At TimeShade's request and as a follow-on to their Mediation process, the goal of this thread is to review the current Harry Potter Wiki Policies to understand when they were implemented, how they are currently being applied, and how they might be improved or expanded upon in the future.
Current Policy Proposals:
| Forum:IRC Policy - decommission - Paused |
|
| Forum:Voting Policy proposed changes - Completed |
|
| Forum:User Rights Policy proposal - Completed |
|
| Forum:Discord Policy proposal - Completed |
|
For my part, I feel we must start with reasserting the current policies and making sure they are being properly upheld before we are able to make adjustments with any confidence the changes will actually be adhered to. My concerns that the policies are on shaky ground arise from a series of Policy Violations that have contributed to a major disruption within the HPW Community and its usual smooth functioning.
So on 8 April 2020, MechQueste Requested Content Moderator Rights per the usual Request for Permissions process.
On 9 April 2020 Semi-Active Administrator ProfessorTofty (1 edit before this in 2020, over 3 months prior) opened a vote and immediately voted in Support for the candidate who they know from other work on FANDOM.
- This is a direct violation of the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy that states "The administrator who has begun a process may not partake in the voting directly, in order to ensure impartiality during the closing of the vote." This policy was established 25 July 2008 and still in place today. ProfessorTofty's vote is not valid under the Voting Policy and should have been stricken.
On 14 April 2020, 6 days after the request, 5 days from the vote opened, and appearing to only have the bare number of 3 votes needed in Support (with only 2 of them actually being valid), MechQueste Granted Content Moderator from Semi-active Bureaucrat Cavalier One based on this invalid vote.
- The Vote was also not closed by admin who opened it as required by the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy: "The administrator who opens a vote will close it, unless an undue amount of time has passed and no action has been taken." unless five days is considered an undue amount of time now, which seems unlikely as most votes last roughly a week.
16 April 2020 The unclosed vote was ultimately archived by a non-admin user on behalf of Cavelier One. While no policy speaks to this, it is rather odd why neither the Administrator nor the Bureaucrat involved properly closed, tallied, and archived the vote as usually happens.
On 25 April 2020 - MechQueste grants themself AWB rights adding himself to the Check Page intended to "restrict unauthorized bot programs from being run on communities." There was no authorization, or community discussion, or notice given. While this may not strictly be a policy, the intent of the AWB Check Page is to prevent unauthorized bot programs from being run so the question arises as to who, if anyone, gave MechQueste authorization. Is MechQueste, or any other Content Moderator, allowed to just add anyone they want to the AWB Check Page simply because they have the permission level needed to edit the page? If so, then why do we have a Request for Permissions Bot section that links to https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Help:Bot which outlines the restrictions against unauthorized bots?
On 21 June 2020: MechQueste edited a dozen pages using AutoWikiBrowser, which appears to contravene Harry_Potter_Wiki:Multiple_accounts#Bots policy - "Bots MUST be approved by a bureaucrat or administrator before being used on the Harry Potter Wiki." MechQueste has commented that because this policy states "A Bot is an automated user controlled by another user" that it is not strictly against the policy to use AWB on your main account (if you somehow have gotten your name added to the AWB Check Page to do so). Obviously, the concern about unauthorized automation is not limited to which account it is run on - using automation on your main account is not somehow safe while using it on a second account is somehow more dangerous. This appears to be a lawyerly attempt to invoke the letter of the law as a means of violating the spirit of the law. Regardless, it raises the question as to why is it so difficult for MechQueste to just explain to the community up front what they are doing and request their permission? (For comparison, here is my bot request made where I outlined how it worked, what I hoped to accomplish, answered questions, and took suggestions on other tasks that might be possible)
Given this chain of events, and the original invalid vote held, I am requesting that MechQueste's Content Moderator rights be removed until a proper vote is held so the community can fully weigh in on this candidate. While this may seem like I am singling MechQueste out, in fact this is exactly what I asked about recently when Cavalier One had hurriedly granted Yechezkelb Content Moderator rights based on an open vote only two days old. Ultimately, after some discussion, a new vote in accordance with the Voting Policy was held and the Content Moderator rights restored.
In order to save us time on the predicted objections to me in particular requesting a vote: Yes, on 7 December 2017 then-Bureaucrat Starstuff granted me admin rights without my requesting them or a vote being held. This came about after my spending more than a few months of near daily activity working to maintain the site and make what small improvements I could, while all the Administrators and Bureaucrats were largely inactive. Apparently my nomination for admin had been under discussion for Bureaucrats at the time and so this assignment of rights was supported and endorsed. Until now, there has never been a complaint and somewhat ironically if there was a vote held then, it would have been before either MechQueste (16 April 2018) or RedWizard98 (18 November 2018) had opened their account, so they would likely still have an administrator now that they didn't get a chance to vote for or against.
For clarity, there is no policy requiring a vote always to be held for new permissions and Bureaucrats regularly grant rights to users as they deem necessary including rights for Rollback, Discussion Mods, Content Mods, and even at least one other Admin as I understand it (but Cavalier One and Grunny would have the full story there). Bureaucrats have the responsibility to recognize positive and productive contributors and have the right to grant permissions as needed to enable them to better serve the community.
Sorry for the long post, but I strongly believe we must first resolve this situation and put our policies and our shared commitment and support for them back on stable ground before we consider any possible changes to them. I'd much appreciate the community's input on this matter of concern. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 09:10, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- I think what happened at RFP has shown a giant need to specifically define what process users have to go through to be granted permissions, and what tools they can go ahead and use if they do get it granted. Perhaps we could call it a User Rights Policy so it's very easy to find and in one place.
- I think misunderstandings have happened due to unofficial rules which need to be official Policy so they are easier to find. That's what every issue noted above boils down to in the end, and I personally think it's the very root cause of our issues. What happened shows how users (including admins) can't keep telling other users what's right and wrong without a clear Policy in place to back it up. Going forward, anything to be enforced needs openly debated and added to Policy. However minor it appears, we need it outlined so people can have confidence in what they do.
- So to address one concern, it's within a Bureaucrat's right to grant anyone permissions without a community vote. But it needs to very clearly say they can do so in our Policy and everyone needs a way to find out why they did so. It provides security to the user they granted it to, and a better understanding for other users. And, it needs to say AWB can't be used by anyone other than an approved Bot account.
- Users who have been granted permissions need to be very aware of what they can and can't do right away. The increased usage of tools on HPW needs a specific set of rules. So a clear Policy for everyone to go through should start things off in the best, possible way. We can't keep contacting people to say they've done something wrong, when they couldn't have even seen a clear Policy saying so. If it's in Policy, warnings and blockings for intentionally continuing to do things defined to be wrong can be rightfully enforced instead of argued about even up to a year later.
- I have put together a number of issues caused by unofficial rules so that we can update our Policy (e.g. Voting Policy) and add new Policies (e.g. a Discord Policy). I have noted down points for my proposed User Rights Policy too, and I would appreciate it if I could share it and get feedback. So, the sooner we can get back stable ground before we consider any possible changes, then the sooner we can find a solution for everything and everyone can go forward. - Kates39 (talk) 12:14, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
I’ve removed my content moderator tools here. MechQueste 14:34, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Kates39 here on establishing a User Rights Policy, which could cover how user permissions for bots, admins, mods, and even bureaucrats are given to a user. We established a process for electing Discussions Moderators a little over a year ago (with the help of Ironyak1), which you can read about here. It has seen some good successes throughout the time it has been around, and I think if we made a policy like this for all other user rights it would definitely help us out. We also had a discussion of these methods for voting for new Dmods, which you can find here. I think establishing clear and concise rules around User Rights on this wiki would definitely help all of us out, as that seems to be the center of what all of the drama has been about. Cheers, -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
15:59, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
I really don't think anyone should hold a position of authority on this wiki if they were never democratically elected to their position. That is insulting towards all the others who had to undergo the democratic election process. I think this should change.--RedWizard98 (talk) 16:05, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- That would also be kind of insulting to the user who worked so hard to gain their rights if they weren't democratically elected, would it not? -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk 16:09, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
I have to admit MechQueste that was not the reply I had expected. All this at least has served to strongly highlight that the need for a policy review, update, and expansion is long overdue with the end goal that the policies and procedures used here are clear to everyone and are fully supported and upheld by the community. I hope everyone will participate in this project and lend their voice to shaping how the Harry Potter Wiki governs itself in the years to come. To that end it sounds like Kates39 has already thought ahead on this - do you want to share what you have so far? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:19, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- So you are saying you think that wikis should be run by unelected officials with zero accountability. That is not democracy, it is a sham. If genuine democracy existed, people would vote for people to be elected to their position; the community might agree to have them in charge, but then again they might decide they don't want them in charge. The notion that you folk in charge think that your positions grant you so much unlimited and unquestionable privilege is so absurd in my mind, that you think should be subjected to no accountability checks and be allowed to whatever you please, whilst hypocritically claiming to represent your communities whose views you purportedly claim to value so much. I also think that people elected or appointed to positions in charge, should be subjected to annual re-elections so normal users can hold them to account for their performances, and then re-elect or demote them. This could also allow for new people to elected constantly, which would broaden opportunities for users and to ensure that power does not become concentrated in the hands of a small few. That would highly democratic, but I guess folk in charge would prefer to be unaccountable overlords.--RedWizard98 (talk) 16:24, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Actually I can see the value in there being sustained activity requirements for keeping extra rights and permissions, like some other wikis have established, and can envision a recall process by which a community can pursue removing rights from users that have misused them (does anyone know if other wikis have a formalized process for this?) As this topic seems of interest to you I would hope you continue to provide feedback about it and we can see what the community might want to establish in this regard. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:35, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like Wookiepedia has something of the like: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Requests_for_removal_of_user_rights -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk 16:45, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like Wookiepedia has something of the like: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Wookieepedia:Requests_for_removal_of_user_rights -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
- Wookiepedia also has this.
