Forum:User Rights Policy proposal - Gaining Rights

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > User Rights Policy proposal - Gaining Rights

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.

Kates39 has proposed a User Right Policy to detail the process of how User rights are:

• Obtained (this topic)
• Maintained
• Possibly removed

Please see also Forum:Voting Policy proposed changes as both these Policies are interwoven and affect one another.

Proper record keeping for any changes to User rights are included here for consideration.

Other considerations such the possible qualifications needed for candidates of varying User rights will be discussed subsequent to the resolution of this User Rights Policy proposal.

I've cleaned up and slightly reorganized the original suggestions but kept who originally made a proposal and when so questions can be directed as needed.

For clarity, the term administrators and Administration includes all users with either administrator or bureaucrat user rights.

The numbered list of notes below is not considered complete or all-inclusive and new items can be added as needed.

This Policy Review process and format is a work in progress so suggestions on possible improvements are welcome! --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:56, July 25, 2020 (UTC)

Granting Rights

Proposal 1 (Authors: Kates39, Reverb frost)

• Administrators can grant rights in special situations without a community vote if:
  • They see a need for it.
  • If they see that a user has positive and productive contributions and are impressed.
  • If they think a user with some extra tools will do wonders for the wiki.
• The admin should clearly specify the reasons for skipping the RFP procedure.
• If one admin clearly objects, both the admins have to discuss it for up to seven days to try and find a solution. If they can't, they need to seek counsel or mediation from a third admin and discuss again for up for seven days. Either the user retains their right or it could lead to a community vote at RFP to decide what to do, while the user keeps their rights until it has been decided.
• If at least two other administrators object to the nomination then the user will, while retaining their rights, go through the RFP procedure.

Proposal 2 (Author:MechQueste)

• Administrators can grant tools in exceptional/special circumstances, with the understanding that the beneficiary later goes through the community request for permissions with a required vote in the future.

Proposal 3 (Author:RedWizard98)

• If genuine democracy existed, people would vote for people to be elected to their position

Request for permissions (RFP) Process

Proposal 1 (Authors: Kates39, Reverb frost)

• A user can request they gain a User Right at RFP and can put it on Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for administrator attention or on an adminsitrator's Talk page to ensure administration is aware of it. Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy should be followed.
• A user requesting for user rights can request an administrator to be the Organising Administrator (OA) for a community vote for their request.
• The discussions should go on for at least 7 days before an admin decides to start a vote.
• Once an Admin agrees to be an Organising Admin (OA) then after 7 days of discussion the OA can start a vote. If the nomination doesn't meet requirements or any other such circumstance, the OA, at discretion can dismiss the nomination after clarifying the reason for dismissing the nomination.
• If there is no discussion for 7 days, the request will be considered denied by the community. The user will still be eligible to request again after 1 month of this auto denied request. (Reverb - added 21 July)
• If 2 or more than 2 admins have denied conducting a vote under any circumstance based on the user's actions on the wiki, then the request can be considered denied.
  • Explanation: Of course, if the admins deny because of being busy in real life affairs or are vacationing, or would rather want to be a part of the discussion then this will not be considered denied but passed on.)
• The vote should last for 7 days.
• In this vote, we can have it such that the admin adds in a template with 3 columns or sub-headings. FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN. Users will just have to SIGN under these heads and not add any comments here.
• Any user who has taken part in the discussions but hasn't signed till the end of the vote will be considered abstaining at the time of tally.
• Any user who hasn't contributed to the discussions can be a part of the voting but they will have to add in at least 150-200 words explaining their vote. It is also important to note that just writing words like "I know the users from other wikis." or "they are a very good user" or any words that don't necessarily inform the intent behind the vote will not be allowed. If an explanation is not given then they will be informed on their talk page to do so once by the organising admin. The vote irrespective of this will close as is planned. Non-explanatory votes will be rejected.
  • Explanation: It is quite easy to get your secret alt account to 20 mainspace edits and simply sign under FOR or AGAINST. The spirit to have this policy is to avoid having "friends" or alt accounts from supporting an RFP nomination just based on personal preference or by any illegal means. If we really are talking about users with rights having to be held accountable for their actions, normal users are also to be held accountable for their votes. Their vote decides if a user gets special rights or not so it is important to know why they voted the way they did without participating in the discussions.
• The admin can extend the vote at discretion based as found necessary. But If the vote has to be extended beyond 7-9 days based on questionable behaviour by the user or consensus is not reached or matters raised in discussions are not resolved or any such matters then the OA can close the vote without any changes to user rights.
• The user requesting rights can now again request rights but only after 1 month from the closing of their vote.
  • Explanation: 1 month is based on the date so 12 Feb - 12 March is 1 month as is 12 July - 12 August
• Some rights are exempt from requirement for a RFP and vote such as Rollback & Chat Moderator

