Forum:Drawing a line under the past vote

Hi everyone,

Sorry for holding this back longer than expected.

I have a proposed text, and a proposed amendment. I have clarifications as well to note. I have updated the effective date to today.

Proposed text[]

All offences, policy violations, or any other act that could lead to a punitive response, which occured prior to December 4, 2022 are forgiven and expunged. No action may be taken against those who committed such offences, either formally or informally, such offences shall not be used as a basis for initiating a motion of no confidence nor be mentioned as reasoning within an any other motion of no confidence, and no rights request shall be denied on the basis of an expunged offence.

Exceptions:

• Any formal ongoing proceedings announced on or before 4 Decembr, 2022.
• Any existing blocks from the wiki and/or bans from Discord. These are not automatically forgiven, but neither shall the right of the blocked and/or banned users to appeal their punishments through existing processes be denied.
• No part of this policy shall be construed to restrict in any way the reporting of threats to user safety, endangerment of minors, or the release or threat of release of Personally Identifiable Information (as defined here) to the appropriate enforcement bodies of any and all platforms on which the threat occured (eg Fandom Trust and Safety).
• In the event that an incident which occured prior to December 4, 2022 is deemed to be so severe that it must be addressed, two-thirds of participating rights holders may vote to make an exception and open an investigation into a specific event that would otherwise have qualified for immunity. The process for this vote is as follows:

1. All current rights holders, excluding interwiki, shall be notified on their respective talk pages, at minimum, that such a vote is to occur, and where the discussion will take place (Discord, a wiki forum, etc). If any rights holders are unable to access the platform or choice, accommodations are to be made to include them.
2. The discussion shall start no sooner than the last rights holder has been notified, and shall run for a minimum of seven days. At the conclusion of the discussion, a vote will be taken. The proposal to open the investigation can only occur with the consent of two-thirds of the rights holders who have chosen to participate in the discussion.
3. If the vote passes, an investigation may commence following the current relevant policies. If the vote fails, the immunity for the specific offence remains intact and shall not be challenged in the future.

Clarification - Re Leon[]

I know there is a concern that there is a cave out in this for one specific user. The purpose of that cave out was to not undermine a proces that had already been agreed by admin consensus. That process is due to draw to a close imminently - the board has provided its report, I know Jspoel has been discussing what it means with some (including myself), but as that's him doing his thing I don't know what his plans are or who else he's talking to. The intention of the rule is not to presume its outcome or interfere with that.

I expect that chances are before this would go into force, those sections would be moot anyway as a final decision would likely have been made. It may have already been made as you read this.

However, even if this is not the case, it is not true to say that Leon is excluded from the protection of this rule:

• Firstly, anything that did not come up in the process at all would be out of bounds, unless the severe incident clause is invoked and its requirements met. If anyone is holding something to use later and didn't bring it up when they had the chance, it would now be too late. That particular weapon would, at least for the purposes of the rules, be now a dud.
• Secondly, should a valid rights request be made, even information that was in that report would now be out of bounds as a reason to deny the request. I understand that there is talk of possible restrictions (either imposed or agreed) on rights requests, this wouldn't countermand that as we're not overruling that process, but it would mean if it was allowed those are off the table (again, absent the severe incident clause being invoked). Similarly it couldn't be used for a motion of confidence/reconfirmation either (again, absent the severe incident clause being used).

What does this all mean[]

It means no more digging into the past to look for reasons to take any sort of administrative action against anyone, including bans, reconfirmations, or anything like that. We start a new day, with a new page. It can also mean people who may have participated on another wiki can return in confidence, should they choose to do so, knowing that no revenge ban will be placed.

It should, hopefully, help disestablish the Nukapedia Drama Club, and allow us to get on with what comes next. Of course, thats a bigger job than one vote alone can do, but its a start at attacking its foundations.

Proposed Amendment[]

That should someone who was not active in October or November 2022 (ie - no participation at all where that lack of participation was not due to a ban or block) return to the wiki, this protection starts 7 days after their return, or after their 7th edit (in any namespace)/discussion post (combined), whichever is later.

What does this mean?[]

It means if someone does return to the Wiki who action should be taken on, there is a small window of opportunity to do so, without needing to invoke the severe incident clause.

If the amendment is not passed, those who return (eg from the other wiki) can do so knowing there will not be action taken against them (unless the severe incident clause was used).

Vote[]

Can you please vote Yes or No for the main rule, and then comment if your vote would change if the amendment was included or not. We'll examine the number of people who'd agree to both, and those who'd agree to with/without the amendment to try to work out where consensus is.

Poll finished on 4:30 pm December 15, 2022 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Edit: I'm just pausing the vote for 48 hours, in order to address feedback, I'm asking those particpants if they would support a further change to this I've reopenned, sorry it was a bit late, awaiting some replies to the proposed changes. In order to deal with the "fortress" issue, I've proposed greatly opening up the patroller rank as a seperate issue, as it would be out of order here. I've recieved some concerns from someone I don't want to name about people being potentially liabelled if things are too open, so I'm leaving it as is for now. Agent c (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes (Remember to include if the amendment would change your vote)[]

1. Agent c (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Opposed to amendment.
2. --Ryon21 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Opposed to amendment.
3. User:Saxophone Microverse (User talk:Saxophone Microverse) 10:54 AM, 4 December 2022 (CST) Opposed to amendment.
4. FreshYoMama | Talk 20:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC) amendemnt would not change my vote
5. I am in favor of the ammendment. TheGunny2.0 (talk)
6. Opposed to amendment. The Appalachian 18:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
7. Opposed to the amendment. I withdraw this vote if any changes are made hereafter, unless stated otherwise at a future point. intrepid35912/10/22 11:53pm CT
8. Opposed to amendment. LaymansReign (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
9. Opposed to the amendment. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
10. In favor of the amendment -Eckserah ^{Head Dataminer} 00:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

No (remember to include if the amendment would change your vote)[]

1. -- I agree with the sentiment, in that I believe that it will be healthy for the community and its users to move past what is essentially ancient history at this point. I also agree with you that fortress rights need to go, and unfortunately it seems that you've decided here to propose yet more fortress rights.

