Forum:Discord Policy proposal

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Discord Policy proposal

Overview

Prompted by a request from WikiManager TimeShade, this discussion is part of the Harry Potter Wiki's Policy Review and will help shape how the community governs itself in the years to come.

This is to discuss the creation of a Discord Policy to formalize how Discord functions as part of the Harry Potter Wiki site. With Special:Chat being removed with UCP upgrade in the next several weeks there will be a gap left that Discord would likely fill. It seems best to probably start with hearing from the current Discord administrators as to their thoughts and plans for their Discord server. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:19, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Greetings Wikians! We are representatives of the Harry Potter Wiki Discord Server (HPWDS). More than a year ago Harrypotterexpert101 and I were just discussing how a lot of wikis on FANDOM have a Discord server and how HPW doesn't. This was around the time when The HPW Discussion Board had to shut down the then famous Off-topic post. Off-topic post played an important role for many users. It was a place to interact with fans of HP on topics that were not HP related. To fill that void, Discord seemed to be the right place. It allows us to create a community of Potterheads who discuss HP but can also have fun with each other!

Per this forum vote, it was decided that HPW will have a widget on the Right Rail of the wiki for HPWDS but the server was never formally adopted as no rules were designed or assigned for the workaround on how will users use HPWDS as a part of HPW. With the removal of IRC policy and removal of Special:Chat to UCP wikis, discord seems to be the only resort for Potterhead wikians to interact off the wiki. So we the Admins of HPWDS (Reverb frost and Harrypotterexpert101) would like to request the Harry Potter Wiki to endorse us as their official server.

Here are our Proposal:

1. Wiki business stays on the wiki. Business related to the Harry Potter Wiki must be handled on the Harry Potter Wiki.
2. The combined activity feed can be set up in Discord using Wiki-bot. It'll only work on UCP wikis (MediaWiki 1.30 or higher).
3. Logging of all changes(edit/delete) to any user messages on a separate channel.
4. Mirroring Harry Potter Wiki bans. Users permanently banned on the Harry Potter Wiki will also be permanently banned on the Discord server. Users subject to long-term blocks can be blocked on the Discord server as well on request from the Harry Potter Wiki Administration.
5. No Users cannot send Direct/Personal Messages on Discord to Harry Potter Wiki staff without their explicit permission.
6. Closely following The Discord server rules will closely follow Harry Potter Wiki policies such as Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks and Discussions Guidelines.
7. The Discord server owner will be a member of the Harry Potter Wiki staff.
8. At least one active Administrator or Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for administrator attention will be notified every time whenever a change is made to the Discord server rules.

Here are our Requests:

1. Discord Staff members will be identified with Mediawiki Discord Staff custom tags.
2. Discord Server staff members will also have official User page templates for their Discord server role.
3. Harry Potter Wiki Administration will inform the Discord Admins of any discussion on the wiki regarding the Discord server and encourage their involvement.
4. The Harry Potter Wiki will post a Discord widget linking to the Discord server.
5. The Harry Potter Wiki will post a Help:Discord page outlining the roles on the server and containing a name card roster for Discord server staff.Possibly Help:HPWDS

Thank you! --  Reverb frost   16:38, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

i second Reverb frost. MechQueste 16:57, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you all have been thinking this through. Couple quick questions:

1. What does the Combined Activity Feed do? Is there an example of it in action for current UCP wikis?
2. "Media Wiki tags Discord Staff" Is this a separate Role/Group akin to Chat Moderators? If so, is this group automatically being added with the UCP upgrade or has Staff customized wiki servers to add this group for other sites?

Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:05, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

RE:Is this a separate Role/Group akin to Chat Moderators?: Yes. Such tags have been used at least by Wikitubia (that I know of), as is viewable by looking through the users listed here. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:20, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

Almost everyone on Discord who is active editor/Discussor have been waiting for this policy. We have been planning for this for quite some time now.