- So to address one concern, it's within a Bureaucrat's right to grant anyone permissions without a community vote. But it needs to very clearly say they can do so in our Policy and everyone needs a way to find out why they did so. It provides security to the user they granted it to, and a better understanding for other users. And, it needs to say AWB can't be used by anyone other than an approved Bot account.
- This, in my opinion, is a must add to the policy.
- As Harrypotterexpert101 said, the voting policy on HPW Discussion Board (Dboard), has so far been successful and has seen 4 uses as well. I do have a concern with this policy tho. It states that the eligibility should be 20 discussion board posts. This is a very easily achievable target that any user trying to game the voting can create a new account and have 20 posts and vote. I would suggest we increase this number to 100, with 20 posts (not comments) and the account's first contribution should be atleast a week old. I would recommend the that a combination of time and edits should be applied on the wiki voting policy as well. instead of 20 main space edits the requirement should be lifted to 35 or 50. The first contribution of the account on the wiki should be atleast 2 weeks old.
- I am strongly in favour of a Discord policy. --Reverb frost (talk) 17:14, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
I am very glad that we are holding this policy review! I think the best way to move forward, in my opinion, is to target this thread as a place to brainstorm ideas about what policies we want to add (example: Policy for Discord) or what policies we can remove (Example: HPW:IRC ) and what policies can be reviewed or updated from the existing ones. After that the ideas be broken down into parts and have a separate discussion for each. Here are some ideas from me:
- Having an editing project forum with policies or reviving the existing ones. Our wiki is really big and has a good traffic of new editors. Having small projects like typos or tenses clean up for new editors or big ones like the WantedPages allows users to learn from editing and gives them experience. A good way to engage editors to a franchise that has it's mainline closed.
- Remove IRC policy. I am not sure what this policy was. It seems very old to be honest. Maybe revew it and if needed, remove it? --Reverb frost (talk) 18:19, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the examples Harrypotterexpert101 and Reverb frost! Not surprisingly Wookiepedia is ahead of the curve on these things and already has some time-tested Policies which we can consider mirroring or adopting with modifications for use here.
- I agree that with the scope of this review it's going to be necessary to probably outline the items of interest here and then break things down into more focused threads to better track everyone's input. I can play secretary for this and do some meeting management as needed just to help keep things organized. Let me start gathering items up and getting a list made. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:41, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
Well, if this forum is about things that may or may not be missing from policies - one particular question I have noticed being asked recently pertains to notability guidelines around family pages - here, for example, the Grindelwald family page was deleted for the reasoning: "1.8 Does not meet our notability guidelines: Family articles must have 2 members minimum or have been one the Sacred 28", however I cannot find anywhere in any policy where it actually says anything like this? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:56, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- That's definitely one of the conventions that developed over the years and predates my tenure (although it makes sense to me - when you only have one family member what are you going to put on the Family page that isn't already on the one member's page?) However I agree that if everyone still agrees with this approach it should be part of the Notability policy and so will add it to the list for review. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:21, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
I have based my proposed User Rights Policy on issues which have been raised by everyone on a couple of Forums. Any point can be changed if need be. Feel free to think of anything which can be added too. A User Rights Policy could say:
- Users seeking extra permissions need to contact an admin or Bureaucrat first, and shouldn't open their own vote. Voting Policy should be followed.
- We need to detail what scripts a Content Moderator can use.
- AWB shouldn't be used by anyone other than a Bot account that has been approved by an admin or Bureaucrat. Until a user has been granted a Bot account, they cannot be added to the Check Page.
- Approved users have to use their Bot account to use AWB. They should not use any other account to do so.
- Bureaucrats can grant rights in special situations without a community vote if they see a need for it and the user has long-term positive and productive contributions.
- User Rights can be taken away if they are abused. Wookiepedia's guidelines look good so we could enact our own version, but expand it to include every kind of User Right.
I think Harry Potter Wiki:Administrators could be expanded and start to include when, how and why a user was granted permissions, especially if a Bureaucrat granted it without a vote. It should state it's within their right to do so too.
To that end, our Voting Policy needs to be updated too. I would add:
- A vote has to stay up for seven days. It ends on the seventh day at 0:00 (UTC).
- The admin or Bureaucrat who opened a vote needs to close, tally and archive the vote.
- Perhaps something about what to do if serious concerns get brought up in a vote, and when and why a vote can be closed if that happens.
Then we have a need to update our other Policies / add new Policies:
- We definitely need a Discord Policy. TimeShade suggested FANDOM find it "preferable" that the consent of any user involved in a Discord discussion should be given before their conversations are shared anywhere else. If a party declines to give consent, their username should be censored.
- We have a heading called Style in our General Policy, but I think we need a separate page for that kind of thing. Lots of wikis have a Manual of Style for that. It will stand out better and be easier to find, and Wookiepedia and Arrowverse have good ones.
- And we need to add that we use Sentence case per our debate at Forum:Magical abilities and skills redux.
I think the Notability guidelines needs to be updated to include a few new rules:
- We need a point about avoiding unnecessary WantedPages and Files. It should be the responsibility of the user who renamed or deleted it to check what links to the original page, and update or unlink appropriately.
- Family pages can be created when a family has two known members.
- Could be a good place to put how long spoiler headings stay up for, but we will need to decide how long.
And I think the No personal attacks policy should include a point like: "Users cannot use disparaging language in any situation, including in edit summaries". So that's what I have for now - sorry for how long it got! - Kates39 (talk) 20:32, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Kates39 - you clearly have thought through this at some depth! Let me try to arrange these points with the list of other topics mentioned and come up with a way of splitting them out into separate threads that hopefully will be a bit easier to follow and more productive. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:08, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
The policies on the wiki need updating. A lot of things were established early one nad suited it then but it has not quite well worked well for people more than a decade later, resulting in numerous ad hoc policies enforced as if they are formalized. TO that end, I have proposed a few set of changes to them
Regarding the userrights section of the user policy,
- Everyone who desires an advanced userright has to request through the Request for permissions page
- Bureaucrats are allowed to unilaterally grant tools to people in times of exceptional circumstances, with the understanding that the beneficiary goes through the same community request for permissions in the future.
- AutoWikiBrowser restricted to bot accounts. If a person wants to user it on their main account, it would require a community approval and approval of administrators. No exceptions.
- Removal of permissions requires a community discussion via forum. All allegations must be backed up with proof. It should be the last resort discussion.
As for certain users with elevated policy, there needs to be a slight refresh of the Voting policy, as it has some inconsistent language.
- A vote has to last at least a full 7 days. It starts from the time stamp of the initial edit for a request.
- For a discussion for request for permissions, it starts from the moment a user requests it, and it can last 7 days.
There has been controversial discussions regarding privacy of Discord. To that end I propose these set of policy.
- The Discord is on a different platform. Discussions there does not affect the wiki.
- "preferable" that the consent of any user involved in a Discord discussion should be given before their conversations are shared anywhere else. If a party declines to give consent, then it must be censored.
