Requests for Comment/Prohibit hate-based wikis


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Proposal Successful. John (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an issue with a Scratch Reception Wiki called "Bad Scratch Wiki", and this wiki is trying to get us blocked on Scratch even more. I got proof that Marius, a Scratch Team member said that there's a recreation of CSW called this: https://badscratch.miraheze.org So we have to make a proposal to change the content policy in order to solve the issue. CircleyDoesExtracter (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

 * 1) A ban on new wikis relating to scratch.mit.edu is imposed that will expire unless extended 45 days after the close of this discussion to allow the situation to settle
 * 2) "Wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumors against a person or group of people" are banned indefinitely.
 * 3) *This does not apply to wikis that provide satire or comedy appropriately marked as such across a range of topics.
 * 4) *A wiki that provides reviews that are mostly negative but has any positive content is not affected.
 * 5) *Wikis that provide clear, proper, and justification that could reasonably be understood for negative content even if the wiki only provides negative content is not prohibited.
 * 6) *A wiki full of statements like "x is a d#######" or "x only does crappy stuff" would be.

Support

 * 1) This will help fix the issue with Scratch wikis. Also, since it causes flaming, controversy, and drama, I think it will fix the problems.CircleyDoesExtracter (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)   ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) . Protects Miraheze from involvement in libelous wikis.   13:20 27-Jun-2020
 * 4) for #1, though I'd even be fine with empowering the stewards to impose, unilaterally, these short, very specific "cool down" blocks. Dmehus (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) - WickyHoney (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  - Cocopuff2018 let me just say i am weak supporting because i like the idea that ripoff/hate wikis should be disallowed however I think Disallowing wiki creations with hate base should be disallowed because it would help pervent more of it aswell. --Cocopuff2018  19:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  Drgng (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) I say yes, though I like to visit wikis with hate for some reason. xD BobRocks20 (talk) 7:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) If we remove this wiki, then Circley and many other banned scratchers will be happy again . Besides, you can create other wikis for other stuff. And also, if you have a scratch account, then it might get banned if you don’t delete this wiki before the ST gets deleted. But if you don’t, then just ignore the previous part. But you get the point. Imagine if some random scratcher gets a link to this and finds that they are on this miraheze wiki. They might be able to handle the criticism but what if some people don’t. That’s where they might contact the ST and the ST might contact miraheze to take down this wiki. I also strongly support the idea of removing hate based wikis as they cause drama and controversy.  -Kam66
 * 10)  The idea that wikis made to spread libel and personal attacks towards other users with no evidence do not have their place here. It should be clear however that wikis should still have freedom of speech, in my view this request simply asks that they provide evidence so that their freedom of speech doesn't become defamation or libel (which I would say is technically already the status quo) but being able to criticize an individual with arguments should definitely not be banned. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 05:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 11) - These were causing a lot of drama and got a lot of users banned.Μπέλα2006 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 12) - If the wiki gets shut down, then all of the scratchers contributing to CSW and got blocked will be unblocked . Hookuai (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 13) - PowerDagger15 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 14)  = ScratchCoder (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 15)  yes --kbos (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 16)  - - JoToRoHAA
 * 17)  --Rainstorm1650 (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 18) no comment --Hendicted (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 19)  I have always considered all of the 'crappy' and 'shitty' wikis to be legal trouble waiting to happen. I strongly support this measure as an important protection for the farm as a whole. Sario528 (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 20)  No reason not to support this. Amanda Catherine (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) #2 as vague, but also unnecessary, as stewards have leeway in existing global policies to shut down wikis that are not fit for the purpose to which they were described. We shouldn't, on the other hand, be trying to craft vaguely worded, overly broad RfCs that could be used to prohibit wikis advocating non-mainstream wikis. If this passes, closer should use their editorial discretion to refine and fine-tune the wording of the proposal that encompasses the minority view(s). To clarify, one easy way that I could weakishly support #2 would be to strike "or group of people" from the text, and reword that as "or a group of named (real or pseudonymous) persons." Dmehus (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the proposal is vague or broad. It gives specific examples of appropiate and non-appropiate situation with one of the points in there to protect minority views. (That means that you can say all of a group who believe x are evil but you can say you disagree with their points because of y). ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, what I am concerned with is giving Miraheze, or the community, carte blanche authority to prohibit wikis epousing negative views or hatred against one particular, unnamed group of people and not the other, principally because who defines what constitutes "hate"? If a wiki is acting against their stated purpose, as I stated in my supportive comments regarding #2 in this section, then stewards shall be empowered to shut down wikis (as they already can). So, as long as the closer takes into account the dissenting opinions at closing in fine-tuning and tweaking the proposed verbiage in the policy document, that's fine. To add to my response to 's reply below, we're not !voting on the exact wording of the proposal; we're !voting on the aims of the proposal. There can, and should be, leeway for the closer to fine-tune the wording from a good-faith but quickly crafted proposal that didn't consider the problems of using vague words like "hate." Dmehus (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As always, I insist that, on a proposal important enough to ask for my vote, no one has "editorial discretion" to change the proposal after the votes are in. An edit that transforms the proposal into something you would have voted for could very well transform it into something that one of the voters would not have voted for.   16:43 27-Jun-2020
 * Actually, as part of determining consensus, the closer can exercise editorial discretion through what's called a non-prejudicial supervote where the result is somewhat unclear, the proposal created confusion among the participants' views, and the like. This is the good kind of a supervote, and is a hallmark of consensus-based decision-making on which Miraheze and Wikimedia operate. It's not simply about counting the !votes and assessing the strength of the !vote assigned to applicable voting template. Dmehus (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If true, that would be a deal-breaker for me. But we are not bound by the rules of some other wiki.  For the record, when I vote on any RfC, it is not to join you all in a Nice Warm Feeling and delegate the writing of the actual rule to others; you ask me to Support or Oppose text that you present to me, and that is what I do.   16:12 28-Jun-2020

