Requests for Comment/Content and Dormancy Policies
This Request for Comments is now closed. Please do not edit this page. New edits may be reverted. |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This RfC is closed as follows:
- Proposal 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 are successful
- Proposal 1.4 and 1.5 are unsuccessful
--1108-Kiju/Talk 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This Request for Comment is organized for the following purposes:
- Clarification of existing Miraheze policies
- Reconciling WikiTide content and dormancy policies with Miraheze content and dormancy policies, in light of the merger between these projects
- Proposing new additions to the Content Policy
The proposals are as follows:
- Proposal 1.0 is for a new Content Policy. This proposed rewrite clarifies the details of existing policy and replaces references to the United Kingdom with the United States. (Comparison)
- Proposals 1.1 to 1.x are for separately proposed amendments to the Content Policy as described below. These include changes based on WikiTide policy as well as new additions.
- Proposal 2.0 is a new Conservatorship Policy, rewritten for clarity, to spin off from the Content Policy. (Comparison)
- Proposal 3.0 is a new Dormancy Policy, rewritten for clarity and to reduce the inactivity period from 60 to 30 days for wikis that have never had contributions. (Comparison)
- Proposal 3.1 loosens the restrictions of the Dormancy Policy as an amendment to either the current or proposed policies.
- Proposal 3.2 is to ratify the official list of Miraheze projects and to establish criteria for updating that list.
Harej (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 1.0: Approve the new Content Policy (not including new proposals)[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt the following sections of Content Policy/2024 as a global Miraheze policy:
- Opening section
- Primary restrictions
- Not-safe-for-work wikis
- Administrator obligations
- Violations of this policy
Additional policy changes are listed below as separate proposals.
Comparison between current policy and proposed rewrite
Support 1.0[edit | edit source]
- Support The wording updates make this policy much easier to read than the previous version. This will hopefully help wiki administrators better understand the policy and reduce potential open-ended interpretations. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support The new Content Policy is much more compact and simpler than the old one; users should have an easier time understanding it. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support A rewrite of CP to reduce ambiguity and prioritize human-friendly language is welcome. An easy support. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support The new wording and new additions to the Content Policy appear to be an improvement. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support This has good all-around improvements to clarity and ease of enforcement for Stewards and Wiki Creators. As the writer of the original policy, I am still sad to see "fissible materials" get cut, I still worry about Miraheze starting WWIII but I guess that's a risk I have to take. --Labster (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It is a lot more condensed than the previous one. And it reduces any redundancies. Snow (talk | contribs | sandbox | centralauth) 07:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above, the new version is an improvement and makes things more clear. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Almost unambiguously an improvement over the original policies, making it less wordy and clean. --Blad (t • c • g) 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Clean and understandable. --Firestar464 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Better. Legroom (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support above Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Sure. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's an easier read. I would like to see the sections numbered for easier reference (e.g., "see Content Policy #1" vs. "see Content Policy section on commercial activity"). – Jph2 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nice and straightforward. --Looney Toons (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support As of this revision --Robkelk (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support This will be a good change. --Mike9012 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support All's been said. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits 👀 Auth → 01:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns. Re "Wikis must be organized around a coherent theme with discernible standards.", if they haven't already I suggest Stewards set up a centralized spot to make note of scope changes, probably on
stewardswiki
as there wasn't a mechanism for this in my time. --raidarr ( 💬 ) 00:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) - Support per above. The new CP definitely seems more comprehensive in its explanations and cleaner in it's writing, a pro when drawing in new people and trying to get them to actually read the polices. I would absolutely want to see them numbered or otherwise marked in a way that's easy to refer to. If there's one thing we wiki folk love, it's abbreviations. --pixlDeV (Talk | CentralAuth) 02:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support I see no problem here. Pisces (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 1.0[edit | edit source]
Oppose 1.0[edit | edit source]
- Strongest oppose Open-ended interpretations are good, favoring wikis is good, removing wikis is bad, new restrictions are bad. --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, proposal 1.0 by itself does not introduce any new restrictions. If you review the proposal above, additional potential restrictions are handled as separate proposals in later sections of this RfC. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Even though this is described as "not including any new restrictions", I have actually found such restrictions in the actual text linked, which are not part of the current content policy. This is all completely new and has no equivalent. [comparison (point 4 of the old policy only refers to "not changing scope")]. This potentially affects a wiki that I co-admin since we are a general sci-fantasy archive and worldbuilding wiki:
- As a point of clarification, proposal 1.0 by itself does not introduce any new restrictions. If you review the proposal above, additional potential restrictions are handled as separate proposals in later sections of this RfC. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikis must be organized around a coherent theme with discernible standards.
Wikis will not be approved if they are organized on an "anything goes" basis. Wikis are required to maintain a scope and to allow minimal content outside of this scope. The scope must be defined during the wiki request, and once the wiki is created the scope must not radically and completely change without obtaining approval from Stewards.
Wikis are required to enforce the global policies and minimum standards for content quality. Wikis that do not have at least some standards are likely to be magnets for content and contributors that bring down the reputation of Miraheze. However, written policies are not necessarily required so long as the editors uphold the scope and some sense of minimum standards.
Comments 1.0[edit | edit source]
- Comment: The tone of the proposed Content Policy is somewhat confused as it stands; I've left a message on the talk page with a suggestion on how to fix it. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 19:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question: In the "Addional restrictions" section it says
New -ball and -human genre wikis
. Does that mean the CountryHumans Wikis will no longer be allowed? I'm confused about it.- What also troubles me is that it also says
Wikis with the same or a substantially similar topic to another existing Miraheze wiki are prohibited.
Does that count wikis that are about the same thing, but in different languages? Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 22:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)- I'm assuming that language variants would be fine and a special case, but that should be clarified in the policy. --Original Authority (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Existing CountryHumans wikis are fine and new ones are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. As for wikis in different languages, I have updated the draft. Harej (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay! Thanks for clarifying! Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 21:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Existing CountryHumans wikis are fine and new ones are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. As for wikis in different languages, I have updated the draft. Harej (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that language variants would be fine and a special case, but that should be clarified in the policy. --Original Authority (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- What also troubles me is that it also says
- Comment: [[User:Harej|Harej}} I hope I am not mistaken but from what I have been able to observe there are certain elements in the new Content Policy that are quite different from the original one and are not mere "re-writes". Importantly the section concerning Additional Restrictions is in my view a significant change to the Content Policy for which no particular justification is provided. In order to be fully transparent and to allow the community to scrutinize these changes I would suggest that major changes that are not re-writes are separated into a different proposal and a justification for these changes is given to make the community understand why they are being proposed. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- DeeM28, you're right, the new policy changes much more than I thought it did. I have updated the RFC language; hope it is clearer. Also note that this is a draft and the language is not final yet. Harej (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- DeeM28, I have split the proposal into multiple. There is one proposal representing the core policy with minimal changes, then two additional proposals representing significant policy changes. I have also created Content Policy/2024/Comparison. Harej (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- DeeM28, you're right, the new policy changes much more than I thought it did. I have updated the RFC language; hope it is clearer. Also note that this is a draft and the language is not final yet. Harej (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I see scrutiny additions do get explained and corrected here, per comments, but what's up with significant changes of NSFW wikis policy? Right now it's one to one what WikiTide had, or it's yet to be adapted to Miraheze version? Reminder, that on merger RfC and other venues multiple users (me included) were assured that Miraheze content polcies won't be changed, and were told that the reason behind stricter WikiTide policies was uncertainty over content permitted for charity status. Legroom (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Legroom, thank you for asking, I had a similar thought when preparing the comparison. The language was a holdover from WikiTide not necessarily intended to be used for Miraheze. I have started revising it, and while I am not yet sure what the final language will be, it should be significantly less restrictive than the WikiTide original. In the meantime, the base proposed Content Policy now matches Miraheze's current policy, and the proposed additional restrictions are a separate proposal for the community to vote on. The intent is not to institute a "NSFW ban" but to limit excesses. Harej (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The policy on NSFW wikis defines NSFW as including a wiki that "is otherwise considered lewd, obscene, or inappropriate for those under the age of 18. " The first thing that springs to mind to me is: considered by whom? My main concern is whether wikis about queer people and queer media is going to be classified as NSFW, or have less leeway before being considered NSFW. 183231bcb (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Good comment. Would an employer allow the topic on its network? If so, it is safe for work, so no issue. Proposal 1.2 states "coverage of, or commentary on, human sexuality is not a problem". Seems to me wikis about queer people (and topics) would be fine. It depends on what you mean by queer media, though, as some is likely fine while some might be more nuanced. – Jph2 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Whether an "employer" would allow a topic depends on the employer and the jurisdiction. There are states and countries where it's illegal to even acknowledge the existence of queer people, so an employer in such a jurisdiction would probably not allow any discussion of queerness. On the other extreme, an employer of sex-workers would presumably allow graphic depictions of sex-work on their network. I didn't see that line in Proposal 1.2: thanks, that is reassuring. 183231bcb (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to put any fears to rest, the implied criteria here and the way in which it is intended to be interpreted is 'would a reasonable and open-minded person consider this fine', not 'would an employer fire you for this' -- NSFW is used in the broad colloquial sense, not literal. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- 183231bcb, thank you for your question. The wording seemed redundant and gratuitous to me so I have simplified it. Also, so everyone is on the same page here, the term "NSFW" is defined in the text of the policy and is not in reference to any particular workplace. (I'm actually not fond of the term for that reason.) Harej (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to put any fears to rest, the implied criteria here and the way in which it is intended to be interpreted is 'would a reasonable and open-minded person consider this fine', not 'would an employer fire you for this' -- NSFW is used in the broad colloquial sense, not literal. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Whether an "employer" would allow a topic depends on the employer and the jurisdiction. There are states and countries where it's illegal to even acknowledge the existence of queer people, so an employer in such a jurisdiction would probably not allow any discussion of queerness. On the other extreme, an employer of sex-workers would presumably allow graphic depictions of sex-work on their network. I didn't see that line in Proposal 1.2: thanks, that is reassuring. 183231bcb (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Good comment. Would an employer allow the topic on its network? If so, it is safe for work, so no issue. Proposal 1.2 states "coverage of, or commentary on, human sexuality is not a problem". Seems to me wikis about queer people (and topics) would be fine. It depends on what you mean by queer media, though, as some is likely fine while some might be more nuanced. – Jph2 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 1.1: Approve the definition of "reception wikis"[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt the following paragraph for the "Primary restrictions" section, "Scope" subsection, of the proposed Content Policy:
- Wikis should not be structured around bullet-point, "good/bad" commentary
- These wikis are known as reception wikis. Reception wikis tend to have names like "Best Video Games Wiki" or "Terrible Movie Wiki," though this naming convention is not strictly required. These wikis tend to have little content actually describing the topics in question, and more basic, bullet-point commentary explaining why the thing in question is good or bad in the writer's opinion. The community has decided to not allow new wikis to be created with this theme, although existing wikis may stay so long as they abide by other global policies.