Request for permissions Proposal 1 Discussion

Ironyak1 I think this update kinda slipped. Some rights are exempt from requirement for a RFP and vote such as Rollback & Chat Moderator. I updated this line. According to it, only Dmods who have a process of nomination and appointment, be exempted from RFP, while all other user rights including the Rollbacks and Chat Mods go through RFP. Other than this all other proposals are up-to-date! Thanks!--  Reverb frost   04:57, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add to the proposal here.

1. Outside influence: Outsiders or users who are established users elsewhere on FANDOM network but aren't a part of HPW, or aren't HPW regulars. While getting insights from a wide range is very very important, it is also equally important that these users cannot vote on RFPs (something that this line: A user's first contribution (edit or post) should be at least 1 month prior to their vote being cast (one month is defined by the date e.g. 15 February is 1 month prior to 15 March, regardless of the number of days in any given month.) from Voting policy covers it) and should not be allowed to influence the vote. They be allowed to state facts and voice opinions, but not drive the way the discussion/vote is going in. The OA, when finds that an outsider is influencing the vote, can ask them to back off and if they don't then the OA can take disciplinary actions at discretion. Thoughts?
2. OA and the user requesting rights can't vote: While this has been followed on HPW:RFP out of curtsey, I think it would be better if we stated this clearly that the OA(Organising Admin) and the user requesting rights cannot vote.
3. Advertising own vote: Now that we have various ways to advertise votes privately, with Wattpad, Discord, etc it is important to state that users can advertise their votes but only to request other users to cast their votes or give their opinions and not to ask them to vote For or Against themselves or someone else. --  Reverb frost   05:13, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

From point 4,

If the nomination doesn't meet requirements or any other such circumstance, the OA, at discretion can dismiss the nomination after clarifying the reason for dismissing the nomination.

=> What are these requirements and other such circumstances which we are talking about? What is the eligibility criteria? How do we know if the reason given by the admin for terminating the nomination is valid or not? This kind of process lays too much power in the hands of an admin. We must not forget while admins are supposed to be trusted users there are admins who fulfill their egos by having grudges against users. What if they terminate a nomination just because of their grudge against the user?

An alternative solution: Let the community decide if the nomination should be terminated should any circumstances or requirements are not fulfilled. The OA should state their reasons for terminating the nomination and then let the community vote as whether the nomination should be terminated or not. This vote should continue for 7 days after which the real vote may or may not take place depending upon the result of 1st voting.

From point 6,

f 2 or more than 2 admins have denied conducting a vote under any circumstance based on the user's actions on the wiki, then the request can be considered denied.

=> Yet again this would completely take out privileges from a user (who might have done small mistakes in the past ) to gain additional rights.

