've taken to remove content and change polices. They obviously thought they could do what they did. I fault the entire community that was here and watched it happen and didn't do a damn thing to stop it. We are only here at this point because no one had the courage to step up and say STOP. If anyone knows anything at all about me, I hold none of these fears. Very famously, Thomas Paine said "Lead, follow or get out of the way". I choose to lead. What are you going to do?TheGunny2.0 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

( Weird, Im sure Mug was complaining before that banned users were allowed in but moderators supposedly not, now he's claiming it was a rights users only thing. Agent c (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

My response

"This is for the record. History is written by the victor. History is filled with liars. If he lives, and we die, his truth becomes written - and ours is lost. Shepherd will be a hero, 'cause all you need to change the world is one good lie and a river of blood. He's about to complete the greatest trick a liar ever played on history. His truth will be the truth. But only if he lives, and we die."Captain Price
The Server Being Priavte/Invite Only

The server was private gunny, you didnt make it publically avalible to every user in the nuka discord, you did it by private invite, which requires ‘’’DMING YOU’’’ to gain an entry, thats pretty private, dont you think? But apparently you dont think a server thats for a select few only, that only a person can gain access to by personally messaging you, and no one else, because i tested both Saka (removed link as I did not give permission for my private discussions to be disclosed Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)) and Chad, and they dont have invite perms, which means its only you who can give out invites. Which means its a private, invite only server to discuss official matters, in an unofficial server, that was never advertised in the nuka discord. You claim “It's existence was widely advertised.” but not one invite was ever sent out in the time i was in the discord, which was the entirety of the focus group up until May 13th-ish when i resigned. Do you know how hypocritical that is? That you claim you spread the existance of it yet never publically doing so to the wider nukapedia userbase? And dont even get me started on claiming rights holders were not in the group, when i joined, the rights holders outgrouped the admins who were You, Gunny, The owner, Chad. And Sakaratte. There was Bleep who was a focus group admin, Findabair, Aish, Cor, Gilpo, Canyon Light, Me, Eckserah, Saxhleel, Jbour, Dyre, who was a focus group admin, Aiden and Pie. So you cannot claim that there were more normal members than staff, its the complete opposite. After the first day Aish and Fin both left, but the other listed staff stayed. Then Jspoel joined, adding another member to the Adinstration of the server, who is now our only crat. At the time of me leaving, the only non staff members were Excel, Devastatin’ Dave, Sigmund Fraud, Ant2242, and The Ever Ruler. And the special case is Intrepid, who now has become a patroller again. There also was Tag, and another Fandom Employee, Pikushi, a Community Saftey employee delegated to the focus group after a Nukastaff only Community Roundtable occured, Private to only nuka staff. Which means once again, a private conversation occurs for only Nukastaff. And because this Roundtable had impacts on the Focus group, which has impacts on Nuka itself, it makes it important to bring up. But having these certain users in the focus group caused issues, like inviting Devastatin’ Dave, a permbanned user, to the server, and then minor chit-chats of unbaning him occured days prior to his entrance. And by letting a perm banned user into discussions that will have affects on the wiki, it one: not only only breaks our ban policy, but allowes a banned users views in, and could cause pages to have false information re-added to page, which we dont want in the slightest, well, i dont want, but with the way you and everyone else is going, we dont share opinions. But, one man is his own, each brain is different from the other. Still, my point stands when i say you dont give a care about the fate of labor as long as you can get your instant gratification.

Everyones Viewpoint

You claim you wanted to be informed as much as you can “so I could make sure I was being informed with as much information as possible. But then you invite only one editors, a plain, ordinary editor, ExcelUp. If you truely wanted to get everyones opinion, you should have invited more editors, Like Mirelurk with a Pencil, who acctually took the initiative to make pages better, by himself, with some help, he created an entire spreadsheat of the value, and weight of items and put it on the Jury Rigging page. Do you even know how much effort went into it? No, because you didnt bother to be active in the discord until after kate was banned and your focus group was started. It took him a whole month to make it, he put so much effort into it, but he never recieved an invite for his opionions and viewpoints? Did he, or did he not? No, He did not, because you only invited 1 editor. I guess you’re right when you say “At the end of the day, it was my circus, my clowns” Because when i walked into that focus group, i walked into the clown motel, because it was filled with clowns. You Gunny, are intentionally choosing to support the mass revertion of pages and on a whim, remove the talent of dozens, in order to capture the market that others are also trying to capture. The more people work, the more you can revert, and thus others are left behind. It is a form of accumalative advantange, You being in a posisition of advantage has an easier time gaining more advantage to others detrement. You are bringing this wiki back to a time where everything was chaotic, where pages contained unsourced information, or false information entirely. Lets take the Filet Mignon page for example, that page had real life information, based off of 1 references, and all that reference was was “Filet Mignon”. Thats it, thats literally it, and yet we had a page on it. Do you understand how absured that is? Or are you going to restore that as well, and have yet another random ass page for something that literally isnt described. And back to the Dave issue which relates to this, dave added sexual content to the Cleveland page because the term was described in Fallout 2. Because of what you are doing, are you really going to restore that? Something that breaks Fandom TOU. No, because if you restored it, you would be liable for punishment from Fandom.

