This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. C4-DE Bot (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Discord policy clean-up
Wookieepedia:Discord — draft proposal permalink — diff (updated)
The usual general clean-up and clarifications, plus a few points:
- Remove the rule against message deletion, since users usually delete innocuous stuff and it doesn't make sense to require admins to call folks out everytime someone makes a message deletion. Plus, privacy is totally a valid ground for deleting stuff.
- An audit log would still be maintained for admins to take action if someone's deleting or editing messages and then trying to gaslight other folks or something like that.
- Specifically restrict the deletion of other people's messages to "inappropriate content, sensitive information, or spoilers outside the designated spoiler channels" and messages in request channels, e.g. bot, consultation, and verification requests.
- Changing rule 1's wording from "personal attacks" and "vicious abuse" to simply refer to the new user conduct policy.
- Removing the unnecessary "Users are expected to remain on-topic with respect to each channel's purpose" and "English should be used at all times" rules since they haven't and don't need to be enforced. We can still kindly remind each other if someone confuses the social channel for the spoiler channels, or if someone insists on writing in Latin we can just use the spamming rule.
- Codifying that admins have been "pruning"/kicking inactive, unverified users from time to time—this is for both security reasons and to keep the member list under 1000, because going over that means offline users would no longer show in the user list, which is especially a hassle in smaller channels.
- Clarified some server moderation permissions in the server and, as with the Forum:SH:Administrators page proposal, specifying that private consultation channels shall be deleted upon archiving, since any future bureaucrat would have access to all private channels.
Discussion and feedback welcome! OOM 224 (he/him) 05:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[]
- It all looks good to me. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 05:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per JMAS. Bonzane10
black belt in card-jitsu 05:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you both! Per some additional feedback, I'm adding a few more points to these proposals: first, to specify on the Discord page that "These tables may be appropriately updated without a new Consensus track vote" and move the "Bots" table down to a new "Roles" section, which would clarify the roles within the server. Second, to create a cross-wiki collaboration channel per Forum:SH:Cross wiki collaboration channel that can be accessed by the "Wookieepedians" role and a new role for people from other wikis, manually verified by admins. Third, to merge the "no roleplaying" rule to the "no spamming" rule. OOM 224 (he/him) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would generally be ideal to iron out what that role would be called (and what the requirements are to get it, which would assuredly be at least being able to have the Verified role (ie a Fandom account so their name is consistent with their profile) and whether or not they need to hold a position or some decent number of edits on their home site.—spookywillowwtalk 15:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- "Collaborator" as suggested in the previous SH sounds good to me. Having the Verified role and being an active user on their wiki would be a good starting point, but I'm not sure about having extra requirements beyond that as it would be good to keep it as a largely informal thing, especially since there may be veteran non-admin users or users whose edits are spread across multiple wikis. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 13:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would generally be ideal to iron out what that role would be called (and what the requirements are to get it, which would assuredly be at least being able to have the Verified role (ie a Fandom account so their name is consistent with their profile) and whether or not they need to hold a position or some decent number of edits on their home site.—spookywillowwtalk 15:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looking good! Imperators II(Talk) 07:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looking good indeed. Wok142 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, looks good! (Although I will point out a couple of small typos in the Roles list, namely that AgriCorps and Discussions Mods aren't correctly pluralized) Zed42
(talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good stuff all. From now on I will only answer to Dani and Fan in French. Some observations: VIP are not red (JMAS signature is red), but rather (dark) orange, and reviewers are more like light orange than gold to me. Also, wouldn't the general order make more sense to have "How to join" first and "Roles" in third OR have "Roles" as a sub-category of "Server structure" (not included in the draft)? And navbox {{Policies}} is missing from the live page. The VIP list is an issue for me: first it's "hidden" under Pinned Messages, second it's (likely) out-of-date. We should find a more elegant solution than this, why not a "VIP-rules" (not #VIP since I believe it's a private channel) channel under "Info/tools", only visible for verified users, with full list of VIPs, reminder of the rules (and sanctions if they were to be broken...), and if interactions are allowed. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I like this VIP idea. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent points all. OOM 224 (he/him) 15:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- One last thing: Why not have the {{Policies}} on top instead of just relegated to the "Rules" section? I'm not sure I see the point, and in practice, it seems impractical. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 17:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, may as well formalise the whole page as a policy page if it would include a line about admins being able to update the tables without a vote. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 13:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- One last thing: Why not have the {{Policies}} on top instead of just relegated to the "Rules" section? I'm not sure I see the point, and in practice, it seems impractical. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 17:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent points all. OOM 224 (he/him) 15:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I like this VIP idea. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- "if someone insists on writing in Latin" hmm ideas, ideas..... but seriously, nice work. I support this Fan26 (Talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- One question about the pruning... do you only ever prune unverified users or would it make sense to also prune verified users? There's almost certainly a good amount of verified users who are highly inactive/never were active, and less of those to scroll through is really what would be helpful. Wok142 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- We've only pruned unverified users, but if the community approves, I'm open to pruning users who are verified or even with the Wookieepedian role as well to make sure there aren't compromised accounts/lurkers. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 13:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)