Alternative solution: The request can be made again after one month of the initial request.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 06:02, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Word "eligibility" has not been used in this proposal. By "criteria" it is supposed to signify the basic criteria mentioned in other proposals and the Voting Policy. -How do we know if the reason given by the admin for terminating the nomination is valid or not?- I suppose the answer to that is by reading the reason given by the admin and understanding it with basic understanding skills. If the community feels that the termination is faulty, they can report it to other admins. The user requesting rights also has 7 days to appeal the terminated vote. -This kind of process lays too much power in the hands of an admin.- In all fairness, admins don't need this process to grant rights. FANDOM company has given them rights to appoint any user they see fit to any position they think is necessary. While this process work on small wikis just fine, on wikis with well-established communities like HPW, RFP adds another way by which a user can get rights on the wiki. So to use the words that you used is not right in my opinion. -We must not forget while admins are supposed to be trusted users there are admins who fulfill their egos by having grudges against users. What if they terminate a nomination just because of their grudge against the user- I haven't found one single admin on HPW to have done that. If you could give examples that would help perhaps. That said if this happened to be a case, there are ways by which the admin could be kept in check. As pointed above termination will be followed by a 7 days time where the user can appeal this termination. While that is just 7 days for the user, the community can raise the concern and request other admins to look into the matter and also report any wrongdoings.

Your wordings again are a bit confusing here:-The OA should state their reasons for terminating the nomination and then let the community vote as whether the nomination should be terminated or not.-You want the OA to terminate the vote and then you also want the community to vote after the OA has terminated the nomination to vote, if the said nomination can be terminated or not? Your proposals seem to be trying to remove admins completely from the equation of handling votes and matters related to it based on the mere fact that they are users with special rights. That is something not at all advisable.

As for the second point, why would it take away privilege from the user? If two admins of a wiki deny being the OA of a nomination then how would it be taking away privilege from a user and why specifically a user who has made a small mistake? For any nomination that has been denied, the user is allowed to re-file the nomination after a month unless mentioned otherwise. --  Reverb frost   10:31, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Author: MechQueste)

• Everyone who desires an advanced userright has to request through the Request for permissions page (Mech)

Proposal 3 (Author: Newt Strike)

• Users start their own vote when making a nomination on the RFP page
• Both Discussions and votes to be immediately started as soon as the nomination goes on the RFP Page.
• Discussions should continue for three days
• A vote should start immediately when the nomination is made and last for 7 days

General Discussion

Question: Which all user groups does this policy cover? The Administrators and Content Moderators only, or does this also consider the request of rights for Rollbacks and Discussions Moderators too (I know there was a vote for how D-Mods are chosen, but a confirmation would be great nonetheless)? Kindly confirm, this will help me shape my further suggestions. TheHacktivist42 (talk) 06:14, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

The Granting Rights proposal applies to all user groups while the RFP proposal applies to B'crates, Admins, Cmods (not sure for Rollbacks and Chat mods, but they have a subheading for an RFP process on the RFP page so I'd assume they are included as well but I cannot confirm that completely.) Dmods, as stated previously are not a part of RFP process. --  Reverb frost   06:50, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

Alright, understood. TheHacktivist42 (talk) 07:18, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

I would only add that it's probably necessary for each person to define this for their proposal. Some users might be ok with Rollback or Chat Moderators not going through a RFP process and some might strongly feel that ALL extra rights need to be voted in by the community. If those who have made suggestions for the RFP process can clarify which User rights they feel must be part of the RFP that would probably help. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 08:19, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

Rollbacks, Chat Mods need not go through RFP because these features are not used quite often. Rollbacks help reverting possible vandalism to which Content mods, Admins and even VSTF are readily available to take similar actions. Besides in the years, we haven't seen quite a need for Rollbacks. Same goes for Chat mod. So I think these rights should be granted based on admin's discretion with proper explanation Offcourse. If any one admin objects to any of these promotions then admins can discuss the matter and resolve it. (Although i don't see this happening but it's probably good to have a provision for it.) Dmods as pointed out will not be a part of RFP as was voted by the community earlier. Thanks. --  Reverb frost   09:56, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

Users who want Rollback or Chat Moderator have been going through the same process, so I have been including every kind of User Right you can gain in my proposals. I don't see why it needs to change, but I don't have any strong feelings towards keeping it. They have gotten less popular and needed now, so I can trust an admin to decide. But I think any Policy about losing rights should still apply.

• I think a discussion should be held for up to seven days, but can be opened earlier if an admin sees a clear consensus of support / agreement to do so. And they can close it early if an unsolvable dispute occurs, and needs intervention. That's very similar to what we have suggested at Voting Policy too, so if it gets adopted, it could be an all-round thing.