The goal of this proposal is to reconcile WikiTide's content policy (which includes a restriction on reception wikis) with Miraheze's and to codify the results of the previous reception wikis RFC. If this proposal is not adopted, Proposal 2 from that RFC will stand as the community's consensus on the matter, and it will remain a matter of Steward discretion.
Support 1.1[edit | edit source]
- Support Long overdue. While a de facto understanding did exist (a definition proposed by Raidarr on a Community portal thread that wasn't challenged but wasn't exactly voted on by a wide group), this definition is much better. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Having a topic ban that isn't actually listed in the content policy has led to a continued situation of reception wikis still being requested/attempting to sneak in under false pretenses. Rather than continue to rely on an informal definition, it would be good to codify this in content policy if we still consider this topic unsuitable for MH and the WT foundation more generally. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that a codified definition of reception wikis is necessary; however, there are better places to put it than the Content Policy, as the other policies deal with broad topics and it would be out of place there. Turning the help page on reception wikis into an official policy page and adding the definition there would be the best solution. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support I'm receptive to this change; it doesn't seem harmful and represents the current incarnation of the policy. --Labster (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very useful for people who are unfamiliar with what a Reception Wiki is, especially to those that often mistake any Reception Wiki as "Miraheze" when it is clear that we host more than just these types of wikis. Not to mention, they have been very controversial and problematic for a long time, and a few wikis that have a similar definition to a Reception Wiki still somehow managed to get approved and get away with it for a while such as this one for instance (which was thankfully closed),even after their community ban. Snow (talk | contribs | sandbox | centralauth) 07:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's more clear to have this included in the CP itself and it should be clear that Miraheze no longer hosts Reception wikis. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I understand that definition, so, I'd agree to this one. - User:ThetaSigmaEarChef 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- User:ThetaSigmaEarChef, this is the proposal on reception wikis. I think you meant to vote in a different section. Harej (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- User:Harej Ah, thank you so much for catching that- I had a lot of trouble voting originally because there was an edit conflict and so I had to past everything back in. I must have put this in the wrong place. Changed it now to what it originally was- turned out I'd moved that to 1.0 by mistake! I'll go through and make sure that has happened anywhere else. ~~~~
- Support usually very little or almost nothing in those kinds of wikis Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Long overdue, as stated previously. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Best to clarify this right up front to save everyone time. – Jph2 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is a great idea. --Mike9012 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC).
- Support This sounds reasonable enough to me. Never been a fan of these or seen much of a point of doing it in the wiki format. This makes it quite clear it concerns the creation of new reception wikis so I have no qualms. --Sophiebun (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support --Looney Toons (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Robkelk (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest support Long overdue; too many people don't realise what a reception wiki is and go forward with requesting one. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support there should be a definition for this. Pisces (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 1.1[edit | edit source]
- I'm not knowledgeable enough to vote on this topic Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 00:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain in 1.4 oppose #9 I suggested to move reception wikis into scrutiny section with a link to Help page, containing broad definition. Legroom (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral, concur with Legroom that this is a matter for additional restrictions/a dedicated scrutiny section, given the specificity of this subject. I support the sentiment. --raidarr ( 💬 ) 00:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain Not much point in opposing. I never wanted reception wikis banned, but opposing this won't make them unbanned, as any reception wiki I or others would want to create would likely be rejected anyway. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 04:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support codifying this; Oppose banning reception wikis forever because the concept is not the problem, the way they're being run (immature and inactive moderators, LTAs not being handled properly, toxicity, etc.) is. If reception wikis were overhauled significantly to get rid of the toxic community members and clean up the general mess on them, they'd be fine. See e.g. the Amazing YouTubers Wiki. Popular projects, including reception wikis, will usually attract a wide variety of users, and some of these can be LTAs, trolls, immature, toxic, etc., but banning the entire concept behind a wiki because it's developed poor administration is not the way to solve the very real problem. I understand why volunteers are burned out by drama, but an easy fix isn't always the right fix. Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 1.1[edit | edit source]
- Oppose I do not believe that a definition for reception wikis should be in the Content Policy. If anything, it should be in the dedicated help page on reception wikis; having it in the Content Policy feels like an oddly specific pointer to what are supposed to be general guidelines for wikis. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose Favoring the creating of a varierty of wikis is good, removing wikis is bad, new restrictions are bad. --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a new restriction. See Requests for Comment/Close the other reception wikis. This just formally defines a definition. Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- False as usual. It is a new restriction. A related family of wikis was banned before. But wikis which fit this current definition are in Miraheze as of now and they haven't/coudn't be banned, while they would be banned with the new definition. See, as you are well aware, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Incredible Characters Wiki. These wikis are allowed. How can any vote be taken honestly when facts are constantly misrepresented. --NimoStar (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I will note that only the creation of new reception wikis was banned per the RfC; existing wikis were allowed to remain on Miraheze, which the proposed addition to the Content Policy clarifies. I disagree with adding a definition of reception wikis to the Content Policy for other reasons, but that's another discussion. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 21:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which confirms what I am saying. Changing the allowable content policy, specially to single out reception wikis, would allow and encourage the banning of the existing reception wikis and other similar wikis for violating the content policy. Therefore, it is patently false to state that Reception-style, or Reception-affiliated wikis are already banned and this is not a new proposal which "doesn't change anything", when in fact it does. And as I understand it, there is no current drama or violations to justify this on the mentioned wikis, regardless if they are considered "bad for Miraheze's reputation". I think the site should be considered a safe haven for discussion of harmless topics such as "Pikachu" or "Spongebob characters". --NimoStar (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- The vote that included banning the current reception wikis was dropped before you posted this with literally zero support. I know it's a nice looking windmill and you're already riding Rocinante, but I would appreciate it if you started saying at least partially true things in this page. --Labster (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)]
- You comment is a direct infringement of Miraheze policies. But furthermore, it is also patently false. Just read what is directly above us " proposed Content Policy: "Wikis should not be structured around bullet-point, "good/bad" commentary. These wikis are known as reception wikis."- If this is content policy, it obviously make current Reception wikis against Content Policy (Both Proposed, and legacy Content Policy clarify that content against Content Policy will NOT be hosted by Miraheze, either for new or already-existing wikis). Furthermore, there are additional points against Reception Wikis (and many other Wikis) in the following proposal items, that had or have not been withdrawn or rejected. Your personal insults would amuse me if you if not intend to mislead and falsify the facts. Explain to me, how does making something explicitly against the global content policy, which explicitly states it is a standard to which everything hosted must abide or else be deleted, NOT lead necessarily to its deletion, save by complete direct contradiction? One would expect more dignity from the "Head of the board of directors". --NimoStar (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- The vote that included banning the current reception wikis was dropped before you posted this with literally zero support. I know it's a nice looking windmill and you're already riding Rocinante, but I would appreciate it if you started saying at least partially true things in this page. --Labster (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)]
- Which confirms what I am saying. Changing the allowable content policy, specially to single out reception wikis, would allow and encourage the banning of the existing reception wikis and other similar wikis for violating the content policy. Therefore, it is patently false to state that Reception-style, or Reception-affiliated wikis are already banned and this is not a new proposal which "doesn't change anything", when in fact it does. And as I understand it, there is no current drama or violations to justify this on the mentioned wikis, regardless if they are considered "bad for Miraheze's reputation". I think the site should be considered a safe haven for discussion of harmless topics such as "Pikachu" or "Spongebob characters". --NimoStar (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I will note that only the creation of new reception wikis was banned per the RfC; existing wikis were allowed to remain on Miraheze, which the proposed addition to the Content Policy clarifies. I disagree with adding a definition of reception wikis to the Content Policy for other reasons, but that's another discussion. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 21:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- False as usual. It is a new restriction. A related family of wikis was banned before. But wikis which fit this current definition are in Miraheze as of now and they haven't/coudn't be banned, while they would be banned with the new definition. See, as you are well aware, Loathsome Characters Wiki and Incredible Characters Wiki. These wikis are allowed. How can any vote be taken honestly when facts are constantly misrepresented. --NimoStar (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a new restriction. See Requests for Comment/Close the other reception wikis. This just formally defines a definition. Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Per Tali64^3. --Blad (t • c • g) 15:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Phrasing isn't great. Cg098 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments 1.1[edit | edit source]
Proposal 1.2: Approve "wikis should not primarily be used to host pornography"[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt the following paragraph for the "Primary restrictions" section, "Scope" subsection, of the proposed Global Policy:
- Wikis should not be primarily used to host pornography.