Official Actions

The actions in the focus group should have never been official, like the revertions of Policy pages/Content pages. You claim you want to help people, but normal editors never had the chance to interact with the pre-discussions because they werent invited, so when this pops out of nowhere with absolutely no explaniation, people will be confused, but you want to do this anyway, which is Disingenuous to everyone on this godforsaken wiki. You also created these discussions, for the Ombudsman, most people dont even know what the hell an Ombudsman, let alone their purpose on the wiki, this was discussed in the focus group, and the Apocrypha discussions for undetermined lore, also discussed in the focus group, where at the time, there were no Editors, Excel came later on way after these talks, so no community imput for these things. And now, with these discussions are on the wiki, in your own words “@everyone Please Remember: Everything we do here is unofficial. As we try to build consensus on issues here, they MUST be taken over to the wiki for further discussion with a wider audience before any action should be taken. Please do not take any actions here and apply them there without doing so.”. Do you fully understand how hypocritical you sound gunny? You making official forums despite you saying in your own words everything is unofficial and would be discussed on nuka before being pushed to it, and look whats happening, the content disucssed in the focus groups is being pushed without prior discussion, breaking your own message, and thus turning you into the hypocrite.

Sigmunds Ban

Sigmunds unban was a case of “Unban this person before talking with any staff outside of the focus group”. There were no talkings within VTS about it (To my Knowledge). Absolutely ‘’’No Contact’’’ to any staff member outside of the focus group, no forum for his unban like what is happening with Sole (JCB2077), atleast then, people could openly discuss sigmunds unban in a permemantly open space, yet in the focus group, others could not. If Sole has to have a forum to discuss his unban, then sigmund needs one too, it only matters if the evidence proves him innocent or not if he haves a forum, and presents his evidence, and then the community comes to a desicison, not a private “Focus Group”. You gave one user Special Privileges over another who actually made a forum for their unban. Even if soles wont pass, he still made one to try, and if we’re allowing Sigmund to get unbanned without a forum, then unban sole without a forum, or make Sigmund go Through a forum, like others have. Like Zeal, who was accused of something he didnt do, and banned for an entire year, before his saintpain occured and was proven innoccent, and his ban was exonerated. So why give Special Privileges to Sig, when others in the same situation didnt recieve them? Whats your reasoning to that.

For posterity's sake, I'll document evidence to disprove this absurd story so that maybe we can stop hearing this false narrative. Siggy's unban did not happen in some secret Discord. Mug didn't provide any screenshots of the decision to unban Siggy in the focus group, because that's not where it happened. It went through official channels, with one rights holder talking to another. The results of that discussion are clearly available for all to see here. Evidence against Siggy was maliciously fabricated by a former bureaucrat. Since the charge against him was fake and he proved it was false, the ban was invalid from the start. No Saint Pain appeal is needed for false allegations.
intrepid359FO76NW Overseer5/27/22 [10:44pm]
SigUnban1
SigUnban2
You know this was discussed alot in the group, and it goes farther back than 5/3/22. Sigmund should have gotten a forum. Mug | Talk 03:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to retract your statement and correct the record. Not a lot of people have the level of courage you've shown by posting a screenshot confirming it was decided by two rights holders. You've earned my respect.
intrepid359FO76NW Overseer5/27/22 [11:06pm]
Are you being sarcastic? or, because im completely serious, i posted those to show that his unban was being discussed in the focus group, and not a forum. correct, it was between ecks and j, but only after focus group discussion, not an official forum result. Mug | Talk 04:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