• I think every application without a discussion should be formally closed too when seven days go by and a vote doesn't open. Then should they apply again, it's clear it's a new application. A two week wait to apply again sounds okay.
  • When it goes in the archive, it could include a date it was closed so it's clear when two weeks have passed. It shouldn't be left unsolved per current policy.

• In a vote, I don't think we need an ABSTAIN heading. It a user doesn't get involved and vote in SUPPORT or AGAINST, then they just don't.

Ironyak, could I ask when you intend to open a User Rights vote? A few User Right proposals depend on what will be voted in at Voting Policy. I think it could be better to open a User Right proposal vote when that one has concluded so it's clear what will happen if they do vote in the User Rights one. That's gives us a week to go through each User Right section, since it's new. - Kates39 (talk) 11:52, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Kates if my reply got lost in the shuffle - I agree with the idea to give the Voting Policy proposals the week to see how the votes are looking, which will help inform where the User Rights voting process can just use the default Voting Policy or where it may need to differ. With the split, my thought was to give about a week again for discussion on the various User Rights areas, but that may be extended as needed to handle discussion on some of the sub-topics.

Specifically on Gaining of Rights, we have some proposals that have multiple options, some of which are unclear how they differ. For instance, MechQueste is your "Everyone who desires an advanced userright has to request through the Request for permissions page" suggestion substantially different from the other related proposals? If so can you add some details as to how? Also Kates, it might help to define "long-term" in "Administrators 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." i.e. Is a week/month/season long-term enough for someone to be granted Content Mod? Admin? BCrat?

Also as expected there are some differing views on if some rights don't need an RFP. While the RFP allows for the requesting of any right, Rollback in particular has often just been granted to help people who are often seen helping undo vandalism. Not sure if people are comfortable with this, or with Chat Mod and other rights not needing to go through an RFP, but I'll need to add something about this above so these differences can be figured out. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:33, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that per their tools, Administrators have the ability to grant User rights, regardless of any policy. So for those who are arguing that Administrators should not grant any rights outside of the RFP & vote process the question becomes what happens if they do? No policy can stop this happening, only provide consequences for if it does. I would ask those who are against Administrators granting rights without an RFP to please outline how that possibility should be handled as part of their proposals. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:22, July 26, 2020 (UTC)

I suppose long-term could be decided by using admin discretion. For an admin, I think up to a year of positive and productive edits will suffice. For others like Content Moderator, I think it could be less. It should depend on the value of their contributions, what they want to do / if we have a need for it, so I would range it at three months to a year instead of setting a very specific period. - Kates39 (talk) 11:03, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that if there are community expectations on how long or to what degree someone has contributed to be eligible for Administrators to grant them rights then that should be made clear in the Policies. This is especially true if Removal of Rights is a possibility for an Administrator uses their own differing judgement on what is sufficiently long-term or positive contributions. I would suggest that either the terms of general eligibility are defined, or removed and left to Administrator discretion, or left undefined but a clause added that a confirmation RFP can be requested by the community per the Voting Policy should there be a questionable granting of rights so the option for reconciling differing opinions on the terms is made clear. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:03, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

I personally didn't think it needed to be so defined. But I don't think it's a good idea to not even say an admin can do so in the Policy. I think it's very important and necessary to say so given one part of the quarrel leading to updating the Policy was concerning it. It's okay to just say that an admin can grant User Rights without a vote if they have long-term positive and productive contributions. And that User Rights can be voted for and/or taken away if needed.

If people feel a general eligibility could be needed, a user having positive and productive edits for at least three months or longer could suffice. But we should try not to be too nuanced. It's general enough and covers a range of possibilities. - Kates39 (talk) 10:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

So historically the community has trusted admins and bureaucrats to exercise their ability to grant users rights on occasion based on their best judgement, an option that all current Bureaucrats has exercised more than once at some point in the past. However now some users want to remove or at least constrain that ability and say they can grant rights ONLY as long as the User gaining rights fits certain criteria. Well then what specifically is that criteria? If an administrator grants rights to someone for thousands of edits after only 6 weeks, should that user then be subject to losing their rights because a handful of others don't agree that is sufficient enough time or productivity? What about the admin or bureaucrat? Should they be subject to having their Rights Removed because their judgement differs slightly from a few others who can call for a vote against them? If we are setting up punitive measures against users then the laws they are expected to follow should be perfectly clear or the process for resolving those nuances of opinion defined to avoid further quarrels or misgivings. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:11, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