- Consistent with Miraheze not being a file sharing service, Miraheze wikis should not become repositories of media intended for sexual gratification. However, this is not a ban on the discussion of sex or sexuality within a broader academic, literary, cultural, or biological context, nor is it a ban on a wiki hosting a non-excessive number of files depicting sex or the human body in fulfillment of an educational objective.
WikiTide's content policy includes an outright ban on adult content, while Miraheze's does not. This proposal is an attempt to bridge the two policies while not making it more strict than it needs to be. As this is a notable change to current Miraheze policy, it is offered separately for approval.
The consideration of the WikiTide content policy is that as an educational nonprofit, the WikiTide Foundation needs to make sure that they are not using excessive resources outside of their mission. Meaningful coverage of, or commentary on, human sexuality is not a problem, but spending the majority of their hosting bill on operating a porn site would be a problem. While the Board could address this through official policy, we think it is generally preferable for matters of content policy to be decided by the community. After all, Foundation-level restrictions on adult content would be moot if this was something the community was already doing.
Support 1.2[edit | edit source]
- Support Essential to maintain our legal status as a non-profit charity. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support If it's basically required in order to maintain the WikiTide Foundation's status as a charity, then I have no issues with it being in the Content Policy. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support This one's mandatory to keep nonprofit status w/ the IRS, I'm not sure why it's up for a vote... I am glad that we can codify the exceptions for educational content though. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Until seeing this Requests for Comments I never imagined that pornography was something that was allowed on Miraheze. I do not think that we should be hosting this for reputational reasons and of course now that Miraheze has charity status this is even more important. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think it's somewhat misinformation to say that this is required by the IRS, but I do think that with the current purpose of our organization it would be very hard to justify that it aligns with our nonprofit purpose, which is required by law. And I don't think that most of our sponsors want to fund pornography, nor do I think our moderators want to deal with it. This policy allows educational content, such as, say, All The Tropes' literary critism of pornography, while excluding content which is literally just a bunch of pictures of bare feet on nudes which is embarassing to nearly all of the wikis hosted here. --Labster (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above, this ban only applies to a limited circumstance and provides vast exceptions. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support No question about it. In a wiki about a TV show, you wouldn't expect episodes of that show to be uploaded to the wiki. Although I'd understand a wiki dedicated to providing *information* about, say, a notable pornstar, or a porn site, such a wiki should never actually host the porn itself. - User:ThetaSigmaEarChef 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. --Blad (t • c • g) 15:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Well, if it's needed, then let it be. Doesn't seem to hurt updated NSFW wikis section too, although maybe add section link, just in case? Legroom (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support if we did mainly support porn sites, it would definitely hurt our reputation Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is in fact a legal requirement and is as such necessary. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support for pretty much the reasons others noted. – Jph2 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Maintaining status as a non-profit helps keep Miraheze afloat. I feel as though having a wiki set up as a pornography host already violates the "no file sharing" policy, though it's nice to have it clearly put for this purpose too. --Sophiebun (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Labster. --Looney Toons (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support That will be a good idea. --Mike9012 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Normally I prefer to provide reasoning on RfC, but in this case, I don't think I need much explaining. Support per above --╚pixDeVl╝ (T|C) 03:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support Per above and per my counter arguments in the oppose section below. Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest support easy plus one from me... Pisces (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 1.2[edit | edit source]
- The "hosting of pornography" isn't for profit if shared freely, I don't see what is the alleged Isai "reasoning". --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The distinction here isn't the for-profit vs not-for-profit intent of the hosted content, it's complying with IRS rules to retain not-for-profit taxation status. Without it, our donors' contributions would not go nearly as far towards sustaining the platform. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 1.2[edit | edit source]
- Oppose I think that in this case the strict policy (no adult content) is preferred over the compromise (some adult content) stated above. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 00:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, there is no strict policy banning adult content at present, aside from the one which bans sexualization of minors. This proposal introduces limits on adult content beyond that for the first time at Miraheze and the total (already-existing) ban of minor content would remain in place should this be approved. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- From a Miraheze perspective, I get that. But as stated above, WikiTide does have that. So that's why I rather think we should stick with that. But that's my opinion.
We don't want to get people getting Ideas of how Wikipedia displays things. (Masturbation, penises, vaginas) etc.
Just look at Commons.Wikimedia.org - I don't think you want to allow this, as where do you draw the line. What is acceptable for one, is not for others. But. that is just my opinion :) Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → → 14:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)- Well, Wikipedia is a great example of nuanced NSFW talk presentation. I oppose in stronggest terms the comment above. Not everybody comes from a country that have a restriction of mind in that topic. 20:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)(Jakeukalane talk)
- Jakeukalane: I was Born in the Netherlands, and I live now in Denmark. My thoughts weren't so much in restrictive, but more in the line of protecting our children and pre-teens. Personally I do not see the need of wiki's discribing sex, nudism, etc, as that is well documented on Wikipedia and other sources. For communicating, that's what fora are for, or Facebook groups, etc. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits 👀 Auth → 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- NSFW wikis exist on Miraheze and abide to rules set by the section on NSFW wikis, which is also fleshed out per proposal 1.0. People in general have no problems with them, and they are mostly about adult oriented video games. But I also disagree with "keep sexual themes only on Wikipedia", and I can tell from my experience how often "think of children" leads to rancid censorship and mutates into oppression. As long as the wiki cooperates with specific policy it's pretty tame/fine and no near of what you are trying to present here. Legroom (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Miraheze isn't supposed to have any preteens, the minimum age is 13+ due to COPPA. You do not do any favors to children by hiding sex from them (many psychiatrists, pediatricians, and other professionals have argued that parents should inform children about how to name and identify body parts and understand consent to prevent sexual abuse), and besides, the wikis that have sexual content are like Degrees of Lewdidity or whatever it's called. No kid is going to accidentally stumble across that. Also, looking up information on a lot of prescription medications shows sexual side effects like erectile dysfunction, inability to ejaculate, etc. - should those be censored to protect pre teens who want to know more about a medication they heard of on TV? And should discussion of abortion, contraception, pregnancy, etc. be strictly forbidden in the presence of minors (they could find out about sex because of it)? Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Jakeukalane: I was Born in the Netherlands, and I live now in Denmark. My thoughts weren't so much in restrictive, but more in the line of protecting our children and pre-teens. Personally I do not see the need of wiki's discribing sex, nudism, etc, as that is well documented on Wikipedia and other sources. For communicating, that's what fora are for, or Facebook groups, etc. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits 👀 Auth → 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia is a great example of nuanced NSFW talk presentation. I oppose in stronggest terms the comment above. Not everybody comes from a country that have a restriction of mind in that topic. 20:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)(Jakeukalane talk)
- From a Miraheze perspective, I get that. But as stated above, WikiTide does have that. So that's why I rather think we should stick with that. But that's my opinion.
