Forum:Discord Ownership Temporary Policy vote

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

I had hoped to avoid calling this vote, that some other solution would present itself, but my hand is being forced by circumstances.

I am proposing a temporary policy on Discord Ownership. This implements long standing convention which is being defied until such time as a permanent policy can be decided.

Section 2 is a non binding straw poll. It is intended to help us decide what direction the permanent policy should be.

Server Ownership

Policy Wording: Any official Discord Server Ownership must be in the hands of a Bureaucrat, or if there are no willing/active Bureaucrats, in the hands of a user who currently holds discord moderation rights (with Admins taking precedence over moderators); this person can be changed at the Bureaucrats discretion, and this should be actioned at the first possible opportunity.

Should the Discord owner be unwilling to implement an ownership change required under this policy then they are to be excluded from Nukapedia until they comply (This does not prevent further administrative action being taken as a result of this action). Should the discord in question remain outside wiki control after 7 days, it is to be replaced with a new one that complies with this policy.

The Bureaucrats can deligate the day to day running of Discord to any person (or persons) they choose, and may change this person (or peorsons) at any time.

For clarity, This policy does not apply to affiliate discords or affiliate sites (eg - The Dataminer's Discord).

Practical Purpose: This requires that the Discord Ownership should be Transfered to Jspoel (or another Bureaucrat if one is elected), or to a discord special rights user designated by Jspoel/Bureaucrats (preferencing willing Admins over Discord Moderators). This would also allow Jspoel (or other bureaucrats if there are more in the future, as a group) to deligate their authority to someone else (eg - Eckserah, or someone else) as they see fit. This also formalises that non policing powers and tools can be deligated as neccessary.

Vote

withdrawn. Agent c (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
2. There was a strong consensus for this in the forum, I don't know why it wasn't moved on the back of that. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin
3. As J has requested this, I see no reasonable reason why this should not be done. TheGunny2.0 (talk)
4. LaymansReign (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
5. The Greatest Savior (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
6. Jgrsoto
7. UrbanAnge1 (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
8. Тагазиэль 14:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
9. --Ryon21 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
10. The Appalachian 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No

1. You did this out of spite after a discord conversation due to ecks holding ownership, its childish to see this behavior from a rights holder, even more so from a former bureaucrat. Mug | Talk 22:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
2. There was no forum discussion post on this as is policy. The currently ongoing social media discussion does not cover this current policy vote. While I agree some changes to discord ownership policy are needed, this isn't the way to go about it. Gilpo1 (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
3. As was said above, there was no forum specific to this vote, and as a result, no community input. I am not offended by any of the suggested terms, but we literally just had a big shit show as a result of folks not going through all the little steps... to now skip the same steps. If this "passes" any changes to actually alter the policies page will be reverted as a result. Does not take but a short while to open the discussion forum rather than skip it. Double checked the Social Media forum, and that certainly does not cover a policy to vote in. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
4. This was a tough call for me, but at this time, I need to vote no, for a variety of reasons. Mug's comment above is accurate: this vote was posted in the middle of an argument and was used as leverage in that argument. It really felt like a "do what I want or else" situation that Eck was placed in. The way this vote came about just questions its legitimacy, and there's no point pursuing this with doubt hanging over it. This is also very rushed. We were told that the next step would be a dedicated discussion on the Discord ownership topic. That never materialized, and I don't know if I like any of the options presented in the straw poll. Further, there are good reasons for Eckserah to retain ownership, which no one has been willing to hear. He doesn't need to have exclusive ownership. A shared account that both Jspoelstra and Eckserah have access to could be created, for example. 2FA allows for codes to be generated as needed to log in. Finally, Jspoelstra intended to address the ownership issue directly, and I'd like to give that a chance. If a full discussion is held and if J is given a chance to pursue his option, I will reconsider my opinion if there is a separate vote after a full discussion. This was an incredibly tough decision for me, but I think this can be done in a more formal manner. We are in no rush to change ownership. intrepid3596/20/22 1:48pm CT
5. I fail to see how it's appropriate to wrest control of the discord away from Ecks in what is basically a petty power grab as the result of an argument. Furthermore, you want to give ownership to someone who has admitted themselves that they barely even use discord, let alone demonstrates the knowledge of the platform to be able to run one? -Not Alex 13:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Section 2- Straw poll

Moved to Forum:Discord Ownership Permanent Rule - Straw Poll and Discussion.

Comments

Figured I'd have a look at the Voting regulations after Gilpo's comment and if this is the correct process is very open to interpretation:

For me "normal" implies usual process, not "the" process. There is also the argument that could be made that the server handover didn't follow "normal" process as it was given to someone who didn't have (as far as I am aware) Nukapedia chat moderation/administration rights which would have made more sense from a community standpoint. In the absence of a bureaucrat in the server, why wasn't the server given to an administrator who have the broadest moderation rights? Even with an agreement not to use the permissions given by being owner, a user effectively has full moderation permissions without a vote, which is in itself not agreed by the community.