( No, I'm genuinely impressed that you retracted your claim that "Sigmunds unban was a case of 'Unban this person before talking with any staff outside of the focus group'. There were no talkings within VTS about it (To my Knowledge). Absolutely ‘’’No Contact’’’ to any staff member outside of the focus group." Your screenshot shows that rights holders discussed the topic outside of the focus group. That takes balls, and I really appreciate you correcting the record.

intrepid359FO76NW Overseer5/27/22 [11:22pm]
If you had read any of what i said, you would have understood that when i said outside the group, i meant staff that werent invited/didnt join. not outside the discord itself. J was in the discord and aware of these talks for awhile, i made it pretty clear. And plus, i never said the word "Retract", did i. Mug | Talk 04:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


Other Users Behavior

In this focus group it was appaling to see other users behavior. Now, i will admit myself, i did curse at people, and i did get mad at people, but i was never abraisve towards people, like others were. To start, Intrepid had some of the worst behavior id ever seen, he even admitted himself the next day after some of his behavior that it isnt a good idea to stay up late and argue. He was plainly rude to people, and straight up abrasive to me. When i was comparing the Contributions of Devastatin’ Dave, Lordtyrannis2.0, and Tag (In hindsight i should have been clear, i proceeded to apologize the next day for not explaining myself). Both Tag and Intrepid both jumped to the conclusion that because both those users had been banned at that point, i was threatening them with a ban, when i was simply comparing the fact i reverted all of their blanket reverts. To which Tag said in response to my Statements with “@Gunny, Again, are thinly veiled threaths by minors the intended discussion here “, then, when i reverted a blanket re-add by Tag, when i followed our policies, i got these responses. “So, abusing your authority to resolve the dispute, is, well, not what rights holders should do.“, And during the Same Conversation, Intrepid responds with “That Behavior is grounds to remove your rights, Mug.”. Tag then proceeded to claim that the policies didnt apply to me, i could go on and on about Tags behavior, on the other side thought, intrepid was not as abrasive as he was this night, and me and him both publically apologized in the group, and dm apologized, and we were on ok-ish terms again, but Tag, not once, ever apologized to any of us in the focus group, which just proves his behavior as heated and rude once again. He then went too far calling the wiki Homophobic and saying our policies were Homophobic, and that we are “Hiding the Gays”. This is just straight appaling behavior from people who have been here for 15-ish years, and its disgusting, but what should i expect, its the fallout community, of course its going to be toxic as hell.

Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself and risking losing the trust of the entire community. An overwhelming majority of the editing community was part of this, and they know damn well that nothing you're saying is true. Who do you think you're convincing with these outright fabrications? How many more people need to call you out for spreading falsehoods? Have some respect for yourself. If you want people to take you seriously in the future, I highly recommend you walk away from this conversation before you put your integrity in question any further.
intrepid359FO76NW Overseer5/27/22 [10:06pm]
I will fight my position intrepid, you can fight yours, but ill fight mine. Mug | Talk 03:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

( Mug, I strongly encourage you to step back and chill out, maybe take a few days off.

You're constantly invoking "To Kill a Mockingbird" and peppering your posts with quotes about historical record and falsehoods, as well as overtly insulting virtually everyone who talks to you. You're also making casual accusations of Fandom ToU violations (which are not happening), and continuing to harangue Gunny and others for good faith efforts to help the community move on after a rather dramatic event.

Consider this to be helpful advice, rather than a warning. Please do not continue to derail the discussion, harass and intimidate other users - which is a Fandom ToU violation - we appreciate candor, bu if you look at other replies, pretty much everyone has been discussing the matter with courtesy and a certain baseline level of politeness. Thank you for your understanding. Тагазиэль 09:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

But apparently you dont think a server thats for a select few only, that only a person can gain access to by personally messaging you, and no one else, because i tested both Saka ( Chad, and they dont have invite perms, which means its only you who can give out invites
We could and did relay requests. So no, its not true to say they could only be obtained by DM'ing gunny.
But then you invite only one editors, a plain, ordinary editor, ExcelUp. If you truely wanted to get everyones opinion, you should have invited more editors, Like Mirelurk with a Pencil

Did you, on any of the many times we requested suggestions for people mention this user? I just did a search and the answer appears to be no. You appear to be presuming bad faith.