- As a point of clarification, there is no strict policy banning adult content at present, aside from the one which bans sexualization of minors. This proposal introduces limits on adult content beyond that for the first time at Miraheze and the total (already-existing) ban of minor content would remain in place should this be approved. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose (due to lies, see below) The "hosting of pornography" isn't for profit if shared freely, I don't see what is the alleged Isai "reasoning". --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The distinction here isn't the for-profit vs not-for-profit intent of the hosted content, it's complying with IRS rules to retain not-for-profit taxation status. Without it, our donors' contributions would not go nearly as far towards sustaining the platform. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to see the law that states "nonprofits can't host NSFW content", if that is the argument. PS: Wikimedia foundation hosts literal porn (with explicit sex and nudes media in Wikimedia Commons), in addition to whole supercategories about porn, a porn WikiProject and is a nonprofit. Seeing that, I am changing my vote to oppose due to spurious and false claims by UO's employee in the presentation. --NimoStar (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is a difference between hosting freely licensed porn, providing information about porn, etc. and making a porn site. Commons is not a mirror of Gelbooru, Rule34, Pornhub, etc., rather it contains some freely licensed porn in addition to many other images. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Wikimedia_Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_site. Also nudity ≠ porn. Literary and academic discussion of sex and sexuality, information about sexual games, etc. is not porn, hence the distinction. No porn doesn't mean no sex. Collei (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to see the law that states "nonprofits can't host NSFW content", if that is the argument. PS: Wikimedia foundation hosts literal porn (with explicit sex and nudes media in Wikimedia Commons), in addition to whole supercategories about porn, a porn WikiProject and is a nonprofit. Seeing that, I am changing my vote to oppose due to spurious and false claims by UO's employee in the presentation. --NimoStar (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- The distinction here isn't the for-profit vs not-for-profit intent of the hosted content, it's complying with IRS rules to retain not-for-profit taxation status. Without it, our donors' contributions would not go nearly as far towards sustaining the platform. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose Even if restricting NSFW content helps increase revenue from nonprofit donations, I believe that as a nonprofit organization, Miraheze is going down a poor path if freedom is further restricted, potentially leading to fewer donations. Also in part with Miraheze being nonprofit is that we won't have to worry about advertisers withdrawing due to NSFW content. There are few free wiki-hosting services that allow NSFW content, and integrating this proposal would make Miraheze stand out less. -- User1337 (talk) 1:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a ban on NSFW content (not to mention there's specification of context), read the proposal 1.0 - the rules regarding NSFW wikis were updated for better understanding but not changed essentially - and NSFW themed wikis are still hosted on Miraheze, abiding these rules. But also, in practice, uploading excessive amounts of actual pornography was never allowed on Miraheze, so this, proposal 1.2, just spells it out properly on par with "Miraheze is not a file hosting" rule + the need to specify per status. Legroom (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- (tab) Looking at Proposal 1.2, how does the "Miraheze is not a file hosting service" rule prohibit wikis (especially private ones) for sexual gratification? -- User1337 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikis designed for sexual gratification in the way struck by this proposal tend to inherently run into the file hosting concern. --raidarr ( 💬 ) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- (tab) What about private wikis? Is it really file sharing if it's a private wiki? What about if it's text-only? -- User1337 (talk) 1:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments 1.2[edit | edit source]
- I know that I'm opening a huge can of worms here, but if this is going to become wiki policy, the can needs to be opened. What, for the purposes of this policy, is the definition of "pornography"? The old "I know it when I see it" description won't work. --Robkelk (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- It may have to work that way unfortunately, depending on steward discretion for a) the content being pornographic (you could use examples ie, a hentai file dump or whatever, something which the average person will look at and go that's rather sexual) and b) that being the functional purpose of the wiki. It's a rare enough circumstance that although there is a fuzzy line, I doubt a wiki would be approved that actually reaches that line let alone causes a break in the system. If that did happen, I suppose the best course if contested would be to approach the issue then with a finer comb, and let that discussion solidify the line in future cases. --raidarr (💬) 16:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 1.3: Approve the ban on election interference[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt the following under "No purposefully deceptive, fraudulent, or misleading activities":
- Manipulating or interfering with a public election, including by sharing content intended to suppress voter turnout or mislead people about when, where, or how to vote
This is in neither the Miraheze nor WikiTide content policies and is offered as a separate recommendation to the community.
Support 1.3[edit | edit source]
- Support While the "No purposefully deceptive, fraudulent, or misleading activities" section was initially written in part to cover this, this addition will help reduce any confusion should such arise. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I support this although I would strike "purposefully" from this proposal, as any of such to be found should be removed. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 01:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Even though (real-life) election interference is already implicitly banned under the "deceptive/fraudulent/misleading" clause, an explicit statement of impermissibility is still helpful. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support In this year there will be a very large number of elections being organized around the world. Attempts to interfere with these elections on other large platforms such as Facebook or X (Twitter) are frequent. Even if I am not convinced that similar efforts would take place on a platform such as Miraheze I do not think that it is necessary to be idle until it happens for Miraheze to prohibit it. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Already covered by other sections, but it wouldn't hurt to add given the political climate... well, pretty much anywhere that votes still matter. --Labster (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It makes sense to make it clear that we don't want this to take place on Miraheze. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I can't beleive this isn't already a rule. Should definitely be banned. - User:ThetaSigmaEarChef 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Protect democracy. Simple as that. --Firestar464 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Firestar464 Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Doesn't sound especially fun to interfere with an election. Let's not. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support ditto what Agent said. – Jph2 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's an oddly specific suggestion, though disallowing it is only a good thing. --Sophiebun (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Looney Toons (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support And it doesn't matter whether the election is for the Secretary-General of the UN or for a director of Miraheze. No interference allowed. --Robkelk (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Interference on the elections are terrible. There should be a rule on Election Interference.--Mike9012 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Common sense proposal. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 12:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 1.3[edit | edit source]
- I'm not knowledged enough for this, so I'm Abstain from this. Pisces (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 1.3[edit | edit source]
- Strongest oppose No proven need of further punitive measures. --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Unnecessary. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments 1.3[edit | edit source]
- Question: What does this mean for commentary about election results that differ from the official narrative? Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's a vague question so it's hard to answer without knowing for sure what you mean.Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Commentary about election results necessarily takes place after the election. Election interference takes place before or during the election. I expect that this policy shouldn't affect discussion of election results. (Miraheze's Content Policy might be more applicable than this policy is, if the discussion becomes heated.) --Robkelk (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's a vague question so it's hard to answer without knowing for sure what you mean.Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 1.4: Approve the "Additional scrutiny" section[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt the following section "Additional scrutiny", following "Primary restrictions", for the Content Policy:
- This section describes wiki scopes where requests for new wikis of these scopes will be subject to higher scrutiny. If a wiki scope is on this list, it is at a higher likelihood of rejection, but is not necessarily disallowed:
- "Single Individual" wikis (also known as vanity wikis or individual biography wikis)
- If the individual the wiki is about is particularly notable or has a significant body of works associated with them, the wiki is more likely to be approved
- Worldbuilding wikis centered on content derivative of existing IPs
- Personal TTRPG campaigns which may include derivative content due to setting do not fall under this restriction
- New -ball and -human genre wikis
- Exceptions may be made for existing communities looking to migrate from other platforms
- Fanon and fan-fiction content wikis
- Exceptions may be made for existing communities looking to migrate from other platforms
- "Encyclopedia of everything" wikis in the style of Wikipedia
- Object Show/Battle for Dream Island genre wikis, including related spinoff projects
- "Single Individual" wikis (also known as vanity wikis or individual biography wikis)
- Wiki creators may assess requests on standards not covered in this list. Wiki-hosting is an evolving process. If certain genres or topics of wiki prove consistently problematic, additional limitations may be placed on new requests beyond those listed in the main content policy. This sort of deviation could take the form of topic bans instituted by community approval.
- Exceptions are allowed. While wikis covered on this list are less likely to be approved, exceptions can be allowed for unique cases as described below.
- Wikis that were created prior to the adoption of this policy will not be automatically closed for violating a restriction on the above list.
- When requesting an exception review for an otherwise topic-restricted wiki, candidate communities should ideally (but are not required to) have the following traits for the greatest likelihood of success:
- An active community of at least 8-10 members
- An established code of conduct and content policy that is enforced
- An admin team with a track record of taking appropriate action when problems arise
- A substantial body of content that otherwise complies with our content policy
- A healthy community culture, largely free of personal attacks/doxing/other forms of toxic behavior
- If you feel your community's wiki has a reasonable case for an exception, please reach out to a Steward to set up an interview for your request.