Answering your questions:

1. Per the current UCP update, Activities of Dboard do not appear on Recent Changes feed. Now that Message walls, article comments, etc also use Discussion technology, so they will also not be logged on the Recent Changes. To this, The-Wiki bot (a bot we use to verify if the user joining the server has a FANDOM account or not. Any user who doesn't can't enter the server.) can now log activities of Discussion activity and Wiki activity that admins and mods can use that will help them keep tab of activities and potential spams. As for example, I will ask around a few migrated wikis that have this option and let you know here. In order to check that, you will need to have a discord account and temporarily join that wiki's server.
2. Well, MrSiriusBlack has answered it. They will not have any special rights on the wiki. They will just be tags, titles. They won't be added automatically. For example, see this User page tag on Clash of Clans wiki. Image Editor. Thanks! --  Reverb frost   17:31, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

Damn, Reverb frost beat me to answering this! Anyway, thanks for taking time to review this, guys! We really appreciate it :p. Any other questions you may have are encouraged. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:35, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so FANDOM isn't creating official Discord related roles in Mediawiki, the idea is just to use custom tags via UserTags or the like?

As for wiki-bot with UCP, I'd be interested to see in action at some point (Discussions searching?!) but it's more an optional feature on the Discord side so not really tied to the Policies IMO.

Under the proposal, it looks like items 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are Wiki Policy items, along with the Request items. It seems like Item 1 should be expanded to include that Discussions related business is handled in Discussions. Item 4 appears to be an agreement that the Discord server would mirror any bans but not blocks? What about long term blocks over a certain length of time? The other couple (2 & 3) look more to be internal matters as to how the Discord Server functions and probably don't need to be part of the policies, but could be part of the suggested Help: page as to how the Discord Server is run? It's not completely clear what item 6 means - maybe some highlights as to which policy areas (such as Discussion Guidelines? Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks? etc) are closely followed in case they change on the wiki side and have implications for how the Discord server is managed? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:35, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

I think he's referring to Profile Tags, where you can manually change the tags manually so that the masthead for Reverb frost can say "Discord admin". MechQueste 19:07, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your questions and concerns. I'll do my best to answer them.

1. RE:Tags- Yes, from what I understand we would be creating custom usertags rather than creating actual custom usergroups (I don't think that that is even an option anymore, anyway).

2. RE:Discussions Business- I totally agree. All Discussions business should be handled in Discussions, however technically Discussions is a feature on the wiki but if that is not clear I am sure we can add that as well :).

3. RE:Mirroring Blocks- Bans and blocks on Discord are tricky. So far, we have been doing this in a few different ways. First off, there is a Wiki-Bot verification feature that does not allow users who are blocked on either the wiki or across the Fandom Network to verify. Likewise, if we know that a user has been Gblocked or Blocked on the wiki we immediately ban them. I am not sure how temporary blocks would work, as there really isn't a feature for that on Discord, but I know that Mee6 has a "!tempban" command handy, so we could maybe use that for temporary and/or long term blocks. Our administration isn't accustomed to using Mee6 for bans, but we could happily adapt it into our daily operations. We have access to the block logs, so I am sure that this wouldn't be that big of a deal if we develop a system for it :).

4. RE:Policies- Yes, we can expand on what Wiki Policies we are referring to. One thing we are doing already is using Fandom's Terms of Use to deal with a lot of conflicts, such as hatespeech, homophobia and underage users. Truthfully I am not sure what Wiki Polices we wouldn't follow, with the exception of random ones that aren't applicable such as the Canon Policy, etc. But yeah, I agree that we should point out which ones we are referring to in general (more work for you, Reverb!).

Let me know if I missed something. Thanks, -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       19:42, August 30, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience guys! I had a test so I got delayed by a day. Anyways, The Snowpiercer Wiki is a UCP wiki and has a discord server that has the combined wiki activity enabled. Here is the permanent invite link to the discord server. Once you join this server, please go to the Misc category at the end of the category and channel rail on the left side and go to the #wiki-activity channel. This is where they record all edits from Recent changes, as well as Article comments, Message Wall comments, Dboard activity(Post as well as comments). As an example, I created a post and a comment on the Dborad of the above wiki and they were recorded on this channel here.

The use of wiki-bot is optional indeed but its use is important because that is one of the major aspects that define us as a wiki server than any other HP server on Discord. Discussion searching is not quite possible even in this feature but, with the above way, we could easily keep tabs on all activities on the discussion board as and when needed!