I feel like the debate's personally getting too much. I appreciate trying to be nuanced and we should be to a degree, but I feel too bogged down by minutiae. I have suggested a criteria like I was asked to do, but everything I say has been getting too picked apart by what ifs and I unfortunately can't keep up.

I understand wanting to know how I would define "long term", but I feel confused by what you keep asking of me. I find it unclear, and I have been losing confidence in what I say. So, I will leave my suggestion at the state it's at now to go up for a vote. If you think of anything else you want to cover, please share your own suggestion instead and I will see. How would define "long term"? - Kates39 (talk) 19:16, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kates - sorry, I don't mean to bog down the discussion, but at the end of the process we need a policy that can be enforced so the wording and the implications needs to be clear. Personally, I wouldn't add any qualifiers to "Administrators can grant rights based on their best judgement" (as that is the fact of how the permissions system works on all FANDOM wikis) but could see adding "if the Community disagrees with a particular granting of rights, they can propose a RFP process be held to confirm the rights following the proposal and voting process defined in the Voting Policy". That way the possibility of an Administrator granting rights is acknowledged and the process for contending such a granting is specified. Definitions that try to set expectations and limits on Administrators' use of their permissions, especially those backed with the ability to Remove user rights from both the admin and user being granted rights, need to be abundantly clear. If you want to add more language around "special situations" and "long-term positive and productive contributions" so that these requirements are clear and agreed upon when voted for that would be helpful - I don't think anyone wants users to potentially be punished because of vagaries in the policies.

Please understand that this is a complicated process to navigate where all community members are allowed to make proposals for Policies that will affect thousands of users going forward and for which the Administration at any given time needs to be able to clearly and consistently enforce. I am trying to simply guide the process by asking questions of all the users making proposals so they are clear for everyone. TimeShade wants us all to be on the same page which requires time and effort to read and discuss what is on that page and whether or not we all understand it and can find some agreement. I'm not saying this is a pretty or perfect process ("how the sausage gets made" is a common refrain during such discussions) but if you have suggestions on how to make improvements, I am open to those considerations. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:49, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

Modifications to my proposals:

1. 2.1.3 - A user requests for rights on the RFP. Community gathers to DISCUSS on it. As soon as the discussions have started (any user other than the one requesting for rights if has commented on the request marks the beginning of the discussion) the user requesting can now inform an admin about the request. to this please add the user can now inform an admin about the request on their talk page or via HPW:Requests for administrator attention.
2. 2.3.2 - Should an admin agree to be the organiser then they can start the vote 3-5 days after 7 days of discussions so that they have enough time to review the already discussed discussion. (So basically a user requesting rights cannot have a vote for at least 10-12 days since the discussion has started on their request which gives ample amount of time to review edits of the user and ask questions if needed.) to this please strike out the 3-5 days provision completely, and add that if an Admin agrees to be an Organising Admin (OA) then after 7 days of discussion the admin can, start a vote. If the nomination doesn't meet requirements or any other such circumstance, the OA, at discretion can dismiss the nomination after clarifying the reason for dismissing the nomination.
3. 2.4 - The vote should last for 7 days.
4. 2.6.1 - replace 2 weeks with 1 month.
5. 2.9 - replace 100 with 150-200 words. Also, add a clause that the spirit to have this policy is to avoid having "friends" or alt accounts from supporting an RFP nomination just based on personal preference or by any illegal means. If we really are talking about users with rights having to be held accountable for their actions, normal users are also to be held accountable for their votes. Their vote decides if a user gets special rights or not so it is important to know why they voted the way they did without participating in the discussions. It is also important to note that just writing words like "I know the users from other wikis." or "they are a very good user" or any words that don't necessarily inform the intent behind the vote will not be allowed.
6. 2.10 - The admin can extend the vote at discretion based as found necessary. But If the vote has to be extended beyond 7-9 days based on questionable behaviour by the user or consensus is not reached or matters raised in discussions are not resolved or any such matters then the OA can close the vote without any changes to user rights.
7. 2.11.1 - Change 30 business days to 1 month (12 Feb - 12 March is also 1 month and 12 July - 12 August is also 1 month)
8. 2.12 - Other than Discussion Moderators who have a method of community vote based appointment, all user rights must go through RFP and vote. --  Reverb frost   07:52, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