This proposal reconciles the WikiTide content policy with the Miraheze content policy by rewriting the former's "Additional restrictions" section as a less strictly enforced set of guidelines. If both Proposal 1.4 and 1.5 pass, any topic that is on both lists will be construed to be subject to a topic ban.
Support 1.4[edit | edit source]
- Strong support These wikis can be some of the most problematic types around. It is very important to codify this into policy. I will note that for the most part, as part of wiki creator prerogative, this section is already the de facto case but formally codifying this will help wiki requesters understand why we may place requests into hold rather than wondering why a wiki creator placed a request on hold while they discussed this with other Stewards and Wiki Creators. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support all except for the restriction on worldbuilding and fanon wikis that use derivative content. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support I think many of these are warranted and several are already informal WC practice (especially the vanity wikis), better to be up-front about these limits. Like others I think there's room to loosen and potentially remove some items from this list, especially Fanon, Fanfiction and worldbuilding wikis based on existing IP. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support In another draft Requests for Comments I saw the suggestion of moving away from the idea of creating wikis to having quality wikis. In my view this is the correct view and I do not agree that Miraheze's goal is to create as many wikis as possible without being interested in what types of wikis these are and what its reputation is. If this list would have been proposing a total ban on the categories I would have not supported it but the only thing that it does is introduce an "exception review" that asks for more details. I fail to see what is objectionable about the criteria in the "exception review" and on the contrary it is something that should be the ideal for all wikis. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support The scopes subject to higher scrutiny above don't come out of nowhere but were compiled following experience with previous requests. I think a lot of the opposes don't seem to understand that this doesn't ban anything, it just means that there will be additional questions and additional scrutiny. Now that I think of it, perhaps the wording could have been a little more "permissive" but this shouldn't really be meant to scare off users with those kind of wikis. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support after clarification about the wikis that are already existing on Miraheze, (because I am the bureaucrat of multiple -human wikis) I think this should di Miraheze good. Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest support As a wiki creator, this is absolutely required. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest support As a Wiki Creator, I just went through a back-and-forth with a requestor that might have been avoided had this been part of the Content Policy. – Jph2 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 1.4[edit | edit source]
- Abstain As I have no insight in these types of wiki's, I feel my vote would be misplaced. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 01:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 1.4[edit | edit source]
- Oppose the restriction on worldbuilding/fanon wikis focused on derivative content. I don't like the idea of prohibiting an entire wiki genre because it uses content from existing IPs; I get that there may be potential copyright concerns around these types of wikis, but several fair use exceptions cover these type of wikis, most notably the parody and transformative exceptions. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Why ban fanon wikis and object show wikis? Money 12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The object show wiki restrictions were due to functionary experience with an outsized amount of community toxicity, personal attacks, and moderator intervention required over the time in which they were allowed. Essentially a very similar set of problems to those which led to the ouster of reception wikis as an approvable topic. The Fanon/Fanfiction restrictions were proposed at WT due to a proliferation of duplicative wikis and licensing concerns. These limits and the world-building piece are the most reasonable to remove from the set, in my view --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @NotAracham: Well the object shows I don't really care about, but fanon wikis are fine. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is just an XY problem. Nearly every popular wiki has attracted problems because popular wikis attract both good and bad people. Banning every popular genre isn't how you solve a vocal minority of bad people joining wikis. Address the copyright violations, toxicity, etc. individually. Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- The object show wiki restrictions were due to functionary experience with an outsized amount of community toxicity, personal attacks, and moderator intervention required over the time in which they were allowed. Essentially a very similar set of problems to those which led to the ouster of reception wikis as an approvable topic. The Fanon/Fanfiction restrictions were proposed at WT due to a proliferation of duplicative wikis and licensing concerns. These limits and the world-building piece are the most reasonable to remove from the set, in my view --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose "Additional scrutiny" = Arbitrary censorship of projects for no real reason. --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose While some wiki types can be argued as having lower levels of quality on average, I don't think it's anyone's place to tell someone committed to a wiki idea that their idea isn't worthwhile. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose While I do think sometimes fanon can have some murky waters due to licensing. I think restricting people in creativity is not the way to go about it. If the person creates original artwork/assets that just happens to be based in the world of a series they enjoy, how is that different from creating original characters based on non existing I.P? As for multiple wikis existing maybe there can be a restriction on duplicates and as such they can be rejected if a public wiki already exists of it, but like Coolie said, I don't think we should be saying peoples ideas are less valuable. -Erissia (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose I have warned the rest of the board that I would take this position: it mostly involves adding fanfiction to this section, which I consider a bad idea, contrary to our purpose as an educational charity, and a personal insult as an admin of a fanfiction wiki already hosted here. I have repeatedly asked why they were included, and the most response I could get was that some of the requests were questionable. But questionable how? I have no idea. Why are fanfiction wikis only allowed if it was migrating from another wiki host -- which is how it reads to me right now. If this ban was so poorly concieved, how can I trust the other items on the list? What's the logic with which they were restricted? I also don't like the framing of this section, which reads like these wikis have a "likelyhood of rejection" unless they meet some magic criteria, rather than framing it in terms of "likelyhood of acceptance". Honestly I am ashamed of my fellow board members for making me feel ashamed whenever I brought this up. --Labster (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose A rather hot take. This is me speaking on behalf of those that want to host their wiki on a free, non-Fandom wiki farm. If I were to be brutally honest, if you're gonna approve of this, then that would mean that we would have much less options for other alternatives to choose from after said topics get banned. In addition, not everybody here knows how to locally host their own wiki since a lot of hosting services are paid, and the free hosting services can be too limited. I get that the communities behind these topics (such as object shows and countryballs/humans) are toxic, but let's be honest, there is no such thing as a "healthy" community as all fandoms and communities are bound to be toxic at some point, regardless of nieche and size. As for worldbuilding and fanon, while there can be copyright concerns, most of them fall under fair use. In short, I think banning certain topics, despite their intention, feel extreme to me. Snow (talk | contribs | sandbox | centralauth) 07:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose As someone who runs a fanfic wiki, I have to disagree strongly here- Many of these seem like common topics for wikis, and I honestly think there will be a notable decrease in wiki requests if this policy is adopted. More importantly, I think people are likely to turn to FANDOM instead to host. The only reason I didn't is because I was lucky enough to have seen posts floating around on social media about the issues with FANDOM and how it was treating their wikis, which inspired me to do more of my own research into other wiki farms when I wanted to make a wiki of my own. I found Miraheze and saw that you host wikis not unlike my own. If there were restrictions like this around fandom/fanfic-based wikis, I probably would not have submitted a request to Miraheze. I worry that others would think the same and have to turn to FANDOM if this policy were adopted. I have similar worries about many of the other wiki types on this list. Also, looking through other responses I see that there are concerns about the fandoms of these types of wikis being toxic and causing trouble, but quite frankly I think it is unfair to restrict the wikis of many for the negative actions of a few. Besides, it's not like these are the only types of wikis with problematic userbases. I feel restrictions should not be based on wiki type but on a case-by-case basis of behaviour. - User:ThetaSigmaEarChef 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose mostly to worldbuilding and fanfiction wikis being included here, for obvious and mentioned above reasons. But I haven't heard of "single person bio wikis" being a problem before? While the following sentence specifies that I, for example, can request a fan wiki about Michael Jackson and his works, it still sounds pretty confusing. This type is better to be removed from scrutiny as well, as I can see that it's more likely to be acceptable with rare cases of getting declined by reviewers, rather than being initially banned and making requester question their chances to get accepted and desire to use the platform. The "general encyclopedia" wikis being a problem long before, yes, I can agree on that, and still remember a drama around one of them, but maybe it's better to include into "no WP forks" section or rewrite it entirely? The other two fandoms mentioned here - well, yeah, agree on toxity being a risk to platform's reputation like with reception wikis. Instead of giving reception wikis their own section/definition, I'd rather move them here with a link to Help page. Legroom (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose The idea of banning fan made content is contrary to what miraheze should represent. This is wrong and I don't agree at all. Some of the ideas "encyclopedia of everything" are bad worded. It should stick with "copies of wikipedia" which is already in place. Also, the arbitrary of some topics lead to think that there will be more topics in the future arbitraryly added to the list. --Jakeukalane (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose As a person working on fanfiction and worldbuilding, using Miraheze as a host for a lore bible, I vehemently oppose this proposal. There are limited, ease of access and creation wiki hosts (and self-hosting is an absolute nightmare if you want anything resembling modern MediaWiki Functionality (re: Visual Editor, Infoboxes)) with protections for those not wishing to be host to vandalism (as I personally suffered over a decade hosting on Wikia (now Fandom)). Whilst I understand getting rid of the chaff, it should not be at the expense of freedom of expression, information, and creativity, which is what Miraheze is meant to be. TeamZvezda (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This list needs some additional thinking through. I share the sentiment held by others that fanon, fanfiction and worldbuilding wikis in particular should not be on this list. --Sophiebun (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose As an admin on both a fanfic wiki and one that documents fanfiction among other works, I find the implication that there is something dubious enough about fanworks to merit "additional scrutiny" not only vaguely insulting but counter to one of the reasons the farm exists. Have we not already tried to position ourselves as an ad- and meddling-free alternative to Wikia/Fandom, openly inviting not only transfers but also potential new wikis? How can we present ourselves thus while also saying that the very wikis we're inviting need to pass more stringent requirements than, say, "The Corgis With Pancakes On Their Heads Wiki"? There seems to be a fundamental conflict here. Either say we're a viable alternative to Fandom.com, or say fanwork wikis need to prove they deserve to exist more than