You, Gunny, The owner, Chad. And Sakaratte. There was Bleep who was a focus group admin, Findabair, Aish, Cor, Gilpo, Canyon Light, Me, Eckserah, Saxhleel, Jbour, Dyre, who was a focus group admin, Aiden and Pie. So you cannot claim that there were more normal members than staff, its the complete opposite

I find this odd now given on 13 of May the problem was apprently the opposite:

JustDoggo2YT — 05/13/2022

https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/User_talk:Jspoelstra#Resignation im resigning, i might return later, i dont know, but im sick of the behavior from this community when banned users get access to a behind doors server, and yet our own moderators dont? thats the last straw ill quote something for all of you to read, and read it i hope you do "I raised my hand, remembering an old campaign slogan Atticus had once told me about. “What do you think it means, Jean Louise?”

“‘Equal rights for all, special privileges for none,’” I quoted."

So were you wrong on May 13, or were you wrong today?

The actions in the focus group should have never been official, like the revertions of Policy pages/Content pages.

Lasst I checked there is no vote nor process required to edit the wiki, or correct errors made on it.

You also created these discussions, for the Ombudsman, most people dont even know what the hell an Ombudsman...

Thats why it explains it. You appear to be allowing your passion to get the better of you.

. And now, with these discussions are on the wiki, in your own words “@everyone Please Remember: Everything we do here is unofficial. As we try to build consensus on issues here, they MUST be taken over to the wiki for further discussion with a wider audience before any action should be taken.

So your problem is things were taken to the wiki that should have been taken to the wiki?

Sigmunds unban was a case of “Unban this person before talking with any staff outside of the focus group”.

Sigmund's unbanning was a decision by Jspoel in consutlation with Ecks. They did it off server, in a pre-arranged DM. Their conversation is theirs alone. Although Jspoel may be in the server, he basically has no interaction with anyone, much like on the NP server.

In this focus group it was appaling to see other users behavior...

This is just an entire Ad Hominem based on half truths, and I won't give it any more dignity as it doesn't deserve it. Do better.

You are like a React Streamer Gunny, you take others work, and remove it in an instant.

Pot, Kettle, Black, Mug.

You know this was discussed alot in the group

Many people discuss things in different places. I'm sure your responses today are being discussed in different places before you post them. The person who made the decision did not discuss this decision with anyone other than Ecks to my knowledge, and did not do so in any server I m in.

J was in the discord and aware of these talks for awhile

That doesn't mean he was part of the discussion. Agent c (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Discord/TVA Chat Moderation Course

So with this whole policy revert project, are you all completely ignoring the chat mod course of the TVA, by reverting the discord page back to an earlier version, not only are you creating a conflict of intrest with wiki page rules vs the rules actually in the discord, you straight up removed the TVA part of it and replaced it with the old "Temp Chat Mod" schtick which is an issue in-on itself. So is the chat mod course going to be re-added to the page? or are you just going to completely wipe it out the course, like you have been with everything else. Mug | Talk 02:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

We have been unable to locate a vote authorising this change. if you can direct us to it, Im sure there wil be no problem in restoring it. Agent c (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
So wipe out, great, getting rid of a learning tool And why the hell would we need a vote for a learning program? Thats just absurd chad. Mug | Talk 23:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to break it to you, but as it was it looked more like an indoctrination device than a learning tool, including lessons that directly violated our ratified policies and pushed the personal opinions of a former bureaucrat onto the people being mentored. Not to mention, it wasn’t authorized to begin with. The Greatest Savior (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
As a graduate of the chat moderation program it angers me very much to hear you say things like that about it, calling it an "indoctrination tool", what the hell. It was a learning tool to teach people about Chat Moderation, because of this program, there were graduates who went on to become full fledged chat mods, so you calling this an indoctrination tool defeats the purpose of learning and betterment of skills. Mug | Talk 23:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I sympathize with your frustration. I reviewed some of the TVA lessons today and saw a very small number indeed contain inaccurate editing practices that may have somewhat stunted the outcome of the program. At some point, we can rebuild the affected courses to be compliant with Nukapedia best practices. In the meantime, I recommend directing your concerns toward your instructor.
intrepid359FO76NW Overseer5/26/22 [10:17pm]
We dont have an instructor for the TVA anymore. Mug | Talk 06:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Definitely not so! We lost one of many instructors. TVA was here long before kdarrow. In fact, she was a student once, under her mentor, Leon. He used to run the program and did a great job with it. When I started TVA, Dyre was my mentor. We have plenty of competent editors who also know policy well.
intrepid359FO76NW Overseer5/27/22 [1:24am]
"Jumping into a wiki can be intimidating, so the programs aim to provide a stress-free environment in which users can learn the basics, former users can brush up on current format norms, and overall provide a training regiment that will set editors up for future success. No program is a prerequisite for another, but a general understanding of editing is beneficial before entering any program other than general editing. Users can join multiple programs at the same time, and there are no time requirements or deadlines."