There should be a general Manual of Style. We could base the HPW manual of style from the corresponding pages of the Star Wars Wiki, Star Trek Wiki, and Arrowverse Wiki. Those are fantastic written styles that work. Then there is an explicit integration of Forum:Past/Present tense? .
- I have to disagree with this somewhat. While for historical events and biographies of characters this makes sense, it does not make sense for general concepts, as magic canonically is still going on. It's not like it's ended, so while it's not a terrible idea in and of itself, there's heavy nuance and should be heavily moderated and considered rather than plastered on everything. In the example of the Star Wars wiki, it takes place "a long time ago," so it makes sense for everything to be in the past tense. Besides past events, magic is still ongoing in the present in Harry Potter. It's not like it suddenly stopped. More details about my feelings on this on my page. Oerk (talk) 20:54, October 4, 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the User policy, there is a section that says a user cannot make their userpage their main set of contributions. I reason it could be expanded to say it cannot extend past 15% of their entire set of contributions in the User: namspace. This includes subpages, not just their userpage.
Regarding wizards and witches, if we do not know where they specifically are from, the forum post Forum:Birthplace and nationality needs to be settled so that there would be a unified format. For now, the suggested format is just proposed, although not entirely finalized.
There could be a miscellaneous section that points to several things.
- Avoiding unnecessary entries in the WantedPages and Files, and cleaning it up when needed.
- Spoilers and how long it stays on pages.
That is my entire set of proposals to update the Policies on the Harry Potter Wiki. MechQueste 21:48, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks MechQueste, I'll add your notes to the outline. Should have a list of items to consider how best to prioritize and tackle before too long. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk)
Okay, so I've gathered the notes together and have this list of Policies along with who commented on them in one way or another. I've linked together a couple items that likely need to be discussed in conjunction. Please let me know if I missed anything.
- User Rights Policy - (Kates39, Ironyak1, RedWizard98, MechQueste)
- Voting Policy (Kates39, Reverb frost, Ironyak1, MechQueste)
- Discord Policy (Kates39, Reverb frost, Ironyak1, MechQueste)
- Content Moderator Policy (Kates39, Ironyak1, MechQueste)
- Bot Policy (Kates39, Ironyak1, MechQueste)
- Style Manual (Kates39, Ironyak1, MechQueste)
- Layout Guide (Ironyak1)
- Notability Policy (MrSiriusBlack, Kates39, Ironyak1)
- User Policy re: allowed contributions here as a % of total contribution (MechQueste)
- Three-revert rule Policy (Ironyak1)
- Wiki Projects page and possible related Policies (Reverb frost)
- IRC Policy removal (Reverb frost)
- Blocking policy review re: as compared to Wookiepedia (Ironyak1)
I think we may have too much to tackle all at the same time so would suggest that we prioritize them and focus on a smaller set to start. Thoughts are welcome as to which are the higher priority items. Once that is decided I will create a new thread for each with all the related notes that have been submitted.
However, I am going to wait about 24 hours before starting any of these new threads to give time for other users to catch up given differing time zones and other commitments. Everyone is welcome to discuss priorities or additional items that should be reviewed in the meantime.
Thanks to everyone for your well-thought-out feedback - I think we are off to a good start! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:56, July 16, 2020 (UTC)
- I personally would like to review the Multiple Accounts Policy with the community. While there are certain rules in place, there isn't really any established consequences for what happens to alternate accounts. Do they need a template in their profile saying that they are an alt? Do they need to be on the list of users recognized as people who have alts? If so, what are the consequences if they don't/aren't? Not only that, what happens when a regular user makes a sock puppet account whose sole purpose is to harass users/troll/vandalise articles? Would you indefinitely block the sock puppet and ban the user according to policy? These are questions that I have had and our policy does not answer.
- I think that we should tackle the User Rights Policy, Content Moderator Policy and Discord Policy first, given that those were the center of all of the chaos that ensued over the past few weeks and apply on a regular basis. They also are the things that currently are non-existent. That is just me, though. Cheers, -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk 01:29, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
- All the proposals proposed by MechQueste would be a much needed breath of fresh air this stagnated website requires. I support them in full. --RedWizard98 (talk) 02:07, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
- User Rights Policy, Content Moderator Policy, Admin/B'crate Policy and Discord Policy should be considered very Important. Voting Policy, Bot policy, Three revert rule, Blocking Policy and Wiki projects should be considered Important. Then we should give importance to Style Manual, Layout Guide, Notability Policy and Multiple accounts policy. IRC could be considered a small policy update and hence would be good to start with. This is my view on the sequence of how we should handle these. -- Reverb frost 06:13, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good Ironyak! I second what HPE101 and Reverb frost suggested. A User Rights Policy should be sorted out first, and it ties in nicely to Content Moderator Policy, Bot Policy and Voting Policy. That will cover the root of what happened, and get everything to an official understanding.
- I think IRC was what wikis used before Special:Chat. Now, we have Discord. I think we could address getting rid of IRC Policy and establishing a Discord Policy in one go. So that could be second. Then we should look at updating the Blocking Policy, and adding a Three-revert rule Policy should be looked at (I like that idea! It's a rule I have been using). Then we can devise a plan for looking at our other suggested Policies, like Manual of Style. - Kates39 (talk) 10:26, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Harrypotterexpert101 - I've added Harry Potter Wiki:Multiple accounts to the list for review and clarification - I agree it's always been somewhat vague.
It sounds like most people want to start with the Users Rights Policy so I'd suggest that it along with the Voting Policy should come first as they are intertwined and changes to one would likely affect the other. I'll get those threads prepped for posting. Based on how that goes we can pick the items of next highest importance that either follow on naturally from previous changes or are of more immediate need to the functioning of the site. Thanks everyone for their attention and effort here! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:10, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
- Discussions is a part of the Harry Potter wiki and has quite a few policies of its own. Such as the Voting Policy. Finding such policies is quite hard on Dboard without a search engine. We usually have to go through a hoop of links to get there. Having a page specifically designed for Dboard policies, role of DMods, Links to all votes and links to all important posts etc would be helpful. The content of it may not necessarily require community vote for previously decided matters as they are barely a year old. But matter like the Voting policy for Dboard may require reviewing to up the requirements for a vote. -- Reverb frost 16:05, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Reverb frost here, actually. I think having a specific page explaining Discussions and listing our policies would be ideal to link to, instead of what we are currently doing. Thoughts? I know a lot of editors don't necessarily engage in Discussions at all, but that is okay :). -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk 16:13, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Reverb frost here, actually. I think having a specific page explaining Discussions and listing our policies would be ideal to link to, instead of what we are currently doing. Thoughts? I know a lot of editors don't necessarily engage in Discussions at all, but that is okay :). -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
- I don't want to speak much on the main site policy neither as why Ironyak1 was given admin rights with no vote held but my concern is Discussions board. Very clearly, the policies made on how to choose mods are not being run as it should. While users may claim that it was a sucess, I don't believe it to be the one. If a user is nominated and gains enough votes by the community then as per policy he should have been given the mod rights but apparently this is not the case. Dmods tend to pass a user for nomination then goes forward to create a drama by voting against them. I want that in future, if Dmods are not happy with a user to be promoted as a Dmod then they should not pass the user's nomination for community votes at all. I hereby want that the policy made on Discussions should be reviewed once again to prevent drama by Dmods of the wiki. It is rather insulting that Dmods attack users going for nomination and an admin closes the vote by going against policies made on Discussions.
Newt Strike Talk Contribs 08:07, July 18, 2020 (UTC)
I would like to point out a fact that HP wiki and HP Dboard while are a part of the same community, are run and governed by different set of rules and patterns. While the wiki part is a bit more strict or should I say more in detail, given the complexity of the platform as relative to the Dborad, the Dboard has very easy rules. The users contributing on both sides have a different mindset about rules. And most of the rules and the policies of the Dboard are predefined and non-votable. Some such as the voting policy can be achieved by voting. I would like to request that we keep Discussion Board out of this policy review completely for the time being. The policies were established merely a year or so ago and are very fresh. The reason why I say this is because we don't have a need for the review in the first place. The policy has served 4 votes or more and all of them have been successful. But IF we were to review the policies, as advised by them admins I would request we conduct them on the Discussion Board instead. The policy update regarding Voting, Dmods, etc directly affect the users of Dboard and they should be able to vote. Very few discussions are editors or are aware of the editorial wiki. So it would be advisable that we keep all votes regarding the Dboard on Dboard. -- Reverb frost 08:59, July 18, 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, great. More rules. Yay.