other kinds before they're approved -- but not both. Beyond that, what does "Additional scrutiny" actually constitute? What are the guidelines that will say "this wiki is acceptable, but that one is beyond the pale?" Without Miraheze explicitly laying out the rules by which any of this "scrutiny" will be applied, before the vote is taken, I cannot in good conscience support any of this section. Otherwise we are voting to give potentially unlimited latitude for casual and arbitrary rejection of new wikis. --Looney Toons (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose As per the reasoning already given by Tali64³, Labster, ThetaSigmaEarChef, Legroom, Jakeukalane, TeamZvezda, and Looney Toons. (Fair disclosure: I am the person who invited Labster to take part in the "fanfiction wiki already hosted here" that he mentioned.) Also, this may conflict with the wording of the Copyright Policy that requires Miraheze to take into account "international copyright law" (the policy's words) -- fanfiction is specifically legal under section 29 of the Copyright Act of Canada as long as no income is generated by it. Miraheze already forbids using wikis for generation of income, including accepting third-party advertising. --Robkelk (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose That is not a good idea. --Mike9012 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose not the idea of additional restrictions, but the way it was bundled with a list including both uncontroversial and very controversial restrictions, particularly regarding fan content which I've never seen a good explanation for. The proposal should be itemized and resubmitted: it should not be too hard to get people to agree that certain things attract more issues and require higher scrutiny or should be dismissed upfront, we already have a standing consensus to block off Reception Wikis for example. Any addition to the list should be individually approved. There seems to be a discrepancy as well (and I admit I've contributed to this) where the volunteering core of the site has informal blocks of commonly problematic requests (ie, new -ball wikis) but they are not explicitly singled out by policy. There is a gap to be bridged in this so a proposal on this topic is necessary. But, every restricted type outside of the general policy should have a clear reason/discussion/consensus that can be directly linked so it is clear why that item made the list. --raidarr ( 💬 ) 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose As a Wiki Creator, I agree with Tali64³ and Labster and oppose all the restrictions other than '"Encyclopedia of everything" wikis'. I also fear that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot by banning fanons and discouraging 'refugees' from Fandom (even though their cases seem to be covered by the exception). Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Like I said elsewhere on this thread: "This is just an XY problem. Nearly every popular wiki has attracted problems because popular wikis attract both good and bad people. Banning every popular genre isn't how you solve a vocal minority of bad people joining wikis. Address the copyright violations, toxicity, etc. individually." Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments 1.4[edit | edit source]
- Comment: For the new -ball and -human communities, although I can't speak for the -ball community but I don't think there are really any more -human wikis that would be moving here or another platform. The CountryHumans Wiki is already on here, and the second-largest -human genre was the StateHumans Wiki, which was combined with the Countryhumans Wiki and closed. So I wouldn't expect any more to be requested. Just saying, Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 02:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- But I wanted to request a Chinese CountryHumans Wiki. It is a New wiki and not moving from somewhere. Because there isn't any CountryHumans Wiki in Chinese on the internet. This is awkward... because I requested it once. (Truth be told I'd want to request a PlanetHumans Wiki, but that's a next little goal later...) --Maitian MaiLin (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Isn't '"Encyclopedia of everything" wikis in the style of Wikipedia' already covered by the 1.0 Content policy clause "Forks of Wikimedia Foundation-hosted project are not allowed"? --Labster (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Labster, a wiki can emulate the writing style and conventions of Wikipedia – and its broad scope – without necessarily being a direct copy of Wikipedia and its content. I think that's what the rule targets. Harej (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- And if it isn't derivative content, why would it be bad to host it? If anything it would be a new and ambitious project to make a new Wikipedia from scratch with all-new articles. --NimoStar (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- We have resources we need to use wisely, 'wikipedia but different' encyclopedias of everything lack a sufficiently clear topic and scope with boundaries and thus aren't inherently approvable anyway. This proposal just spells those out. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, it is inherently approvable as it stands right now. The stuff about "Limited scope with minimum deviation" was only surreptitiously added to the 2024 proposal presented in the first point, as I have just cited. There is no such point in the currently applicable content policy and there never was. Presenting it as a fait accompli when it is just an unapproved proposal is nonfactual. --NimoStar (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- We have resources we need to use wisely, 'wikipedia but different' encyclopedias of everything lack a sufficiently clear topic and scope with boundaries and thus aren't inherently approvable anyway. This proposal just spells those out. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- And if it isn't derivative content, why would it be bad to host it? If anything it would be a new and ambitious project to make a new Wikipedia from scratch with all-new articles. --NimoStar (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Labster, a wiki can emulate the writing style and conventions of Wikipedia – and its broad scope – without necessarily being a direct copy of Wikipedia and its content. I think that's what the rule targets. Harej (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 1.5: Approve topic bans[edit | edit source]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- There are 16 opposes on this sub-RfC and not a single support or abstain. I was originally going to support but after seeing comments, will instead prefer additional scrutiny. As such, this is unsuccessful. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The community agrees to adopt the following paragraph for the "Primary restrictions" section, "Scope" subsection, of the proposed Content Policy:
- Wikis must not have a scope on the following list of topics.
- The Miraheze community has decided to exclude the following wiki topics:
- Object Show/Battle for Dream Island genre wikis, including related spinoff projects
- Wikis with a single person as a subject
- Wikis pertaining to the "backrooms"
- -ball and -human genre wikis
- Wikis about Roblox and Roblox games
This is a stricter alternative to Proposal 1.4. If both Proposal 1.4 and 1.5 pass, any topic that is on both lists will be construed to be subject to a topic ban.
Support 1.5[edit | edit source]
Abstain 1.5[edit | edit source]
Oppose 1.5[edit | edit source]
- Strongest oppose It is important to allow encyclopedias for celebrities just like Fandom has, it is important to allow fanon wikis, and I see no reason to ban roblox game wikis. All of these are wikis that serve a very important purpose. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Such a wiki on a single celebrity (ie. a wiki on Taylor Swift or Leonardo DiCaprio) would be declined as the scope is far too narrow. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose "Topics I don't like should not exist", nuff said. PS: Also, it is of note that I do not, and have never, contributed to, or been part of the staff, of any qualitypedia / reception wikis, roblox wiki, country human or countryball wiki. But I do know for a fact that fan wikis and external IP discussion wikis are some of the largest and most active on Miraheze, and they deserve to remain, as long as there is no systemic violation of reasonable policies (for example "worst real life humans" as once existed). A ban on "wikis that list positive and negative points" (even on fictional characters or games) is direct persecution. --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose While some wiki types can be argued as having lower levels of quality on average, I don't think it's anyone's place to tell someone committed to a wiki idea that their idea isn't worthwhile. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Now, personally I have nothing with games like Roblox. But Why ban Roblox and not Mindcraft or other creation games? Either you ban the complete range, or you don't. This to me feels so random. What is the reason behind this anyway? Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 01:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose While I get the intent here, I can't support a full ban. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the comment above in relation to the previous proposal I do not think a full ban on this many wiki topics is necessary and one that allows for exception reviews is the better option. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak oppose only because there's no reason given for this particular list. I can imagine reasons, like how CWCwiki became Kiwi Farms, therefore no wikis about individuals. But I'm just left guessing about the others. --Labster (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose Related to my reason in 1.4. Another thing I'd like to mention was that I was considering of making a general official Object Show wiki back on WikiTide (since the Object Show Fanonpedia on Fandom doesn't even count as one) until they mentioned that they're banned from being created there, so I thought that if I request it on Miraheze, then might still allow it. But because of this policy change, if it does get approved, then it might be harder for me to look for other free hosting places that allow such content. As ShoutWiki is too slow and doesn't have their wiki creation tool working, Editthis.info is beyond outdated, and I'm not too sure if Telepedia even allows these types of content. Then there's the paid options that is unaffordable to most people. One more thing, I understand having no exceptions to Reception Wikis/Qualitipedia since I know that they're the most problematic communities out of every Miraheze wiki out here. But I don't think that other wikis with this topic on Miraheze even caused as much problems as the former in comparison. Snow (talk | contribs | sandbox | centralauth) 07:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose Because banning these topics isn't going to achieve anything. It would just make fewer people use Miraheze. Sooshi (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think bans are necessary and I prefer the additional scrutiny route. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose Exactly the same problems as with 1.4. Why would we ban these fandoms from coming to Miraheze when all that will do is drive them to somewhere like FANDOM? Banning a whole type of wiki when they're made in good faith is something I'll always be against. Don't punish the many for the actions of a few. I think it would be more sensible to ban specific wikis as they come along, going on a case-by-case basis. - User:ThetaSigmaEarChef 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Full bans aren't really needed and don't seem preferable in this scenario. --Blad (t • c • g) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I'll be honest, this one doesn't sound serious at all, especially after 1.4. Legroom (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Imagine banning say, a Tolkien wiki or something. Ridiculous, right? --Firestar464 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Firestar464. If a wiki was based solely on JRR Tolkien, nothing else, just the man himself, then that would be grounds for a declined wiki request, yes. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose This is just ridiculous. I don't need to comment anything more. --Jakeukalane (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose previous option is better Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments 1.5[edit | edit source]
- What is all of communities, what their community behaviour and why these should to be banned on miraheze? Also is allowed to request a test wiki on miraheze? HoloCraft (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Steward request: Can we get a SNOWCLOSE of this section please? There is zero support for this, and even the original author didn't bother to support it yet. I think people are confusing it for a request from the Foundation's board, which it is definitely not. —Labster (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is done. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Proposal 2.0: Approve the new Conservatorship Policy[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt the draft Conservatorship Policy as a new global policy.