Unusual action for an unusual situation imo. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 16:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The previous forum says that the discussion will be spun out to a nrw forum, which it has, hence the straw poll. The previous forum indicated no support for the status quo, and the current server owner has indicated (13 days after that discussion petered out) that they will not turn over the server to someone they do not believe is qualified, and a gap in the rules is justifying someone without any authority in policy continuing to hold the highest lebel of rights.

I am open to other solutions other than a vote on temporary policy to plug the hole whilst a permanent policy is hammered out. It has been suggested that the Administrators could agree to decree a policy to provide a short term fix whilst we hammer this out. Is there any appetite in the admin team to take the responsibility to resolve the situation? I would prefer of course to see a consensus option. Agent c (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The policy is specifically worded to refer to normal circumstances. A user refusing to hand over server ownership, after receiving it from a user now blocked globally for gross ToU violations is anything but a normal situation. Тагазиэль 16:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of the next steps in this process come from Chad's comment here.

"Discord - There does seem to be consensus to change this. I do believe this would require a change in policies to set who should have this and whether it should be a neutral account. I propose we spin this off to its own forum particularly targeted at discord users to continue the conversation."

I don't see any such spin-off forum. Since that was the expectation set, I expected it to be delivered.

intrepid3596/20/22 11:28am CT

Its the section titled "Section 2 - Straw Poll" above. Agent c (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we both know that's not a forum...

intrepid3596/20/22 11:36am CT

This is the forum, its in the page name and its in the forum section. The straw poll is nailing down what people's preferences are, it does not claim to set policy. It would be no different than if I put it on another page. I am happy to do that if that would ease your mind. Agent c (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Move complete. It appears including both on one was causing confusion and people not to actually respond to the permenant policy part. Agent c (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I could be mistaken. However, since it sounds like Dyre is stating this vote would be vetoed if it passes, might we move it back to a discussion and figure out our options? intrepid3596/20/22 10:54pm CT

I'm not sure how I would feel of we pulled the vote and went back to discussion right now. I agree it could have been setup and could have been handled better to the wording that was given, but there has been long term concern over a very unusual situation. I also know this wasn't entirely a call based on the fallout in the discord server and has been on many people's minds and the hope that Ecks would hand it over without the need for a vote. The vote was called after a final straw incident and that has clouded things as much as the prior forum that stated it would spun off to another forum.

Taking a step back I do see how the vote just looks bad faith and I can see how it would b leave a bad taste in the mouths of others. I don't know if the lack of response to a permanent solution or not compared to this vote is because of how this vote was set up and how much is people don't have enough interest in a permanent solutions, it concerns me that this could become a do nothing situation, which from my understanding of things lead us to where we are today: a bureaucrat down and a bunch of former bureaucrats coming in and assessing the damage to try and put the wiki back together.

I think I would be more inclined to say pull it if there were more engagement on the permanent solution and to fast track it. The transfer was arguably improper and should have been looked at far sooner than this. Until it is the situation is going to linger like a bad smell and delay progress. One thing I have noticed throughout is people want to fix things and have engaged on the easy stuff like restoring the content or reversing unjustified blocks, but very little engagement was made on anything associated with underlying community issues. I'd like to know why that is.Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 07:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Tbh, I'd say the bans and content restoration are the more difficult issues. The community seems a lot healthier recently for some reason. Which community issues are you referring to?

intrepid3596/21/22 3:12am CT

I've left a message on Intrepid's talkpage regarding the community issues for those who are interested re: community. Figured it would be better to address apart rather than dilute the forum with other topics. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 12:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(←)  I'm sure Dyre did not mean to suggest they would attempt a unilateral veto, but in any case there may be some wisdom in stepping back fron the bronk where its suggested. If Ecks publicly confirms he will hand over ownership to whoever the community decides, and that he eill not hand it over to anyone absent some vote here saying who the proper owner should be, and he recants his threat not to pass it to anyone he considers an unqualified person; then I would suggest the immediate emergency requiring a temporary policy whilst a permanent is hashed out would have passed. Is Ecks willing to do this? Agent c (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean the vote will be vetoed, since it is invalid. There was literally just a huge blow up over this exact sort of thing. The overwhelming majority of changes undone? Folks agreed to them in some place or another, some done as a direct result of what were (or felt like) emergencies. But when the majority of that crowd all rolled out, new eyes were less than thrilled and policies were returned to the most up to date version based on policy forums. We are not, with those roll backs still hot off the presses, going to decent straight into this sort of instant hypocrisy. Not yet, anyway. Save that for at least 3 or 4 months out, when everyone forgets it was ever a problem. While I agree, there ought to be better solutions, we are months out from the server handover, so any sense of emergency or immediacy of action has long since passed. As best I can tell, this was an "I'll show you" quick vote rather than a forum, which pretty well headlined by the claims of having a hand forced. Do it right or not at all. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