- I realize there's a need for order, but this kind of thing historically just gets in the way of the sharing of information, and it gets in the way of people's fun, too.
- Tyrekecorrea (talk) 13:31, July 18, 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that point Reverb - Discussions is its own ecosystem in many ways, although I would like to make sure they have the opportunity to provide input on these issues that affect the whole site and all of its users. However, I would suggest that we take any items pertaining specifically to Discussions that are raised and group them together into a separate Discussions Policy list that can be handled as a group and as needed presented to the Discussions community for review. Can you check in with the other Discussions Mods and see if they are on board with that approach as well? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:42, July 18, 2020 (UTC)
This may not be entirely relevant to what's going on here, but as this particular forum is about policies in general - thoughts on whether this particular line about page moves and rewrites should be expanded at all? There has been a lot of page moves by non-admins recently, and while the vast majority of them were correct, there has to be a reason why that line is there in the policy, and it could do with being a bit clearer about it. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 23:02, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
- As noted there is a general principle - do you have a specific suggestion on how to clarify or improve it? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:29, July 20, 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that section doesn't even mention renaming pages, other than in the header. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 12:51, July 21, 2020 (UTC)
- I can add Harry Potter Wiki:Policy for a general review, but what we need is specific suggestions on how the policy text can be rewritten and improved. Please think about what you feel the text should specifically say or not say so other can review and provide feedback as needed. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk)
- Well I'm not 100% sure on that the rules surrounding page renames are actually supposed to be. I work on the assumption that {{Rename}} exists for a reason, but there are still renames carried out by non-admins without consulting anyone. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 12:18, July 22, 2020 (UTC)
Could we also have a policy in which people have to fill out summary information before an image is uploaded to this wiki? So many users do not bother to give their uploaded image files any summary information and this is not following image policy and is rather lazy, especially when others go to such high lengths to follow it, like myself.--RedWizard98 (talk) 20:54, July 20, 2020 (UTC)
- So Harry Potter Wiki:Image policy outlines the requirements for uploaded Images and the consequences when such information is not provided. What exactly are you proposing be added to the policy? And again do not attack other editors as being lazy - I would hope I would not have to repeat this yet again. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:34, July 20, 2020 (UTC)
I also find it beyond incomprehensible that apparently references are not compulsory requirements for articles. This is a very low standard and I'm not surprised that they are so many articles that still lack them and that nobody seems even remotely bothered in fixing this. References should be a basic compulsory requirements for articles; we need to increase our standards increase so we become one of the finest wikis in the whole fandom network with no tolerance for poor standards.--RedWizard98 (talk) 21:41, July 20, 2020 (UTC)
- Suggestion to require References added to the outline for discussing the Style Manual & Harry Potter Wiki:Layout guide. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:37, July 20, 2020 (UTC)
Another thing that is often mentioned, and indeed conducted, is the infobox image in articles not being allowed to be changed without a vote in the respective article's talk page - something I agree with - however I can't find where it actually says this in policy, unless of course I've simply completely missed it - MrSiriusBlack Talk 12:51, July 21, 2020 (UTC)
- This falls under the general article changes that have been voted on mentioned in Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy - "In many cases, changes to community-wide policy and/or changes to individual articles are determined by a vote. [...] When an issue is settled by either of these methods, attempts by any individual to counteract or violate these decisions without community support (as determined by a renewed discussion of the issue with participation equal to or greater than the original discussion) will be considered vandalism/disruptive editing under the blocking policy."
- While infobox images are one of the items potentially voted on, there may be others as well, like the article name or other details. How do you suggest such voted for items could be better highlighted or explained in the policies? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:03, July 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Does the rule calling for a vote on things like infobox images cover all articles, or does it only apply to major articles like the main characters', and not lesser pages like this? - MrSiriusBlack Talk 12:18, July 22, 2020 (UTC)
I mentioned this elsewhere, but want to bring attention to it here as well. For these porposed Policy changes, currently we are just discussing and drafting possible changes; however, a community vote ultimately will be needed to adopt any of these proposed changes. Also during this drafting process we will likely have some small votes that everyone can participate in to figure out how to reconcile proposals for different subsections. My current thought is to take about a week on each Policy to gather input and ideas, then take a week to perform the votes necessary to discuss and reconcile the different section proposals, then based on the results, draft a complete new version of the policy that should be available for a community vote to adopt or not. If the new policy is not adopted, the reasons against the policy changes can be used to draft another new version for subsequent consideration. Hope this makes sense - please let me know if there are questions. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:31, July 21, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm moving these comments to this thread from here as they belong to this thread.
- Please explain how the Forum:Policy Review "was really a demotion request"? Who made this request and at whom was it directed? TimeShade never brought this idea up in their request so their understanding and expectations may have differed? As already explained, Bureaucrats have always had the ability to promote users as needed and both current Bureaucrats have utilized this right many times, as have others previously. Your attempts to cast any granting of rights as wholly exceptional and improper, does not align with either the permissions given the Bureaucrats on all Wikia/FANDOM sites, nor their historical use here. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:06, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- RE:"Please explain how the Forum:Policy Review "was really a demotion request"? Who made this request and at whom was it directed?"
- I think MechQueste is referring to this:
- "Given this chain of events, and the original invalid vote held, I am requesting that MechQueste's Content Moderator rights be removed until a proper vote is held so the community can fully weigh in on this candidate."
- Cavalier One, a bureaucrat, appointed MechQueste a content moderator. How does this not align with the permissions given to the Bureaucrats on all Wikia/FANDOM sites?
- Anyway, I only replied to clarify what Mech meant, I do not wish to deviate this discussion from the forum topic. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 17:41, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Seems odd, again, that you are speaking for another user, but as this re-discussion is not about the drafting of the User Rights Policy, either please direct it either to Forum:Policy Review where it was originally discussed, or start a new Forum topic. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:56, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't speaking for anyone, I was merely clarifying something that was obvious to me. Also, no need to point out that that was off-topic, as I literally said so myself :P Apologies, I shall say no more on the matter. - MrSiriusBlack Talk 18:34, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then don't be surprised if admins hand out tools without consulting you. MechQueste 20:45, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was requested to step in for this discussion.
In regards to users gaining additional rights without a community vote is counterproductive to the latest discussions for the policy reviews. All new administrators/content moderators, etc should be ingressed through community votes. This is important, as the community should have as much say as an administrator. If they feel a user should be respected enough to earn additional rights, they should have no problem going through the process.
In terms of removal of rights, there are some good guidelines there, but some concerns, such as another admin/bureaucrat being able to extend. I can anticipate some concerns that the community at times may feel they might be delaying a demotion. I'm willing to offer my hand to help oversee the removal of rights as a neutral third party if the community likes.
Lastly, I noticed the new proposals have been up for over a month now, and some users contacted me privately that they feel they've elongated long enough. I'll keep their identities confidential but as there is a preference for these policies to be wrapped up ASAP, how does the end of the month sound?—TIMESHADE |Talk/Wall| - |C| 21:23, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- We have spent considerable time discussing and then voting for the new User Rights Policies as an entire community. If there were critical issues with the proposed procedures, then the time to bring them up was with the entire community during that extended process. To now use private messages to request that a new procedure be used is the antithesis of community consensus. A couple users' complaints should not hold more weight than the dozens of hours invested by several members of this community backed for formal votes held in accordance with local policies.
- If by "new proposals" you mean the User Rights Policy , then the goal is to get this to a vote this week, once the drafting language review is done. That would place its final outcome happening near the end of the month and would put in place community-decided methods for handling the entire gamut of Gaining, Maintaining, and Removing of Rights. As I understand it, this is what was asked for and what everyone has been working towards. If there are other "new proposals" being referenced, please let me know so their details can be discussed.