The goal of this proposal is to establish the Conservatorship Policy as a standalone policy apart from the Content Policy, since in theory it could be used for violations of other policies as well. It does not change current practice.
Comparison between current policy and proposed rewrite
Support 2.0[edit | edit source]
- Support This is a reasonable split from the Content Policy. The conservatorship policy takes up an uncomfortable amount of space inside the Content Policy and would be better to read as a standalone. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Agent. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support As per above. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 01:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support if a link to the conservatorship information is retained in content policy. As rightly pointed out, conservatorship can be triggered by a number of different situations, and isn't really content policy in and of itself, but ensuring individuals are aware of it is key... --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I do not have any issues with this change. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine. In the ideal world we would never use this policy, and we hope to use it as as little as possible, but it's good that it exists. --Labster (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per everyone else. Snow (talk | contribs | sandbox | centralauth) 07:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Users generally don't like reading long policies so splitting it into a separate one makes sense. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. Makes sense. - User:ThetaSigmaEarChef 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support although I do agree with the idea, it might become boring or tiresome for the Stewards especially if they don't like (or even hate) what the wiki is about. Might change vote later Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Obviously. Where there are no bureaucrats, there needs to be some modicum of control. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support this policy will be useful for disputes between local admins who they don't get a right lane to solve that dispute, so stewards can observe all the local admin behaviours. HoloCraft (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It reads a little easier and I agree it makes sense for it to be a standalone policy. – Jph2 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Making this standalone makes sense and potentially more readable. --Sophiebun (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per multiple points above. --Looney Toons (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Robkelk (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Mike9012 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support as this strengthens a weak point in Steward process. --raidarr (💬) 16:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support another easy plus one. Pisces (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 2.0[edit | edit source]
Oppose 2.0[edit | edit source]
- Oppose All proposals should be spelled out on the page instead of being links that people won't read "explained away" in a few lines that probably don't even cover a fraction of their legal and community implications. PS: Having read the topic, I can already see that a big change is that there is no longer consulting or consent for taking away admin power, removing demoting local wiki admins. Whereas before this was explicitly stated to be a collegiated decision, now any one person with the position of power can do it. --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is quite literally no change in practice as stated in the proposals. --Blad (t • c • g) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- That is not what the policy says. The wording is quite clear that local admins request conservatorship; it is not imposed from above. As for "collegiated", this has never been a religious or university-run wiki host. I strongly suggest that you read what is actually written in each of these proposals, and not jump to conclusions that reflect your opinions but do not match what exists in real life. I also strongly suggest that you purchase and use a dictionary. --Robkelk (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- NimoStar either doesn't believe what they're saying or they're a very severe case of the kind of person who asks tech support to read documentation to them. Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- If people aren't bothered to read the bolded links integral to the otherwise fairly short description of the proposal then that is entirely their problem. --raidarr ( 💬 ) 23:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments 2.0[edit | edit source]
Proposal 3.0: Approve the new Dormancy Policy[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt Dormancy Policy/2024 as a global Miraheze policy. This rewrites the current policy for clarity and reduces the time to delete a wiki that has never been edited (new wikis that are created and never receive any edits) from 60 days to 30 days.
Comparison between current policy and proposed rewrite
Support 3.0[edit | edit source]
- Support The current Dormancy Policy is so draconian to read. While it served its purpose when the community was smaller and main stakeholders knew well what each piece of jargon meant, it is very confusing for novice wiki admins such as the distinction between a "deleted" wiki and a fully "dropped" wiki. The language is much easier to read now. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Agent. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support The only substantial change beyond language improvements only impacts wikis that have never been edited following their original approval and creation. Whether it's 30 or 60, the outcome for those wikis that were never touched by their requesters is going to be same -- keeping it around only blocks the subdomain from use by a new user that might actually do something with it. The original requester is always welcome to request the wiki again if they change their mind. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 05:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support If a wiki has never been edited in 30 days I do not believe that it will be ever edited and it is likely that the user who requested the wiki in the first place has moved on to something else and no longer wishes to build a wiki. Even if these wikis are unlikely to occupy much server space they are liable to cause at least some minimal reputational harm with users seeing a lot of dead wikis and forming the impression that Miraheze does not have a lot of actually active wikis. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support It reduces clutter from the servers. Snow (talk | contribs | sandbox | centralauth) 07:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support If a wiki is deleted under the new rule and the requester still wanted it, it can be just be recreated with the exact same content, which is to say no content, because it was an empty wiki. There's no reason to allow domain parking on our wiki farm. However, I think this would best be separated into four tiers for the Dormancy Policy, though: wikis that have never been edited (20 days before deletion), wikis with less than 10 content pages (likely abandoned, current level of 6 months), wikis with content (new tier, extended to 1 year), and exempt from Dormancy. --Labster (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 11:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Many Miraheze wikis unfortunately fall into this category where the original requestor never makes any edits whatsoever to them. There's no point in us keeping them if they've never been used and if someone hasn't made a single edit to their wiki in 30 days it's extremely unlikely that they will after. In either case, this measure is harmless as it only affects wikis that have nothing on them. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support If a wiki has *never* been edited, it was either not made in good faith, or no longer has anyone who can run or use it. Such a wiki is likely to never be used, and so is just taking up space that could be used for real wikis that are here in good faith. - User:ThetaSigmaEarChef 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest support No harm, no foul. There is nothing to be lost if a wiki has never been edited. --Blad (t • c • g) 14:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support will clear up unused wikis and the ones that the creator forgot about. We need as much space in our servers as possible— as the wiki server update from Phabricator that I put on the community portal. Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Easy support. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support It reads a little easier. I'm not sure the change from 60 to 30 days is needed for blank wikis, but I'm not opposed to it. – Jph2 (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support If someone has a new wiki made and doesn't touch it for about a month, it seems a safe enough assumption they won't be coming back for it. --Sophiebun (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Good, clear rewrite. --Looney Toons (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Robkelk (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes - just because there's been a bit of a dip in contributions, doesn't mean a wiki is deceased! --XxHarvzBackxX (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Collei (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 3.0[edit | edit source]
- Abstain It doesn't seem like blank wikis put a lot of stress on Miraheze to reduce their existence time, and considering new proposal 3.1 I don't see much point in this proposal. Legroom (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain I think blank wikis have less stress. --Mike9012 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 3.0[edit | edit source]
- Oppose I oppose the change from 60 to 30 days. --AnimeMan234 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose Yes, delete more wikis, the real reason of all of this is that after having 10x more unaccountable donations, it should be used to pay for 0.1x the old hosting. --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this is just me but I do not understand what the meaning of this statement. What is the meaning of "unaccountable donations"? In any it is disappointing that as far as I can see you have chosen to oppose every proposal and adopt a contrarian position because you do not agree with the entire idea of the new WikiTide Foundation. This is of course your right to do but I do not see how it is productive to oppose everything only because of the identity of the proposers rather than judge them based on their merits. While being unclear this comment seems to me to introduce more bad faith and imply that there is something nefarious about donations when again there is absolutely no proof of this. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- In addition to the above, said wikis will essentially have nothing lost. They're unedited. --Blad (t • c • g) 15:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- This comes with all the other measures to reduce the number of wikis, expel wikis, and ban wiki topics. Thus my comment is on the package deal that runs throughout all proposals. --NimoStar (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Should this have been one big proposal without separate sections, yes, that would be the case. That's why when introducing new ideas into an RfC, it's divided so that the good parts of the RfC can pass, while the worse parts are left out. --Blad (t • c • g) 17:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- The only parts of this RfC that supported banning anything that wasn't banned before are opposed and likely won't pass (except for election interference). Also MH is paying more for the hosting now which is completely reasonable because the site is going offline every other day and we need to try to prevent this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collei (talk • contribs)
- No, it doesn't. Should this have been one big proposal without separate sections, yes, that would be the case. That's why when introducing new ideas into an RfC, it's divided so that the good parts of the RfC can pass, while the worse parts are left out. --Blad (t • c • g) 17:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- This comes with all the other measures to reduce the number of wikis, expel wikis, and ban wiki topics. Thus my comment is on the package deal that runs throughout all proposals. --NimoStar (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments 3.0[edit | edit source]
Strongest opposeas some topics are seasonal. Just think about Formula 1 that is (normally) silent between December and March. Skating only occur during the Winter time. Series on TV/Streaming services often have a long summer break between seasons. It is obvious that these types of Wiki's would have less to no activity in these off-seasons. 60 days is the bare minimum; one should not go lower than that. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 01:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)- Procedural note that the lowering of 30 days only applies to wikis that have not been edited since their creation; the Dormancy Policy for wikis that have been edited has remained unchanged. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 01:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- An additional procedural point: the wiki you describe would still have 60 days under dormancy policy if this proposal is approved. Also, seasonal wikis have the opportunity to request inactivity exemptions specifically to handle this scenario.