Comming to Policies, As Dave said, we are considering all activities of the wiki, including Dboard will stay on the wiki. But if needed we can add that as well. Although there have been proposals that some Dboard user activities be conducted on the Discord and there be some small events using the Discord features, so we would like to keep some provision for those activities as well. They won't be wiki-business talks, just utilizing the Discord space and its features. We are not sure what activities they would be as we were waiting for the Discord Policy to take a shape first.

As Dave said, we can use the Tempban function of the MEE6 bot to mirror blocks as well. The problem with this is, when a user is banned or temp banned from the server, they are removed from the server completely and will have to rejoin the server, unlike wiki where you have been simply stopped from making any edits. So we will try to find another way to deal with blocks (temp bans).

With the UCP update Proposal 2 would become a necessity for the wiki to help them keep tab on Article Comments and even on Message Wall comments should the wiki opt to replace Talk Pages with Message Walls. Either way we plan on enabling this as many editors on the server have requested this feature and it seems to be a good update as well. I will shortly write up what policies will we be following for the server. Thanks! --  Reverb frost   07:35, September 1, 2020 (UTC)

After taking a quick look at the wiki policies, HPW:NPA seems to be a reasonable mention here. So this is the wiki policy that we will closely follow. Other Policies don't quite apply to the Discord Server. Hope I covered all points. Thanks! --  Reverb frost   07:54, September 1, 2020 (UTC)

We have a channel on the server #harry-potter-wiki-updates, which can be used to post wiki announcements and changes. For example, a wiki policy forum can be announced there, a wiki editing project can be announced there, Basically a place to inform users what new is happening. So far we haven't used it because we were not sure how the wiki would like to utilize it but now with this forum, I think we can work that out as well. This doesn't have to be a part of the announcement policies (Like announcing a wiki vote) but it can be done out of courtesy. Wiki Admins who are in the server will be given access to post in that channel or they can give the matter to Discord Admins and they will post the update on their behalf. This is a widespread practice on many Wiki Discords and seems to be a good inclusion in HPWDS as well. --  Reverb frost   04:40, September 4, 2020 (UTC)

If there are no further questions, doubts, or concerns, I think we can move towards a vote? If I am right we have already passed the 7 days discussion time. --  Reverb frost   04:56, September 8, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra details here! The Combined Activity feed is ok IMO (lacks a lot of details and couldn't replace Recent Changes / DiscussionsFeed or some other summary tools). Perhaps in situations when there are Article Comments, Message Walls, Discussions, and Wiki changes it would be more valuable as a single combined view, but it definitely isn't essential and doesn't need to be set in the HPW Policies. If it's in Discord as a feature, cool, but if not or if it is deprecated in the future, it doesn't really have a bearing on HPW and wouldn't have any consequence. As such, it, along with the Logging option (#3) shouldn't really be part of the Policies, but could be part of the Help: page explaining how the Discord server operates and its feature set.

The temporary bans was more just a question - again, not essential although in cases where the block is long term (months to a year long) it seems like also blocking/removing the user from Discord would make sense IMO. Not sure where this line might be (blocks overs 3 months? 6 months? etc) but probably worth discussing to see where the effort on the Discord side is justified even when the HPW ban is not permanent.

Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks makes sense, maybe Discussion Guidelines as well? Just want to make sure the Policy is clear on what is being aligned.

Having a place in Discord to place announcements as needed makes sense to encourage awareness and communication across the various branches of the community.

I think the wiki business line needs clarification as we use wiki-business to distinguish it from Discussions-business, but both should be covered in the statement (e.g. no holding Discussions policy change debates in Discord either). Perhaps "Business related to the Harry Potter Wiki must be handled on the Harry Potter Wiki" makes this point more clear and inclusive as the site's full title is overhead both the Wiki and Discussions.