- PS - As for the point raised by about "admin/bureaucrat being able to extend" a vote related to demotion, this is allowed for in the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy - "The Administrator who opened a vote can extend its duration by 7 days should more time be needed to handle ongoing and unresolved discussions." - for which I would guess one or more than one of the people privately objecting to you directly voted their support . These Policies are established through community consensus and cannot be abridged by any single person, which is of course the whole point of making community-supported Policies. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:47, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- What I fail to understand is why in the world all of this is coming up during the drafting process of the policy review and did not come up in the discussion. There was no shortage of input given, so why didn't the users in question speak up then? We have to go off a community consensus, not a few users who are partisan on how things should be taken care of around here. That's just me, though. -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
22:21, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- What I fail to understand is why in the world all of this is coming up during the drafting process of the policy review and did not come up in the discussion. There was no shortage of input given, so why didn't the users in question speak up then? We have to go off a community consensus, not a few users who are partisan on how things should be taken care of around here. That's just me, though. -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
- I support TimeShade's involvement, and a new approach going forward. I don't see why a new approach can't be sought now. If the time to discuss issues about our procedure has passed, the policy updating would be over. It should still be able to evolve. Updating policies is an important task, and everyone should have confidence in the process. He's our community manager. We still have other things to get through, so a new approach will be good.
- I don't support changing the language of the policies that have in fact been voted in. They have been understood and voted for by the community so far, and the authors had worked on the wording. We shouldn't be changing anything again and we shouldn't be having yet a fifth vote for the User Rights Policy. It's confusing, and very elongated.
- I feel we have had a shortage of input lately. I myself voiced my disappointment in our latest vote about communication. The community had over two weeks to voice feedback to the proposals, but didn't until the vote had started and the proposals couldn't be changed. I would like to avoid that happening again, and I hope TimeShade's involvement will help guide it back to a productive way. - Kates39 (talk) 13:41, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- Also, the policy review started on the wrong foot. It should have been purely about updating the policies, not correct great wrongs until afterwards. MechQueste 14:24, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should clarify- I have no problem with TimeShade being involved (quite the contrary), however, it is somewhat frustrating to a lot of people (including myself) that a few users now get to decide for the community via direct messaging when and where we close votes and discussions. I can't say that I myself have taken part in a lot of these discussions, for that I apologize, as I have been pretty busy with school and everything, but I don't see how one or two users calling the shots is best for the community. -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk 15:30, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should clarify- I have no problem with TimeShade being involved (quite the contrary), however, it is somewhat frustrating to a lot of people (including myself) that a few users now get to decide for the community via direct messaging when and where we close votes and discussions. I can't say that I myself have taken part in a lot of these discussions, for that I apologize, as I have been pretty busy with school and everything, but I don't see how one or two users calling the shots is best for the community. -- Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
- The discussions lasted quite a while. Nothing has been forced other than an invitation for TimeShade to be involved. Maybe its best that I retract my comments above. I'm not interested in commenting further. MechQueste 15:54, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- TimeShade has always been welcome to provide their input about this Policy Review having been invited more than once by myself publicly to lend their experience on guiding a community-opinion gathering process like this. As WikiManager, it makes sense that they would have familiarity and background with various options and approaches to consensus building, so if going forward they want to highlight or walk us through some of those examples they have found to work best, I'm sure we would all benefit from that expertise.
- However, being WikiManager doesn't give them any right to override or nullify the community votes held and create new Policies or procedures unilaterally, which is what is being asked of them in removing whole sections of Policy proposals, or in changing the wording of existing Policies. The Policies apply to all users as they represent the collective agreement of the community and cannot be ignored or side-stepped for expedience based on the suggestions of a couple users voiced outside the public view.
- While I agree with Kates that holding another vote on one or more of the proposals seems excessive, if enough people agree it is needed, then that is the most clear and direct way to re-establish community consensus. Do others think this is necessary? --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:15, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, a select few users reached WM TimeShades via DMs (which we can not rectify what the words were used should either party have misread the words or something else) and neither do we have an exact number of how many actually reached them. So as long as the number of users who participated in the initial vote come on the wiki and openly oppose the voted in proposal, no changes will happen to any proposal that have been voted in. Simple as that. Rules and policies are same for all and no user with any additional rights has the authority to nullify a voted in proposal.
As for the matter is of lengthy discussion, what is the guarantee that these same users (if there are any users in the first place) won't complain about less time for discussions or being able to made proposals or suggestions? As Kates39 pointed out this happened with me very recently and even tho the proposal was discussed for 3 weeks I was late but I cannot complaint for not being able to make any proposal now, coz I had time, I was just unavailable.
This whole behind the scenes politics is not something that suits to a professional community like ours. If the users have any problem with Ironyak1 kindly request other admins and prove them why should Ironyak1 an admin not be able to do their duty as an admin of holding an moderating a vote and why should they be asked to step back and why should some other Admin take over? We have enough active admins to act as neutral heads should it be proved that the existing one isn't neutral. Just a couple of DMs by unidentified users cannot be the basis for this discussion.
I do agree that we could perhaps work on shortening the time of discussions, but again I wouldn't blame anyone here coz every person here takes their own time and then would stand hand in hand with the complaint of shortage of time. So we as a community perhaps decide that we work collectively to be more punctual when a Discussion is going on.
I am seriously laughing at this mockery of the policies of our wiki like this. Experienced users like RedWizard98, Sammm鯊, Harrypotterexpert101, Ironyak1, Kates39, MechQueste, MrSiriusBlack, Seth Cooper, Sam Hermione, myself and many many others have participated in discussions and/or votes and then some mysterious users from nowhere reach the WM via DMs and that leads to a potential proposal of unilaterally removing a proposal like this! This is counterproductive of what a community actually means. Here we all have spent tireless hours of our time to ensure that everyone gets a say in the policies and now all that work is being asked to be removed? If these mysterious DMs had to reach the WM then shouldn't they have reached when the discussion was going on? Why now? It is these kinds of back talking and dirty politics that are delaying and wasting the time of the wiki and it's users, not the policy update itself.
Applogies I may have got carried away a bit but this very request was hard to process. I have no issues with them taking over but that would be highly unethical given that the current moderator of discussions hasn't been proven to be wrong and even if that was the case then we have other admins and Bcrates. Timeshades is an expert on policy updates as I recall many updates to wiki policies on Arrowverse wiki have been done under their (and other admins') guidance so their high expertise is more than welcome in discussions that are moderated by wiki admins. It would actually be helpful to get their view on these matters and interact with them. For those who may not be aware, Arrowverse wiki is where TS is a main Bcrate and along with other admins, they have managed many wiki mergers with Arrowverse wiki successfully and the fact that they are a WM adds a cheery to the top. Their insights on further discussions on policy votes would be highly welcomed especially to avoid these kinds of discussions.
I don't think there is much of a problem with having a ratification vote. Sometimes the users who are making the proposal intentionally or unintentionally add in loopholes and ratification helps make sure that part can be eliminated as well. Users who are making these baseless complaints and accusations behind the back of the entire community should understand that this is the policy update of one of the largest wikis on FANDOM. It may take time to make sure these policies don't end up negating the very work they are meant to do and that is community health and welfare of the wiki. Thanks! -- Reverb frost 17:09, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- I think we need to take a step back, calm down and try to be understanding. I don't know how the wiki keeps ending up in such a place, and I don't like it. It appears to be nothing other than a simple invite for TimeShade to be involved again. They didn't want to do so publicly, and what's happening now probably shows why. It's been difficult to see.
- TimeShade hasn't tried to enforce anything upon anyone. I don't see any demand to scrap policies, to override or nullify anything. We don't know how many people contacted TimeShade, or why each person did so. So, we shouldn't decide they discussed and wanted the exact same things. We shouldn't think every single one discussed and wanted to get rid of any policy.
- I would like the community to just take on board that at least two users (if not higher), feel it has been too long. I just looked - it started in July, and now it's close to October. At least two people would like a new approach. That doesn't mean anything about Ironyak personally - it's to the whole community. I have been very involved in every discussion and vote, and I think it will be a good thing.
- Despite having weeks to do so, the wiki hasn't been very communicative like I pointed out earlier. But now, it's suddenly perked up again. I am glad to see that. So I feel it was worth bringing TimeShade in. He has valuable knowledge and experience in policy processes, and we should have been tapping into it. I still don't feel we have been communicating very well so far, so let's try and work on it.
- It's okay for people to communicate in Discord privately if they would like. I would like to point out many of us have in fact contacted each other privately on Discord. We did so because it can be way easier to communicate. Everyone who contacted TimeShade went privately too, like they have every right to do. So I don't think it's appropriate for users to put people down like that for using a Fandom supported platform to communicate. - Kates39 (talk) 18:40, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- "I would like the community to just take on board that at least two users (if not higher), feel it has been too long. I just looked - it started in July, and now it's close to October. At least two people would like a new approach. That doesn't mean anything about Ironyak personally - it's to the whole community. I have been very involved in every discussion and vote, and I think it will be a good thing."