For better understanding, I have split my comment into 2 parts.

Part 1: Kates39 and I have a lot of similarity in the proposals made above. So I decided to reach her via Discord and see how would they feel about merging our proposals mutually. We worked through it and here they are:

1. A user requesting for user rights can inform the admins and request one of them to be OA and if needed, seek attention as well. But the 7 days discussion comes only when the discussion starts and not when the nomination is made. So the modification can be made on proposal 2.1.3. Proposal 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 can be merged here, and the part of HPW:RFAA can also be added to this merged proposal with the definition of when the discussion begins.
2. This is in regards to proposal 1.4. Proposal 1.1 and 1.4 can be merged here as well:

Administrators can grant rights in special situations without a community vote if:

1. They see a need for it.
2. If they see that a user has positive and productive contributions and are impressed.
3. If they think a user with some extra tools will do wonders for the wiki.

The admin should clearly specify the reasons for skipping the RFP procedure.

If one admin clearly objects, both the admins have to discuss it for up to seven days to try and find a solution. If they can't, they need to seek counsel or mediation from a third admin and discuss again for up for seven days. Either the user retains their right or it could lead to a community vote at RFP to decide what to do, while the user keeps their rights until it has been decided.

If at least two other administrators object to the nomination then the user will, while retaining their rights, go through the RFP procedure.

Part 2:

User Rights Gaining is more of a process than a policy and it makes sense if we voted on an entire process than individual parts of it. Say the part where users can start their own vote is voted in. The entire proposal of extending a vote or quite a few polhttps://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Forum:User_Rights_Policy_proposal_-_Gaining_Rights?action=edit#icies that are currently in majority in the Voting Rights proposal forum would be of no use. Basically some policies might contradict each other and that will give rise to loopholes which in my opinion is not good.

So I would suggest that we request all interested users to submit the entire process of how they think is the best, and then we vote on the entire process. That allows us to speed things up a bit and also makes sure we vote for the right policies. This also helps us clear the intentions of the user who is making the proposal and what their end goals, as in what do they want their proposal to achieve as a whole if implemented.

Incase of a process being better than others but not good enough, we could discuss the aspects and only those aspects that aren't good enough. So it won't be like you have to choose like which process has more positive aspects and then vote for it. Thoughts? --  Reverb frost   17:46, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

In response to Part 2 - this sounds like a great idea and makes a lot of sense! I can see that for new Policies like User Rights trying to reconcile and vote on each piece will both take too long when there are several options and could lead to various omissions and contradictions in the final policy as you mentioned. Also by having whole separate proposals there can be a discussions section for each, so that the author or co-authors can take suggestions and work on improving their proposals more directly. This should help focus the conversations and better highlight what needs to be done on each proposal to move forward.

As you mentioned you talking to Kates39 already, I would guess that she is in support of this idea, but welcome comments to confirm this. Other thoughts on the matter are welcome as well, but I will begin the work to reorganize this and the other User Rights proposals into separate complete proposals shortly. Thanks again for the suggested improvement on the Policy proposal process - should be much more productive and save us some time! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:26, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

I fully support the new approach to finding a User Rights process. Hopefully it will help everyone work through the suggestions productively! - Kates39 (talk) 18:44, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

Based on recent discussion, I've reorganized this so that there are clear whole proposals being made for this new policy. Any new questions for the authors should be posted in the Discussion section for their specific proposal so they can better track questions and provide answers as needed. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:04, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

This is an improvement. MechQueste 10:53, August 1, 2020 (UTC)