While I can see some cross-platform activities taking place, they would need to be self-contained and not official business. No user on the wiki or Discussions should need to participate in Discord to stay informed or be able to fully participate in their area of interest, or vice versa (no one in Discord is required to make wiki edits or Discussion posts in order to remain active in or informed of Discord activities.) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:27, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree the activity feed doesn't necessarily have to be in the policy. Out of all the wikis that I have been migrated, not all have discord and even relatively fewer wikis that use Wiki-bot. The above example was the only wiki I could locate it on. Perhaps because it is a new feature and not many people know about it? I am not sure. But either way, I would like to mention that we will have this feature enabled, and if this doesn't work perhaps some other bot, but HPWDS cannot be held responsible if it doesn't work. Sometimes bot go offline for a few seconds to even hours and in that case, may not log the activity or log it when it comes online. We are not sure yet. We can remove this from the proposal.

Temporary bans would be a lot of manual labor. HPWDS is like a platform, and you need to have certain roles to perform certain tasks on this platform, like "send message", "read message" etc. We will have to remove all these roles from the user who is temporarily being banned and add a role with which they can read messages but not send messages or react to messages, etc. Not to mention HPWDS staff will have to keep an eye on the Block list of HPW and cross-check if they have a membership of the HPWDS and then do all this. MEE6 bot's temp ban function, where a user will be removed from the server completely and will not be able to join for a specified time period (which will be the same as the ban on the wiki). So if that is a requirement, we can do that with this process.

We could add HPWD/B (Harry Potter Wiki Discussion Board) guidelines as a policy that we will closely follow other than HPW:NPA. I would yet again emphasis on the word closely because not every time will it be possible for us to apply all HPWD/B rules based on the platform etc, but we will make sure to follow the essence of it, that is making sure a safe environment is created for Potterheads of HPW to have some good fun time.

The update in wordings related to the Harry Potter Wiki business is perfectly clear and acceptable to us.

We will be sure to note that no user from the wiki will be asked to compulsorily take part on HPWDS, and none of the activities will be official business of the wiki or Dborad or vice versa. Although we have seen this happen on a few Discord servers of wikis where wiki staff have a channel dedicated to giving weekly or daily "fun tasks" to wiki editors (or enthusiasts who wish to be editors or learn about it), such as editing certain article(s) or pages of a particular category or developing templates. Should we incorporate this (with complete guidance from wiki staff and mostly admins) would that be considered as required to edit or encouraging to edit? And I see you have already agreed to the idea that allows wiki announcements of updates to be made on HPWDS for user awareness. Would admins want to make such announcements or would they have the server admins do it or would they rather give the server admins material to post on wiki's behalf? and what kind of material should be posted? Other than this, I think we are quite clear on the terms. Thanks! --  Reverb frost   16:32, September 11, 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can make the mirroring of long-terms bans "on request" from the HPW admins? That way HPW need to notify the Discord server staff and would only be asked for the more grievous cases, maybe a few times a year?

I think having a place in Discord for Harry Potter Wiki Announcements is the right place to start - how it gets used will probably change over time but if HPW Admins and Discord Staff can both post there that seems to allow for the widest range of possibilities.

I've modified the proposal text to reflect these ideas and expanded the acronyms and the like to help clarify things. Feel free to suggest other wording or other changes as needed - figured the text should be marked up as needed to start to move it towards a final version for voting. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:12, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

Very well. We agree to the above-made amendments. No further questions or conerns from our side. Thanks!--  Reverb frost   11:26, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

I've expanded and clarified the text to be more readable. I think the only real change is that the HPW Administration will notify Discord Admins of any related discussions (but not necessarily before as any user can start a discussion without prior notification to HPW Admins) and encourage Discord Admin involvement (as HPW Admins can't require their involvement). However, please double-check that all the original meaning and intent has been preserved before it goes to a vote. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:25, September 17, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. We approve them. As long as the Discord Admins are informed about discussions related to Discord, officially on their talk pages/ message walls, i think it then becomes their responsibility to take part or not. As a safe option, they could also be notified via Discord DMs other than this or on the server itself by @mentioning them but that won't be a necessity. I think we have covered all possible aspects and it's safe to move to a vote now. Ample time has been provided for anyone to object or suggest. Thanks! --  Reverb frost   04:25, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll remove the mark-up and open a vote in the next several hours. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:25, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

I think everything proposed looks good - lots of thought went into it! I just wanted to say a few things given what's happened today.