- While them having their input is fine, I think running over to TimeShade's DMs is not all the productive when it comes to making a community-based decision. I can't say for sure, so I am asking for clarification, but was the length of this process brought up in any public conversations by any users (I don't recall, so please educate me :D)? Not that I disagree with them, but communicating about wiki business via Discord is something we've all said we shouldn't do, and is something we have made very clear in our upcoming Discord Policy. Not meaning to come off as angry or whatever, I am just having a hard time understanding the circumstances.
- However, I also agree with Kates39 that a new approach is needed to get all of this done. Not sure how to go about that though, so perhaps TimeShade could give some insight on how he wants to do that? Thanks, Harrypotterexpert101 Talk 19:25, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- However, I also agree with Kates39 that a new approach is needed to get all of this done. Not sure how to go about that though, so perhaps TimeShade could give some insight on how he wants to do that? Thanks, Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
- Because of the cross-talk, it appears everyone might not be on the same page so I agree it is worth slowing down to review the situation.
- MechQueste posted on the User Rights Policy draft that "The section about bureaucrat discretion can simply be removed" from the User Rights Policy, because s/he found it to be "a mockery to the community, especially me." This is despite it being strongly voted for by the community involved. This demand to scrap a proposal already voted-in simply because a user does not agree with it is what was being referenced earlier.
- In reply to my contacting TimeShade" and inviting him again to participate, he informed us that "a couple users have messaged me (privately)" with their concerns. Who this was or what was said is unclear, but TimeShade's subsequent suggestions appear to be based on their input without any confirmation or clarification of its content or veracity.
- TimeShade then noted: "In terms of removal of rights, there are some good guidelines there, but some concerns, such as another admin/bureaucrat being able to extend. I can anticipate some concerns that the community at times may feel they might be delaying a demotion. I'm willing to offer my hand to help oversee the removal of rights as a neutral third party if the community likes."
- This suggestion runs contrary to the current voted-for Removal of Rights proposal in both "A discussion can be extended by a Bureaucrat or Admin if any serious concerns need to be understood and sorted out first." and "A Bureaucrat should be sought for prior support to implement the winning vote." It also runs contrary to the fully ratified Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy which states "The Administrator who opened a vote can extend its duration by 7 days should more time be needed to handle ongoing and unresolved discussions."
- The proposed solution would circumvent multiple proposals and policies voted for by the community based on the suggestions of a couple private messages. If the community wants to revisit the Removal of Rights proposals and consider how a WM would fit in that arrangement, that is of course possible, but we need several people to agree to this in order to muster a degree of support equal to or greater than the original discussion per the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy. No single user gets to voice their disagreement and override the community consensus established previously.
- As for some of the possible complaints about the process - While some users are saying it is taking too long, others are saying they didn't have a chance to weigh-in on various items. Obviously there is no way to accommodate everyone's schedules and varying levels of interest, but if we want to create a strict calendar when each proposal is announced that can be done. If TimeShade has other informed suggestions or successful examples of how s/he has handled gathering community input and keeping community-consensus projects like these on track, again, s/he is encouraged to share them with us. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk)
- Again, you don't know why each user contacted TimeShade. You don't what they spoke about, what input they gave or what they hoped would happen by doing so. We know one feels unhappy about a section of a policy we have voted in. At least two feel the policy process has been getting too long. They would like TimeShade to be involved.
- I don't think anything has been decided. Despite what people say on Discord or any other place, any changes have to be known and discussed in the wiki first to take effect. Things cannot just be changed. I don't think TimeShade has intended to do that.
- I would like to point out too, we cannot stop or always know what people discuss privately in Discord. While some people don't like community affairs being discussed, others find it okay. It will happen. We can't stop free speech! A fair few of us have contacted each other and even worked through what we want to put on the wiki. Again, it will be known to the wiki one way or the other if they want to try and change anything. I think we could continue that at the Discord Policy discussion.
If this is just a simple invite to the WM to take part in discussions moderated by wiki admins then that could have been done on their talk page. The question is who asked them to stop by and give their valuable and highly experienced insight? No one. They stopped all by themselves. Discussion area was never closed for them (or anyone for that matter) in the first place. If that's the only issue then I don't see what are we still doing here?
See that's the question, who contacted TS (TimeShade) behind the backs of the community and said what, we have no proof of what was said, what was intended, nothing, just that after a couple DMs of some mysterious users the Wiki Manager of Harry Potter Wiki decided to step in and suggest scrapping and vigorously modifying policies that have been voted in already, unilaterally. Without the names or what was said by these unknown users that promted the WM to suggest such actions that in practice would violate our policy is beyond understanding. Unless we get unedited versions of what was said and by whom to who, it's hard to move forward. I say unedited convos of DMs because we do not know in between the time of posting them initially and now what words were addes or taken back. So unless we get unedited versions, it's hard to move any further. These are the very reasons why Wiki business stays on the wiki. Every action is logged and therw to be rectified by anyone, hence proving that there is nothing to hide and no ulterior motive or foul play.
Just because 2 users (as is anticipated by Kates39 not proved anywhere) want a new approach in between a policy review, doesn't give them the right to go behind the community's back and take such actions. Just the same way 2 Administrators can't decide on a spolier policy or make any such decisions alone, no 2 users can do the same. Rules and policies are same for all, unless we have started hippocracy as a practice on HPW, which when I last checked wasn't true.
The users had any problem, they could have reached the current meditator, Ironyak1, and then all other active admins and Bcrates. If even after this they are unsatisfied then perhaps the WM, although it's important to note that a WM is a liaison to FANDOM staff not a local wiki staff. They can give insights and if the wiki is highly dysfunctional then temporarily step in as an Admin and work to appoint a new team ASAP. Last I checked HPW is highly functional. It's just a simple conflict of interest between some mysterious users and the users who took part in various policy updates.
The reason why some users haven't been communicating is because they are probably busy talking behind in the DMs? I mean these mysterious users should have come forward and voiced their opinions clearly and with proper informations. All they had to do was type the same things they typed to the WM, to a wiki admin on their talk page and even if the WM was to be reached in the end, it should have been done via talk page, not secretly behind community's back.
I agree tho, it's fair enough that users communicate via DMs. After all we are humans. But if we are to discuss wiki business which is the business of the wiki and the entire HPW community to the closed room of select few and decide the fates, then why are we all busting our heads like this for days and weeks?! If this can be allowed by the users then we might as well let the admins and by extension other wiki staff sit down and discuss policies all by themselves and implement them like it happens on many many wikis, even on some big wikis as huge as HPW. Any and all wiki matters are to stay on the wiki, by the wiki and for the wiki. Simple as that. Also might I add, FANDOM encourages the use of platforms like Discord in replacement to Special:Chat. They don't officially support it. If they do please let me know where is the press release or the official paper work, I may have missed them. Apologies if I did.
In all, a new approach would perhaps be good. Maybe we can announce a policy update will happen at least a week before the forum is posted so that all interested users can start working in their proposals right away if they haven't already. The admin of that policy update could also specify what is the intent and inspiration behind this update in short so that users know what is to be expected. And after this users are free to discuss matters per the HPW:VP. This would allow us to prepare for policy update forums in advance and be prepared with what we wish to add and start early. And again the policy can be announced as soon as it's posted.
Having a strict Time Table would be difficult given the time zones and real life schedules, you never know which is an exam month for a student or vacation week for a person or any sudden mishaps. But I am not opposed to it especially if there is any proposal that helps overcome these obstacles. Thanks! -- Reverb frost 02:13, September 23, 2020 (UTC)
OK I have given thought to the wiki forums for the better of a few days. Seeing the comments, acts, and just general commentary, I think multiple items must be addressed.
There are many issues ranging from the policy itself, communication, and participation among editors. Problems ranging from
No 1 The Policy itself
A forum to discuss policy changes is fine as is. However, what is not fine is the stepping stone and impetus: a demotion of another user. The forum post started off by the initial belligerent party and fired the first shots with a demand for demotion for proper procedure. All of this over perceived violations of the Voting Policy. All of this fussiness over proper procedure.
Also to mention, there has been talk of admins giving rights to users without needing to go through the community. Since that is rigorously defended, then the user could have been treated as gaining the rights without a community discussion. However, since the voting policy was litigated, it was made with that in mind.