Comments

 * I have redacted portions of some of the above comments in the support section because they mentioned suicide, which should be considered a threat of harm. Additionally, several users were specifically named in these comments, which may also be considered "outing" and a privacy violation. Any steward or sysadmin can restore the comments if they do not feel that they warrant removal, but I feel that it is better to be safe than sorry with things like this. Amanda Catherine (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Comments during the review period

 * ''Moved here from Community noticeboard


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello,

Following the recent issues with the scratch reception wikis, I'd like to propose a change to the content policy to prevent future issues.


 * 1) A ban on new wikis relating to scratch.mit.edu is imposed that will expire unless extended 45 days after the close of this discussion to allow the situation to settle
 * 2) "Wikis with the sole purpose to spread unsubstantiated insult, hate or rumours against a person or group of people" are banned indefinitely.
 * This does not apply to wikis that provide satire or comedy appropriately marked as such across a range of topics.
 * A wiki that provide reviews which are mostly negative but has any positive content is not affected.
 * Wikis that provide clear, proper and justification that could reasonably be understood for negative content even if the wiki only provides negative content is not prohibited.
 * A wiki full of statements like "x is dickhead" or "x only does crappy stuff" would be.

Thanks,
 * ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - 09:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This is not the ballot but a preliminary discussion. The ballot is above.

As this rule is a basis for rejecting wikis, I too would like to see a full RfC; for one thing, it is something to point to, rather than, "It's somewhere in the CN archives." 14:59 16-Jun-2020
 * 1)  Scratch wikis need a cooldown and wikis with unsubstantiated negative content isn't something we want to host.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  09:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I believe the RfC purpose does exist for a reason and we can't subvert it with a simple Community noticeboard vote instead. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 09:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) If you remember a few months ago I wanted to start an Request for comment about this but Stewards said they would look. I agree that these wikis should not be here, but to change the policy is an RfC not needed? I'm still learning the rules here. DeeM28 (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We've used CN posts for Content Policy changes before. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The point is to keep Miraheze from being a vehicle for on-line libel. The exceptions are carefully thought out.  I would not like a rule that tells a restaurant review site, "You are required to carry one positive review!" as I know some joints that would not merit any; but this exception simply says that the wiki cannot simply be set up to slam every restaurant.  Likewise, I am glad satire is excepted; negativity or "gallows humor" is one frequent strategy.  "Unsubstantiated" is a good word (perhaps "libelous" is a better one).  That you simply told the truth is a full defense against a charge of libel.
 * 1)  I believe this is clear and righteous. WickyHoney (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This will help fix the issue with Scratch wikis. CircleyDoesExtracter (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I've now considering an RFC for the content policy change https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/Change_to_content_policy#Change_to_content_policy CircleyDoesExtracter (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now at this page, above.  13:25 27-Jun-2020


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made above