We can't stop or always know what people discuss privately in Discord, even if it's about the wiki. It's an option they can use that we can't take away. If they want to change anything in the wiki, we will find out what they want. I think the first point in the above policy covers that, and the fifth one protects other users in case of bad behaviour. But I don't see how we just ban people for discussing the wiki.

That's because we won't necessarily know for certain what users have been saying. They can edit or delete what they say. It could be changed so the discussion's out of context. Even in cases of bullying, we could have an issue proving it. It's supposed to be private, so sharing anything without consent will be an issue. In the earlier discussions, TimeShade indicated that Fandom like it better when both parties give consent to their private discussions being shown. It's an issue when they don't, and perhaps usernames have to be hidden. I don't think we have anything about privacy above. Just a few things to think about when trying to enforce a few points. - Kates39 (talk) 21:10, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, TimeShade said "Yes, there are no established rules regarding pulling conversations from Discord onto the wiki." but as to getting user consent for sharing messages "It's much more preferable. WHile not too strict on it, it really only becomes an issue if a user doesn't wish to be involved. You could probably redact their username in those cases." As such, FANDOM does not have strict requirements on this but leaves it up to the community to decide.

To me, this seems to fall on the Discord Server side of the fence as to how they log conversations and handle privacy and should be part of their Rules, not the HPW Policies. Given that wiki business needs to be done on the wiki, there is little need for the wiki side to be pulling information over from Discord as it's not our bailiwick to regulate or enforce, outside of possibly notifying that an user is harassing under the DM restriction.

That said, there have already been several examples of users discussing wiki changes in Discord and making changes based on those conversations. The Talk pages exist for a reason and should be used for all discussions involving wiki business so the entire community has equal access and input to the conversation which is preserved for future review and understanding. Obviously, no one can prevent users from using Discord to privately discuss whatever topic, but those discussions cannot be used as justification for a change or as an established sign of community agreement. Based on recent events, there is understandable concern about users not bothering to discuss issues with the community, but instead using private messages that circumvent any community review or feedback.

Thoughts on this issue Discord Admins? I'll hold off on starting a vote until this is addressed. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:08, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

Just for clarification, we have a bot called Logger that automatically logs all changes to posts and all deletions of posts in a channel within our server as soon as they happen. This channel is only accessible to Discord Admins for obvious reasons. If you post something in our Discord server there really isn't a reason that it can't be shared on the wiki unless it is via direct messaging, as we don't really have control over that part of Discord. All of our channels are public for the most part, if you don't count the #harry-potter-wiki-staff channel and all of our server moderation channels. So the way I see it is if you post something in a public channel it may be shared as long as it doesn't contain anything that may violate our guidelines or Fandom's/Discord's Terms of Use.

Our server guidelines specifically say that all wiki business must be handled on the wiki, so no discussion regarding changes to the wiki is allowed to take place there. However we do have channels for editors to talk and ask questions and simply hang out. Anything that happens in DMs isn't something we have control over, so we can't really make a rule against people using them to communicate about the wiki, but everything said on the server itself is logged by a bot so we can see when people have deleted/edited their messages and see what the messages said. Let me know if I didn't touch on a point or if you need further clarification. Thanks,  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       22:45, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

As Harrypotterexpert101 said we have a bot that logs any changes to messages made on HPWDS. We plan on adding more features so that almost all activities can be logged. It is important to note that these bots aren't created by us and on occasions go offline for maintenance and may not log certain information at that time. As a safe switch we have started using more than one bot for logging but who is to say a maintenance may not overlap? In such situations the logs on the server aren't 100% sure. And even if the bots log the information, that is not public knowledge or accessible for obvious reasons and hence cannot be reviewed by users should they want to. That said if we allow wiki business to be discussed on HPWDS, it would mean we are in a way making it such that having a Discord account to stay informed about wiki matters, compulsory or else they get left out on discussions there and do not always have full information. So we cannot do that.

That's because we won't necessarily know for certain what users have been saying. They can edit or delete what they say. It could be changed so the discussion's out of context. Even in cases of bullying, we could have an issue proving it. and these are the reasons why we have been sure to follow this from the very beginning, Wiki business stays on the wiki only so that any user can review what has been said, when has been said, what has been edited, what has been deleted and when etc.