Furthermore, the entire policy review should not have been under the preview of the belligerent party nor it should have been completely meant as a place for a demotion request. Not a personal “correct the wrongs” rant dump for a slight. Not a personal one-man-show forum. No. It should have been purely on policy review. That means, the community decides on a place and time. All editors come and decide on things, and formalize it into policy. Nothing else.
No 2 The Rules
This has to be addressed. Either now, or a separate forum.
There needs to be a fine line between the current established policies, and the de facto standard practice. When exercised practice, it shows a huge disconnect is apparent between what is official and what is not. The policy written forth at Project:Policy are the ground floor and are the pillars of this site. Nothing less and nothing more. Tacked on to the policies are unofficial and not formalized rules that serve as de facto practices existing as rules because they are enforced. This leads to some people who trip over with them and disagree. All of them are not so apparent and people trip over them, not just me.
One example is the spoiler policy and it prescribes that spoiler tags go on for one whole year from theatrical release date (for movies) and the most recent release (video games such as Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite). This 1 year requirement is by far the longest of any wiki that uses them, even among those that employ a definite expiration date. Star Wars wiki has a policy that requires two months. The Marvel Cinematic Universe requires it to display the spoiler template for 1 month. Star Trek has roughly 3 months after the final airing of the episode. Compared to the Harry Potter Wiki, all of them are much shorter and are ingrained in formalized policy, and is enforced' as required. While here on HPW, its not in policy but it is enforced like it is official policy and for 1 year that is exceedingly long.
The other example concerns AutoWikiBrowser. The tool can set in automated mode to create successive edits in small amounts of time. Prior usage of the tools, by me, and the others on the CheckPage lists users who are authorized to use it, including 4 humans. There has been an intense burning inquiry on the Request for Permissions page and elsewhere that described AWB edits was not on an authorized Bot account, amid other commentary. Demands for bot edits on a bot account for now is a personal preference. It is not enshrined in the official policy, nor any other admin had stated in a rather obvious or public manner. The “manner” expressed was not known to *anyone* who observed, and it should not have been held up side by side with policy.
All of this brings me to number 3.
No. 3 Assume good faith
Every communication has to be civil and appropriate with an assumption of good faith, even if small. Recent events have show that good faith has been rarely shown, and displayed. From the Policy Review, to aggressive talk page posts, and to a seemingly mundane removal of protection.
Let me cite an example. If you check the history of File:Ron Weasley.jpg, you will see that admin Cubs Fan2007 applied indefinite admin-level protection to the image. I later deleted it (losing the protection), merge another image, restore the deleted images, and restore the protection. Months later, the protection was removed with the summary “Removed unexplained indefinite protection. This would have been ok if in was not for the protection log here listing me as the most recent entry. Here the protection by the same admin Cubs Fan 2007 was applied in 2015, and removed with the summary “Been a few years – hopefully safe now;). The contrast here while on a review spree failed to account for the any sort of good faith while giving a pass to the existing staff rank.
Then there was the issue of edit warring block for RedWizard98, who was 1 of 2 participants in the edit war. The other belligerent in the edit war had issued the block in the first place, and issued an extension for a personal attack against another user who had been inactive for a year at that point.
There is also the entire list of “problems”, or was it stuff that one does not personally like, listed over at Forum:Recent Quarrel.
Those three examples of bad faith assumption of good faith can be included in a breakdown for communication, something that can improve for everyone.
If good faith was assumed in all three of those situations, the amount of hostility, and feelings would be on a lesser scale, if at all.
No 4 Communication overall
Communication is required. However, failures in proper communication is a problem not constrained to people with extended userrights, although they do account for a significant portion. Let me point out a few prime examples of missteps and faults in communication expressed by everyone, me included. The following are examples shall remain nameless and I will not single them out. Numerous postings by multiple people can simpler and straightforward, and could just leave things off-wiki. There are comments and excuses presented forward that could be accepted but should not be a barrier to constructive manners. These barriers include commitments in education, personal time off, and real life commitments.
Then there are internet habits that could just be separated from talking here on wiki. This includes the act of looking down by questioning the command of another user's English, speaking past each other, ignoring queries by normal users, rambling lengthy long messages that are tough to sort through, general agreements without any sort of independent thought, a lack of ability to understand another person's point of view, asking for others to serve as backup to one's criticism, and the fact of just using rights as an immunity shield to shrug off any sort of criticism of behaviour.
Then there are the break downs of communication where questions are left unanswered, responses with just general refusal to do things, lack of participation, and reaching out to purely inactive users for advice. The there are the personal attacks expressed, frenzied / misguided comments, and not so accurate comments made by people, myself included. Much of the comments said by people are bottled up and need a place to say. This brings me to this place.
No 5 Participation
The wiki is supposed to be a place where all can participate, not to be afraid of saying them.
That being said, there needs to be a strict timeline for participation for select items. A clear timeline or schedule can be created for people who are busy in real life, whether it would be school, or work. That way, they can allocate time, and effort to the forums without forgetting to make a comment.
No 6
Finally, this is the final issue to consider. The Harry Potter Wiki at harrypotter.fandom.com is foremost a fan site where the global community come to read and contribute to the pool of knowledge of the WizardingWorld. People use their spare time and effort on a volunteer site to improve pages, something that have 0 obligation nor mandate to do so, and it comes with zero expectation of compensation. Every editor here wants to improve sites for everyone else, and it is a good spirited nature that it even exists in the first place. However, the site has gotten more serious than it should have been where the worst has gotten the better of us and quite frankly that situation is substandard.
For all of this in mind, I have these set of proposals.
1) TimeShade as moderator for an open forum where anyone can express their feelings here. All the community is invited to comment, discuss, and banter here. It could be anything from personal grievances, suggestions, and just proposals for what their desired achievements.
2) Complete restart of the forum Forum:Policy Review. It started on the wrong foot with the wrong purpose. Have the forum start on the correct path so that a community can reach a satisfactory conclusion. see below my responses to another user.
3) TimeShade moderates everything all the forums when it comes to community discussions. No buts, ifs, and what-ifs. This is an absolute bottom line for a community discussion. The volatile environment here absolute demands it. Policy wording is not a reason to keep the policy reviews in the hands of one person.
4) Demote all the users with extra rights. This includes all administrators, content moderators and rollbacks. For the interim basis until the conclusion of the user rights policy, everyone and I mean everyone will operate as normal users until a resolution can be sorted out. EDIT: Now that I got your attention, I would suggest that all users come to the table and reset their expectations. It is time to reset all the causes and issues that caused the issues leading up to the Quarrel so no more things are built up as is.
5) Everyone step back and do something in real life without the fuss of contributing here. Do something to clear heads, do something else fun, and seriously reconsider if a wiki return is necessary.
Finally, I have a single question for everyone to answer. Why do you care so much for the wiki?
I genuinely wish for the wiki to heal, improve, and continue as the best source of information for the Harry Potter Fandom. However, given recent events, I think that a massive refashioning is in order. If it cannot come to its own reckoning, then the wiki can continue through its downward course of entropy.
MechQueste 18:04, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
- That's a good way to destroy a community. Demote all of the admins and mods? Um I am not sure what to say honestly. TimeShade is by all means allowed to participate in the Policy Review process and help moderate it, however I am pretty sure he doesn't have the power to just demote an entire Staff team without a good reason. Harrypotterexpert101 Talk 20:14, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
- That's a good way to destroy a community. Demote all of the admins and mods? Um I am not sure what to say honestly. TimeShade is by all means allowed to participate in the Policy Review process and help moderate it, however I am pretty sure he doesn't have the power to just demote an entire Staff team without a good reason. Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
- Well, I did expect people to just focus on that proposal and give me grief about it. A medium proposal would just include a reset of people's expectations and start to build a community from scratch. If anyone truly wants to solve issues recently presented after May 2020, then it would be prudent to wipe away all the issues and causes that lead to the events on the RFP page. MechQueste 20:24, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
- I gave you grief about it because it made no sense and it seemed way too extreme. To answer your question, I care for the the wiki because the wiki cares for me. I came the Harry Potter Wiki and have stuck with it all this time because I love the community that is in and around here. I would be in a bad spot in life if it wasn't for a lot of people here, so naturally I consider it my duty to help protect and serve this wiki and do what is best for it.
- Also are you serious about restarting the Policy Review that we have been working on for the past 3 months? Harrypotterexpert101 Talk 20:49, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
- Also are you serious about restarting the Policy Review that we have been working on for the past 3 months? Harrypotterexpert101 Talk
- re Harrypotterexpert101, I am glad and happy for you that the community, both local and global, have been here for you and enriched you with positive experiences.