If my attempt to bring down the temperature abd move back from the brink is going to be met with more brinkmanship with threats to use unlateral authority no individual admin has amd break further policies to do so, then I am deeply disapointed. It appears the only course of sctio we need to let J decide. Agent c (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

There's very little temperature, one of the calmer comment sections lately, so there is no real brink to come back from. As someone who's on the outside looking in, this is definitely an issue that's coming across as very personal to you, to the point I would say you cannot calm the situation down read more like shutting down opposition. If that's not the intent, I understand, but it's the way it reads. If J wants to force his hand with something more dramatic and ban Ecks for...failing to surrender wiki assets? I suppose that is an option, but probably a little extreme, and potentially unwelcoming enough to actually see the wiki lose access. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I litterally just offered to withdraw this if my concerns were addressed...concerns which apparebtly are both from events too soon and too long ago. Your response was to double down on a threat to engage in an edit war to prevent implementation. Which one of us is shutting down who again? Agent c (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(←)  Yes, please me or else is a wonderful platform to hear. This exactly what I mean by the way your comments read are almost militantly opposed to anything other than the exact response you want, to the point that it is escalating to needless hostility with someone who you know already agrees with the same end goal you want. I already said in my "vote" above, that there's nothing bad in the policy proposal, so if it were done correctly, I would have voted yes. Explaining that none of this is kosher without the accompanying forum, is the opposite of shutting down an issue; it's having the issue put in the spotlight and following procedure. But rather than go through the process, this was fired out at the hip, and only looks like it is trying to bully over and big dick Ecks. I am every bit as warry of what could go wrong as a result of someone with deeply conflicting interests having the keys, but whipping out a vote with no forum, is going against everything compiled in Gunny's list of changes. Are we so quickly back to, we can skirt by on convenience because who it is now convenient to has changed, never mind how that was frowned upon regarding others? It's not just me saying "as an admin I will" any user, from normal account to content mod to whoever, revert it with cause, preferably if they then add it to Gunny's list of improper changes made to be addressed and sorted out. If you're still reading this, thinking my tone is of someone trying to pin you down and gouge out your eyes, pause, and reread it. It is all for naught if it is done wrong. Taking the brief moment to go to forum, then proceed to a vote is all you have to do. And it is probably much more likely to see compliance from Ecks, who could otherwise just point back to this forum, state procedure was botched and be right about it. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC) (←) I am deeply disatisified that you claim not to be trying to gouge out my eyes, yet the comment opens with a mischaractisation. what the vote wanted was an immedaite turn over, yet I would withdraw it if Ecks withdraws his previous comment that he would not turn over the server to someone he did not feel was qualified. Its not "exactly what I want" by any stretch of the imagination.

I felt after inaction thst action was needed because of that statement.

Im sorry you feel I am being hostile. Im not. Ive moved to compromise, and offered to withdraw this. I do not see that happening from your side, I see threats and now painting my position incorrectly as some sort of terrorist "give me exactly what I want" position. the movement appears to be exactly one way here.

If we agree on the core issues, great. I look forward to getting back to the core issue.

Evidently, this has become a sideshow that has detracted from dealing woth the core issue. I will take another stop. I withdraw this vote, and ask (non conditionally or contingently) If Ecks will also withdraw his statement. Agent c (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

All I did was illustrate the way the language used was coming across, as an ultimatum to strong arm for a position, which even if I agree with, results in a slippery footing where it should be firm. I do not believe there is a more supportive position to take than offer up that if done correctly, I would vote in favor of the proposal, so there is little more room to give. I would argue that making sure the i's are dotted and t's crossed, so that the policy actually stands up to scrutiny (especially if it does have the potential to be the basis of a ban), is much more significant than being a sideshow. Again, this is a concurrent issue where old bans are being examined for how they compare to policy to as enacted and whether those policies are valid or had complications which could affect the bans. If you make a forum specific to the temporary policy, I will comment and be as supportive and productive as possible there. If you do not and chose to work from the straw poll forum as the basis, I have already commented there and plan on following the conversation. Hopefully Ecks is cool and cooperative, but in case he is not, following through is important. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(←)  I'm glad to see this poll closed and moved to the straw poll as as I wouldn't agree with the part of the policy where Eckserah would be excluded, action taken and replacing it with a new Discord if he wouldn't be willing to transfer ownership. We need to see what the outcome of the straw poll is and if this would result in another outcome than handing it to me (I do agree that me not being Discord knowledgable is (somewhat) a factor), I'd be ok with that. But I do feel it needs to go in other hands than Eckserah. There just a great conflict of interest and everyone would feel easier if ownership is in the hands of a high user-rights holder dedicated to just this Fallout wiki. So I would say me, or any of the two other active admins, -bleep96-, or Dyre Wolf. Jspoel 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Result

Vote is closed, moved to Forum:Discord Ownership Permanent Rule - Straw Poll and Discussion. Jspoel 15:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)