As Ironyak1 said, we cannot stop private DMs with each other but any discussion there cannot be used justify any edits on the wiki or sign of community consensus. Even if the private DM has 1 admin, and 7 participants, that still does not prove community consensus because it did not happen on the wiki. As for sharing screenshots, as long as both parties don't agree we do not encourage sharing of screenshots or any such thing. As for user safety, there is an option by which one maybe able to block any DMs from HPWDS. If they need help with this then they can request any server staff to help them, although we would stress that they add the server admins as their "friends" on discord so we can DM them any warnings as and when found necessary, if not then we will have to use bots to warn them directly instead of sending polite reminders. We also hold server events and for that DMs of users should stay open for just the server staff. It's a whole process. I will personally reach every wiki staff that is a member of HPWDS to give them an option to enable this and help them as found necessary. Also per the 13th rule of HPWDS as of now, Asking server member's permission before DMing them is required.

So far we have been very sure to not effectively evade any spam attacks and the server itself hasn't faced any spam raids as is very famous on many Discord servers. To give you a picture, the pornographic spam on multiple discussion board across FANDOM very recently, but magnified by 10 times. No such events have happened and hopefully it never would. In cases of harrasments, we deal with them on a case by case basis but we have not yet encountered any severe cases just some random jokes between users that were again dealt with immediately. --  Reverb frost   06:50, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

I see. I think we need to just describe point one better to say if a person wants to change anything, they have to discuss it on the wiki. Anything discussed in Discord, publicly or privately can't be used to justify changing anything. It sounds like your saying we can't privately discuss anything wiki connected and that we can enforce that. But people can and probably will, and it has been useful in certain cases when it's easier for two people to work through their suggestions etc. like we have done.

We need a privacy point too for users who do speak privately, and don't give consent to their conversations being shown. I think we need to show a distinction in our wording too between how we can tackle public bullying, and bullying or anything else done privately. We can't know for certain what people say privately - things can be edited and deleted. So that would be a case for the Discord server? I just found our wording less clear than it could be. - Kates39 (talk) 11:25, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

The "Business related to the Harry Potter Wiki must be handled on the Harry Potter Wiki." statement encapsulates several issues all at once.

It restricts public discussion of wiki-related business in Discord - such conversations deny many members of the community any input in the matter and therefore is unfair and exclusionary. The article and user related Talk pages and Forum on the wiki were designed for handling such discussions and allow much better for linking, side-by-side comparisons, logging of changes, and archiving of all user contributions. They are the designated public sphere, equally accessible to all users of the site, dedicated to handling wiki-related business and need to be used as such.

It puts private discussion outside of the realm of HPW business. Private discussions in Discord are not, and can not, be regulated by HPW Discord Staff, so individuals can speak about whatever they want. But given the concealed, off-site nature of the conversations, they cannot be considered HPW business, cannot be used to justify any changes, and have no bearing on the operation of the HPW.

It removes any need for a policy about Discord messages being used in the wiki as they are not HPW business and have no weight here. Copies or screenshots of private Discord messages cannot be verified for their accuracy or authenticity (as I understand it FANDOM doesn't allow their use in resolving issues for these reasons) so there is no reason to try and protect them under a HPW privacy policy as they are inadmissible by default.

In short, "Business related to the Harry Potter Wiki must be handled on the Harry Potter Wiki." Any conversations done off of the Harry Potter Wiki are not Harry Potter Wiki business. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:19, September 23, 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of making more timely progress, I'd like to move this to a vote in the next 24 hours. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:48, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

Given there is only one proposal and this is a stand-alone Policy with no extra sections or pre-existing policies that needs to be combined or reconciled, I don't see any reason why this can't just be moved to a final ratification vote. Let me know if anyone sees a reason why this wouldn't work. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:22, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

No objections. I think it would be better, easier, and quicker. Thanks!--  Reverb frost   16:41, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       04:10, September 25, 2020 (UTC)

Linking from here to Forum:Discord Policy - draft for improving the clarity of the process and its results. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:47, September 27, 2020 (UTC)