- Now that I got people’s attention with the two rather intense comments, I think that there needs to be a better forum place, call it Athur’s table, where everyone can be equal, with TimeShade moderating. There we can reset the social expectations, assumptions, and such so that we can totally understand discuss each other, and on a good footing. Then we move forward with knowledge on treating each other on better terms that exhibited.
- As for the restarting the Policy Review, as I said before ‘’this page’’ should not have been attacking another user (me) and demanding that I lose access to the tools, all under the guise of a community review. Might as well rename the page to “Forum:Demote MechQueste so community can review things that admin thought he did incorrectly”. Instead of doing that, the community could have presented a list of items could be discussed into policy. To directly answer whether I am serious about resetting the entire 3 month discussions, no. They have occurred and I will accept them as is, as I have supported a number of them. However, it would better serve the community if ‘’every member’’ presented a list of items they think are issues, so the community can go forward discussing them.
- However, the caveat must be TimeShade controlling them as moderate. MechQueste 21:15, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
- It's hard to sort out what to say about all this. I guess I would simply agree with HPE101's opinion that suggesting dozens of users lose their rights without having done anything wrong, or throwing out months of work and the results of several votes from many users for the User Right Policy, are extreme suggestions and damaging to the community and the consensus it has worked hard to establish. The fact that these proposals would be voiced, but then retracted when challenged, leaves it difficult to figure out what is the sincere suggestion or motive.
- As for the recommendation to "wipe away all the issues and causes that lead to the events on the RFP page", you seem to be the only person raising them again and again for discussion? The bot request has been rehashed again and again above. The Spoiler notices were discussed back in May, with what appears to be a general consensus being reached for using 6 months which can be rolled out for the release of FB3, or further discussion can be had. The attempt to read a personal attack or nefarious intent into the difference between "Removed unexplained indefinite protection" and "Been a few years – hopefully safe now ;)" in those edit summaries strains any notion of "assuming good-faith" in such an interpretation.
- If RedWizard98 wants to raise a discussion of their blocks, I'll let them do so, but to cast them as arising from "a personal attack against another user" overlooks the numerous and repeat issues involved. Similarly, trying to cast this Policy Review as just a "demand for demotion", ignores and dismisses all the work done by many to highlight and prioritize policies of interest to the community and the continual work done on them since that time.
- Would it be better if policies proposals could be resolved quicker? Of course, but with allowing every user to have a voice and with many users taking several days to reply to questions about their proposals, it's hard to move quickly without disenfranchising people. I'd rather be patient with users and gather their input than rush a forced solution through that does not have the demonstrated support of the community.
- TimeShade is, of course and again, welcome to moderate "an open forum where anyone can express their feelings." What the focus or goals for such a Forum would be isn't clear to me, but I guess that would be for TimeShade to sort out and facilitate. However, he, or any other user, is not able to unilaterally change policy that has been established through community consensus, as clearly stated in the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:38, September 25, 2020 (UTC)
- As others have stated, I'm simply not allowed to just remove everyone's rights. As much as I'd like to help moderate these policy discussions, I have other WM assignments as well. I can check in, but I can't be the one overseeing them. —TIMESHADE |Talk/Wall| - |C| 18:55, September 25, 2020 (UTC)
- ok thanks. Timeshade for the comment. Thank you.
- The lengthy comment above was what I wanted to say for a while when I should have earlier. MechQueste 01:36, September 26, 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I could just make a suggestion for the time later. Amid other things, there could be more staffing on this site that makes the operation run better. \
One of the stress points is the balance of power here. Yes, I'm mentioning this. Don't take this as an attack on anyone personally.
I think a few users and the entire wiki in general, could benefit from gaining extra rights. Here is the few I think could change around things.
4 more slots for content moderation. They could be Kates39, MrSiriusBlack, RedWizard98, and an open slot for the community to decide. 3 more slots for admins.
The 3 I have in mind are: Harrypotterexpert101, Reverb frost. And a 3rd slot for the community to decide.
As for discussion mods, put forth Newt Strike as moderator.
With this set of new people, a constant set of users can be here to moderate and contribute here regularly. This is based on the contributions here. MechQueste 18:11, September 26, 2020 (UTC)
- So first you call for dozens of people to be demoted by arbitrary decree, then you happen to have a list of people you want promoted, with a couple slots left open for the community to decide... Again, none of this is how things are done here based on the policies established by the community.
- There are no slots for various roles, implying a minimum or maximum number of positions available, and everyone in the community is welcome to nominate anyone for any position, although the nominee has to confirm their interest in the role. This is all well-established practice and part of the formalized User Rights Policy we are on the eve of voting for so it would be best if we just moved forward in gathering clear community consensus on this Policy instead of proposing ways to circumvent community-established policies and processes again and again. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:17, September 27, 2020 (UTC)
Well, I will wait. MechQueste 12:36, September 27, 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, I know there is a lot going on but I did have an idea about how the RFP might be improved. Is this something that can be added to the Policy Review process? -- Reverb frost 06:20, September 28, 2020 (UTC)
- While anything to do with the Policies and realted processes can be added to the list of discussion items, can I suggest we hold off until the User Rights Policy vote is complete? That way any suggested changes to RFP are handled in a separate, step-wise manner after the final results there, instead of over-lapping and possibly complicating the involved considerations? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:33, September 28, 2020 (UTC)
- Sure thing! Just to clarify, I meant an update to the RFP page, not the proceedings. That has been voted in on Forum:User Rights Policy proposal - Gaining Rights already. And sure just let me know when it would be better to bring it forward! Thanks!-- Reverb frost 06:50, September 28, 2020 (UTC)
Qhat qould be helpful now would be a clarification to the multiple accounts policy. MechQueste 11:18, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
- I can see tackling a Bot policy next that integrates the information on Harry Potter Wiki:Multiple accounts and Help:Bot as the next item to consider. Anyone else have thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
- Good idea! 3 Revert Rule policy and Content Moderator policy as suggested above also seem something we can look into somewhere along with this or after this perhaps. We also have Notability, Layout, Blocking, and couple others as listed above. -- Reverb frost 18:15, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
- Also, to mention, we can start a forum to remove chat, decomission the chat policy, and mark it as archaic. As for the userboxes, they can be removed from userpages as they will be inaccurate. MechQueste 20:38, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
- As a side note, chat will be deprecated, so the policy should be decomissioned.—TIMESHADE |Talk/Wall| - |C| 21:48, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
- The chat is yet to be "removed" but it will be removed even if the community votes against it's removal so I don't see why weneed to utilise all our valuable time to discuss it nd then vote on it. That said I have seen many users still use chat every now and then, so perhaps we should let them enjoy the last few fays of the majestic Live Chat. Lol. And since chat would be retired, all official pages related to it like Policy, Chat Mod, RFP section, User box (These can be updated to "This user was a Chat Moderator pre-UCP when Chat was a feature") etc can be archived, but I would suggest we let things take it's natural course and let chat "Disable itsel". Thanks -- Reverb frost 01:54, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
- Replying in general to the suggestions - I agree that policies and procedures related to Chat will naturally just be deprecated along with Chat after the upgrade to UCP. Without any Chat feature there is no need for such items nor any reason to discuss their removal beforehand. Chat has been given multiple stays of execution recently so might as well let it peaceably live out its remaining days.
- With a couple Content Moderator nominees currently, it's probably best to hold off the Content Moderator policy discussion until after those nominations are complete so any new Content Mods can potentially help shape the policy they would follow. This also opens up the possibility of distributing some of this organizing work among more people so more can be accomplished simultaneously.
- With UCP removing the shared Help pages, like Help:Bot, it makes sense to tackle this in the near term, with Content Moderator policy and perhaps Notability to follow closely behind. I'll start prepping a Bot Forum topic for discussion in the next few days. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:39, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
- Ironyak1, Are you ok if I applied for permissions now? MechQueste 03:03, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
- If you are talking again about Bot permissions, then again those are on hold given the contentious results last time as well as your claims above that there are no policies that restrict or direct the use of AWB (or other automated software) despite the fact that the RFP Bot section directly links to Help:Bot which outlines the process by which the use of such software has to be tested and approved by the community. There is no productive way to discuss a request for such permissions until the relevant policies are reviewed and agreed to by the community, which will begin in the next few days.