Support --Mike9012 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposal 3.1: Loosening the Dormancy Policy[edit | edit source]
Following the very successful Fundraiser (Thank you to everyone who donated! If you're feeling generous, please consider a donation!) and following a consultation with the Director of Site Reliability Engineering where it was investigated whether we had the resources to reasonably accommodate this, the Board of WikiTide Foundation is pleased to propose that the Dormancy Policy be modified to loosen its short timeline and extend how much time wikis have before deletion. While the short timeline made sense when we were a very small service with sparing donations, the service is evolving and growing and policy must adapt to these changes. Agent Isai Talk to me! 20:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The Dormancy Policy is proposed to be amended to the following:
- Inactivity: The period before a wiki is marked as inactive is moved from 45 days (1.5 months) to 60 days (2 months).
- The inactivity phase only places a notice on the top of a wiki informing the wiki bureaucrat of what can happen if the wiki is left unattended for a longer period. It also sends an email out to them.
- Closure: The period before a wiki is closed is moved from 15 days after inactivity warning to 60 days (2 months) after warning for a total of 4 months since the last contribution (up from 2 months since last contribution).
- Eligible for deletion: The period before a wiki is eligible for deletion is moved from 120 days (4 months) since last notice to 245 days (8 months) since last edit for a total of 1 year of inactivity (up from 6 months).
- Deleted (when required): A wiki will be placed in the deletion queue 31 days (1 month) after being labeled eligible for deletion, up from 2 weeks after being placed there, for a total of 1 year and 1 month of time before a wiki is deleted.
- Current Dormancy Policy
Stage | Minimum time since last notice | Minimum total time | Minimum time if 0 contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Wiki Created | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Inactive Warning | 45 | 45 (1.5 months) | 15 |
Closure | 15 | 60 (2 months) | N/A |
Eligible for deletion | 120 | 180 (6 months) | 30 |
Deleted (when required) | 14 | 194 (6.5 months) | 30 |
- Proposed changes
Stage | Minimum time since last notice | Minimum total time | Minimum time if 0 contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Wiki Created | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Inactive Warning | 60 | 60 (2 months) | 15 |
Closure | 60 | 120 (4 months) | N/A |
Eligible for deletion | 245 | 365 (1 year) | 30 |
Deleted (when required) | 31 | 396 (1 year and 1 month) | 30 |
Note: This proposal is not dependent on 3.0. Should this pass, this will be implemented on that new version or by itself on the current version. Agent Isai Talk to me! 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Support 3.1[edit | edit source]
- Support Obviously! Agent Isai Talk to me! 20:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Will encourage more people to create/migrate wikis on Miraheze. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 20:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 📝 Edits 👀 Auth → 01:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Tali64 Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support especially in the case of seasonal wikis, this will remove the need for a lot of our current dormancy exemption cases and put that extra technical breathing room (that our community has generously funded through their donations) to proper use. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Requests to loosen up Dormancy Policy were voiced quite a lot, so it's nice to see it finally being possible and happening. It also would give more room for possible adoptions, and thus less hassle for wiki requests reviewers crearing undeletions requests. Legroom (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Obviously! (Per Agent). BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Makes the platform a little more user-friendly for infrequently-edited or specialty wikis. – Jph2 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support If the means are there to support it, I see little reason to object. --Sophiebun (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Looney Toons (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nothing else to add. Snow (talk | contribs | sandbox | centralauth) 09:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Bertie (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I imagine this would greatly benefit those who have become inactive due to unforeseen circumstances such as their computers breaking down and not being able to do something about it immediately? --Lunatrix (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support especially for raising the amount of time before gnarly notices and automatic closure take place. I'm ambivalent with the overall closure schedule but more is probably better, we'll see how it goes. --raidarr ( 💬 ) 00:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Same as others Collei (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking to see the new policy here, so Strong support here. Pisces (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 3.1[edit | edit source]
- Abstain Just because we can do this now doesn't mean we should, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't, either. I have no opinion here either way. --Robkelk (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain per Robkelk. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose 3.1[edit | edit source]
Comments 3.1[edit | edit source]
Proposal 3.2: Approve the list of official Miraheze wikis[edit | edit source]
The community agrees to adopt Miraheze projects as a global Miraheze policy. This spins off the list of Dormancy Policy-excluded wikis from that policy into a separate list and develops criteria for adding wikis to the list. This proposal seeks to address the gaps in policy that prevented the consensus of Requests for Comment/Endorsing TestWiki as an official project from being implemented, resulting in that RFC's unsuccessful closure. It also includes wikis created for WikiTide Foundation purposes.
Support 3.2[edit | edit source]
- Support The concept of official projects has existed for ages. I'm surprised no one has ever codified what they are or given them the proper place they deserve. Agent Isai Talk to me! 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support This should've been done ages ago. Tali64³ (talk | contributions) 22:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Nothing to add. Kind regards, Rodejong 💬 Talk ✉️ Email 👀 Edits → 01:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support "Official" wikis have existed in some capacity since the founding of Miraheze. This is essentially a long-overdue procedural fix and grants additional visibility to an otherwise-nebulous topic, easy support. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 05:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support I don't see why they haven't done this before. Snow (talk | contribs | sandbox | centralauth) 07:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support This list was created at my request, so naturally I support it. Documenting what resources are official helps members of the community to know what they can trust. --Labster (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support seems fine to me. Reception123 (talk) (C) 13:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Seems like these wikis are all either necessary for the functioning of MH, or just very useful for the community as a whole. I had always assumed they were already official and protected and all that. - User:ThetaSigmaEarChef 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Commetian Empire (talk°•◇•°CentralAuth) 01:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Simple question, simple answer: Yes. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Exactly as those above have said. --Sophiebun (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Looney Toons (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Robkelk (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Mike9012 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support, strengthens a status quo that has been rather opaque to newer or less involved users. --raidarr (💬) 16:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Same as above Collei (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support easy. Pisces (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 3.2[edit | edit source]
Oppose 3.2[edit | edit source]
- Oppose "It also includes wikis created for WikiTide Foundation purposes." Which wikis? Which projects? For what "purposes"? Who curates that list? Shoudn't it be spelled out? Another trojan horse proposal without even a link this time. --NimoStar (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The list and criteria are on the page. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- But that list can change over time? who decides that? --Jakeukalane (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- "A wiki can be added to this list: If it fulfills an official WikiTide Foundation purpose;" as added by... as defined by... --NimoStar (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Since it deals with the Foundation, I'd think that the Board has jurisdiction. Agent Isai Talk to me! 21:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- The list and criteria are on the page. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments 3.2[edit | edit source]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.