Requests for Comment/Topic ban Reception wikis

Many of the Reception wikis have been creating an outsized workload for Miraheze's Counter Vandalism Team, which includes stewards and Global Sysops. Some examples of the most problematic wikis have included, but are not limited to the following:

Primarily, these wikis violate Content Policy's first criterion, which states, "Miraheze does not host wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people." In addition, the wikis' bureaucrats do not ensure their administrators adhere to the Code of Conduct in their writing content and issuing block summaries that denigrate or humiliate users. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1
A narrow set of so-called Reception wikis related to wikis that propose to write solely or largely about users, broadly construed, is topic banned from creation for a minimum of ninety (90) days from this RfC's closure. Steward discretion shall determine what constitutes the meaning of largely in issuing warnings and/or sanctions to wiki creators who contravene this topic ban.

Support

 * 1)  if 1-A fails. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  as my second preference to Proposal 3. My reading of this RfC is that Proposal 1 and Proposal 1-A are not mutually exclusive in that Proposal 1 can pass without Proposal 1-A passing, but Proposal 1-A is contingent on Proposal 1 passing. Dmehus (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  There’s still room for improvement, plus the drama died down a lot. - —M—3–M—3–G—U—Y_W@S_L0$T  23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Yeah, we can still fix the sites and to be fair, they deserve a second chance. -, 23:54, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC makes no changes to existing wikis, which are still expected to follow Content Policy and remediate problematic content. This is just a moratorium on creation of new Reception wikis that focus, wholly or largely, on users. That is, any new wiki that proposed to write most of its content pages about users. It wouldn't even prevent creation of Reception wikis that proposed to write content on terrible automobiles or ugly company logos. Dmehus (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1-A
Proposal 1 may be extended an unlimited number of times by steward until such time as the problem has been abated. Additionally, this proposal has a sunset clause, and is no longer in force after six (6) months.

Support

 * 1)  Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  as my second preference to Proposal 3. My reading of this RfC is that Proposal 1 and Proposal 1-A are not mutually exclusive in that Proposal 1 can pass without Proposal 1-A passing, but Proposal 1-A is contingent on Proposal 1 passing. Dmehus (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2
A narrow set of so-called Reception wikis related to wikis that propose to write solely or largely about users, broadly construed, is topic banned from creation indefinitely from this RfC's closure. Steward discretion shall determine what constitutes the meaning of largely in issuing warnings and/or sanctions to wiki creators who contravene this topic ban. This proposal has a sunset clause that allows stewards, via stewards' noticeboard, to repeal this topic ban by notification to the community at stewards' noticeboard when the problem has abated.

Support

 * 1)  as my third preference, per my above rationale. Dmehus (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I have to agree on this because the problem with wikis like this in general. A reception wiki about users and wikis is never a good idea.  20:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I will have to agree with this because while reception wikis related about users are good on paper, in reality, it backfired. This is why a reception wiki about users and wikis is very unsafe and can cause multiple Content Policy violations. (To any users reading this: I know why I supported it, but I want the community to be very peaceful and quiet, and not have full of drama. We do exempt media reception wikis from the ban like Crappy Games Wiki because they don't focus on users.)   Circley  Does Extracter    ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud )  20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 20:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Waldo (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  because my experience with permanent change has had many ups and downs. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps helpful to clarify that, while this is an indefinite and somewhat narrow topic ban, it is not permanent. This topic ban, if it passed instead of Proposal 1/1-A, would be repealed by steward decision per the included sunset clause. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the proposal again and I now I am confused. Is it just a certain amount of reception wikis with the users topic or all reception wikis with the users topic? Topic ban to me sounds like these proposals are about banning the topic for the reception wikis and not just a certain amount of reception wikis with the topic. The inclusion of "narrow set" is vague and I don't quite understand what the "narrow set" is. I also must say, if the topic ban has no limit then it has the potential to be permanent. Unlimited and indefinite mean much of the same thing, and my understanding of unlimited is that once it has no limit it goes on forever, until the system breaks or a limit is put on it. --GondorChicken (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. The inclusion of the term "narrow set" was intentional, as when this RfC was originally conceived in the drafting phase, it proposed to topic ban creation of all Reception wikis. These proposals only propose to topic ban the narrower set of Reception wikis which propose to write, solely or largely (the latter in stewards' discretion), about users, some examples of which are described above. In comparison, Reception wikis like  would be unaffected by this topic ban, as those type of Reception wikis are not writing about users. As to the sunset clause of this proposal, in my drafting the revised RfC for, admittedly, I meant to say that the sunset clause was automatic, but, unfortunately, that was missed. An oversight that could, in theory, make this proposal permanent, but I'm hoping that any steward will see this discussion and simply opt to sunset the clause at the six-month mark. Hope this clarifies a bit more, and apologies for the oversight. We could also do a community noticeboard discussion on the closing of this RfC, should Proposal 2 pass, and subsequently amend it to clarify the sunset clause is automatically effected the six-month mark. Dmehus (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was my initial understanding that the topic ban was for all reception wikis largely about users and not the other reception wikis about different topics, but the inclusion of "narrow set" confused me due to it sounding like it referred to the ban being only for a few reception wikis with the users topic; the list in the beginning description further made be suspicious that "narrow set" meant just that. While I understand now I hope this clears up why I was confused. It's good to know that it isn't permanent and that there's a sunset clause. --GondorChicken (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Given that Content Policy already doesn't permit these problems, these wikis shouldn't be being created in the first place. So, instead, a communiqué is drafted and sent to all wiki creators' user talk pages, clarifying that they should not be approving wikis which propose solely or largely to write about "terrible users," broadly construed. In addition, a thirty to ninety day moratorium described in Proposal 1 is also enacted. Steward discretion applies in terms of the length of the moratorium.