The TVA is opt in. It was never required for anything other than a high-five and a gold sticker. The fun little diploma is something tangible to prove your qualifications on a rights request one day. I completely skipped it and anyone can too. This sort of creativity does not need to be ratified by vote. To call a tutorial on how to use a wiki an "indoctrination device" is absolutely incredible and an insult to educators around the globe. Fandom should be stealing this concept for their official "tips and tricks" site.Scribe-Howard(talk) 07:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part, with two specific exceptions:
  1. Since it is linked in the navmenu and on the policies pages as an "official" program, like anything else that get to claim being official that officialness has to be handed out. In almost all cases anything being "official" is taken to the community for discussion and a vote, similar to an affiliate wiki or discord, or any other other type of thing.
  2. The other part, and the reason why it was on the discord policy page (and had to be removed) was that as a part of the program, extra user rights were granted. While there certainly are times when temp rights are granted, I've had them twice recently, that's usually a more ad hoc situation. The academy is not ad hoc. It's a formal program, fully planned out. As part of that, even temp granting rights should have gone to the community for approval. You typically don't have time to assay the community for ad hoc temp rights, but there is plenty of time to do so with the academy program.
Other than those two points, saying "hey, is this ok to be an official program" and "hey is it cool if we hand out temp chat mod" everything else about the program is just fine (assuming the actual content being taught is in line with content and editing guidelines) and I certainly have no problem with it. I was a mentor on the NUN. I will always support programs like this.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

( Mug, if you believe the TVA addition to the CM rules was useful, you are welcome to start a forum to propose they be adopted in the correct way, followed by a vote to do so. The desirability or utility of these changes isnt why they are getting made, it is because they are unauthorised changes. Agent c (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Chad, we dont need a damn forum and vote for a Learning tool, it defeats the whole purpose of a curriculum, The U.S. education system didnt need a Senate or House of representatives vote to teach Math or English Language Arts did they? No they didnt. So to see your view of putting literally EVERYTHING through a vote defeats the purpose of it, especially when its an education, it just screws up everything. Mug | Talk 17:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
A learning tool? No. Policing powes, yes. That something is useful or desirable does not give cause to bypass process, which I remind you that you were arguing against bypassing progress a few paragraphs above. Agent c (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
It is a learning tool, it teaches people how to moderate a discord, by your logic, you expect every single user who ever joined the nuka discord to run a moderatly sized discord server, its unrealistic. Mug | Talk 18:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Thats a complete non sequitor. If you think its useful to allow moderators to delegate their responsibility on a week to week basis for the purpose of training someone, go right ahead and call a vote on it. Like I did when I proposed a policy (and got it passed) to appoint temporary modertors.... You may remember this policy as you removed it from policy without a community discussion nor vote. Instead of complaining that its been removed because its been implemented the wrong way, why don't you put half of that effort into re-implementing it the right way? Agent c (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Private discussion

I removed a screenshot from Mug relating to private conversation as my permission was not saught. The contents are not sensitive, but it was done on principal that my private conversations were disclosed without my permission. I did not have access to the discord invites and if asked I'd have been happy to confirm that and even the screenshot.

Any further use of screenshots from private discussions without my permission (unless it is something along the lines of I'm being damned shady and putting people at risk) I will be asking Fandom to take a look at as it is releasing information I consider private. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Wont happen again. Mug | Talk 18:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 18:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Off topic

The discussion on this forum has wildly gone off topic. This forum was to inform the community of the changes being made to the policies and why, as well as inform the community of the progress and then allow room for discussion of that topic. Any further discussion on this forum should be directly related to the topic of the revision of policies. If anyone would like to discuss any other topic, please feel free to discus that elsewhere. Any further off-topic discussion will result in archiving all off-topic discussion to the forum talk page. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This process is now complete. If there are any policy or guideline amendments anyone feels should be considered please create a discussion forum to start that process.TheGunny2.0 (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)