Support

 * 1)  as my first preference, per my above rationale. Dmehus (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) in addition to proposal 1-A Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Makes sense to me. --GondorChicken (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) I strongly support this because user hate wikis are troll feeders that destroy the purpose of Miraheze. '''Μπέλα2006🌎 (🔥The Blazing Duke🔥) (Blazing Talk) (Blazing Edits) 22:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) per. Proposal 2 reason.  23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Per my Proposal 2 reason.   Circley  Does Extracter    ( Circley Talk  |  Global   |  Email the Cloud )  23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) I believe the reception wikis are making miraheze go downhill. They are too biased and cause a lot of drama, even if one goes full on attack mode. I was even involved in a drama once. Nowadays, I may use miraheze for documenting my fan-made projects I make with geoshea. I don't want to be with these bias communities anymore, and try to avoid all this drama hell. One last edit: I think the non-user reception wikis like crappy games wiki should stay. -kbos (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm tired of 24/7 drama because someone got into an argument with someone and made a whiny page about them. Some things I might miss about these wikis but overall they must go. (To any users reading this, please understand why I'm supporting this. I want our community to be peaceful and quiet. This ban will not seem to affect the regular wikis like Crappy Games Wiki.) Paprika (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out, as I pointed out to DuchessTheSponge and MeMeGuYWasLost above for one of the other proposals, this RfC does not impact existing Reception wikis; it affects creation of a narrow subset of Reception wikis focused wholly or largely on writing content pages about users. Existing Reception wikis, like all wikis, whether they write content about users or not, are still subject to ensuring their wikis do not contravene Content Policy and that their administrators are responsible for adhering to the Miraheze Code of Conduct, a set of global community standards to which we're all expected to adhere. I hope this clarifies some things. Dmehus (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification but does that mean that the wikis listed above would not be subject to closure immediately if this proposal passed? Paprika (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Existing Reception wikis, or any wiki, really, which has seriously problematic content that is against Content Policy and which goes unremediated is subject to appropriate resolution or remediation by stewards. This just proposes to put in place a moratorium on the creation of the above described narrow subset of Reception wikis for the period to be determined by stewards and up to ninety (90) days. It also instructions stewards to send out a mass message to all wiki creators listed at Wiki creators/List, reminding them of Content Policy and that they should not simply be rubber stamp creating wikis that propose to write content about users and also to notify them of the temporary creation moratorium. Dmehus (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose
These wikis are made for criticism, not harassment. Caulipower (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

General comments
Miraheze is an excellent resource for worldwide publication and editing. It can also be a worldwide bridge abutment for vandals to spray-paint. Given its commitment to voluntary funding, the second could easily overwhelm the first. Therefore, I am eager to enable stewards to control disruptive behavior.

Unfortunately, this RfC does not tell me what I am voting to authorize. The Intro does enumerate 5 problem wikis, but includes vague "not limited to" language. Such of the Proposals that propose sanctions on wikis only refer to "A narrow set of so-called Reception wikis" — not on the basis of what goes on there but on the basis of what someone calls them. (They also trigger my usual annoyance about multiple, mutually exclusive Proposals that leave it to some unnamed authority to decide what we all "agreed" on.)

As the Content Policy prohibits "wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours", Stewards are already authorized to act. Perhaps Stewards need to be elbowed in the ribs to enforce the Content Policy? Can we hear from Stewards why they have not so far considered these wikis a problem worth doing something about?

An RfC, to be decided by majority vote, has the further, chronic problem that there are likely to be more misbehaving users of the problem wikis with a strong interest in maintaining their playground, than there are legitimate Miraheze users with a weaker interest in patrolling the farm. 21:18 21-Sep-2020
 * I can comment as GS... I started this to help prevent further workload for Stewards/GS and whatever other functionaries it would involve. We are always looking out for policy violations, but we could always use every bit of help. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 21:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for comments. While this proposal is somewhat broad and includes some broad and/or vague language, for these sort of moratoriums, this is often necessary and is generally by design. When you intentionally spell out exactly what is prohibited, there is little to no room for discretion, and, invariably, someone will point out a technicality in the letter of the restriction. For past precedent on this, we could look to the Scratch wiki moratorium. Regarding your second point, which is your "usual annoyance" on multiple, mutually exclusive proposals that "leave it to some unnamed authority to decide what we all 'agreed' on," perhaps we should've specified which proposal(s) can be passed together with the other. My reading of this RfC is such that Proposals 1 and 1-A can pass together, if there's sufficient support, but Proposal 1-A is contingent upon Proposal 1 passing. Proposals 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive in that either of the two may pass. Proposal 3 can pass alone or if either of Proposals 1 and 2 pass. The one oversight I did articulate to above is the sunset clause of Proposal 2. It was intended to be automatically effected at the six-month mark, but was worded incorrectly. Nevertheless, I am hopeful a steward, should that proposal pass in lieu of Proposal 1, will simply opt to honour the spirit in which it was originally intended and implement the sunset clause at the six-month mark.
 * To your latter point, stewards are acting in regards to existing problem wikis, but this proposal is meant to add great clarity and strength to put in place any wiki known as a Reception wiki that proposes to write content solely or largely (the latter determined in steward discretion) about users. See my reply to GondorChicken above that should clarify this. Hope this helps. Dmehus (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)