The entire community needs to have a say in any such consensus. Having it where the rights-holders have the exclusive right to pick and choose which issues are worth talking about goes against a core value of what wikis are all about. I will happily support this endeavour it that's addressed. ^寧靜 08:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral[]

I don't understand, Help me vote (state what your position is)[]

Excluded votes[]

1. Pending discussion of Leon's concerns. LaymansReign (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC) User changed vote.

Comments[]

I think Leon brings up a good point that I myself had overlooked. Is there a way to build in an input for the community to have a say, rather than leaving the exceptions in the hands of rights holders?

intrepid35912/5/22 3:49am CT

I would be amenable to that. I see two possible options, we can throw open the user rights door, male the patroller requirements essentially nothing and held as a matter of right, that would preserve the pace. The alternative is to replace "special users" woth "everyone", but giving everyone a talk page notice isnt practical and slows it down. I'm happy shpuld this pass to agree and endorse either, but the furst one (coupled with reforming the user rights system in its entirety). Agent c (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I am polling the following options with current participants:

Option 1

• In the event that an incident which occured prior to December 4, 2022 is deemed to be so severe that it must be addressed, two-thirds of users may vote to make an exception and open an investigation into a specific event that would otherwise have qualified for immunity. The process for this vote is as follows:

1. All current rights holders, excluding interwiki, shall be notified on their respective talk pages, at minimum, that such a vote is to occur, and where the discussion will take place (Discord, a wiki forum, etc). If any rights holders are unable to access the platform or choice, accommodations are to be made to include them. Announcements on the issue should also be made
2. The discussion shall start no sooner than the last rights holder has been notified, and shall run for a minimum of seven days. At the conclusion of the discussion, a vote will be taken. The proposal to open the investigation can only occur with the consent of two-thirds of the users who have chosen to participate in the discussion.
3. If the vote passes, an investigation may commence following the current relevant policies. If the vote fails, the immunity for the specific offence remains intact and shall not be challenged in the future.

Option 2

• No minimum edit count; can be added if there is a consistent record of good consostent editing conduct over one month (this does not mean every day). Adding patroller can be done by any admin, content moderator or technical moderator, can be proactively offered, and should only be refused or removed where there is either recent rule infractions, or recent edits suggest the user does not understand or is intentionally not following guidelines.

(The effect of this is to make it easier to get into the group that is able ton participate, effectively opening the "fortress")

Agent c (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand correctly but this would mean if for example someone felt they were wrongly banned and asked for it to be looked into then we would do so and discuss it and if we deem the ban just then they can never get the ban reviewed again correct? Idk if that stipulation is necessary. And would we only look into bans if requested or could we decide to look into them on our own? Cause then we could hypothetically ban someone then look into it again and prevent that person from ever being unbanned. I might be misunderstanding but that's how it read to me. Idk that part just stood out to me. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 23:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the provision put in place to remedy one of my concerns may end up derailing this. In an effort to not allow this to happen, I withdraw my objection to the original proposal that prompted the proposed amendment. I am fine with vote on a clean bill with no riders, Mr. Speaker. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

JBour, the ability to review an incorrectly placed ban is not effected. This proposal is about things that may or may not be ban/reconf worthy that have never had action taken to date only. Agent c (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So, essentially, we're trying to prevent people from digging up the past to go after people or simply use against people. As i was writing my next question i see that its been discussed above as i seemed to have the same concern as Leon. I will re read this as soon as possible and see if i have any other concerns. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 02:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of past drama that I'm only passingly familiar with here that kinda makes it inappropriate for me to offer up a vote on this. I feel I would be doing so with too much ignorance. I do want to offer up two points of interest though:

1) While most people change very little over the course of their adult lives, many people do change early in life as they erupt from adolescence, their hormones settle down, and they find themselves having to adjust to the real world, along with perhaps being diagnosed with various common neurodivergences and being given medication or therapy to improve both their lives and their interactions with others.

It's very common, for instance, for a young person (or even a middle-aged person) to have no clue that they are autistic, or that they have something like generalized anxiety disorder, and then to have that discovery and to have therapy, to research how others live their lives with the same conditions, or to have medication prescribed, at which point they become a significantly different person.

I myself started taking meds for generalized anxiety in my late 20's, which helped make me much, much less of a burden on my family and friends. Then in my late 30's I began to realize there was something to the fact that everyone said I acted like I had Asperger syndrome, at which point I started learning about how my brain worked differently and that I couldn't expect other people to see the world the way I did. I still evolve to this day, trying to be a better person than I was yesterday. Not everyone does this, and I'm not necessarily great at it, given that I relapse at times, but I know I am very different from 20 years ago and I assume there are a lot of people like me out there.

People like this should always have the opportunity to somehow show or give evidence of what has changed and ask for a second chance, even if they have previously asked for one and been found wanting. If someone is turned down but continues to strive to change themselves, they shouldn't bear a permanent mark and should have the opportunity to eventually be rewarded for their work.

2) Some people, on the other hand, will have personalities with issues that lie in the more unpleasant parts of the multivariate personality spectrum, such as the antisocial personality disorders, which statistically involve about 1 in 20 people. There are others, such as narcissism or borderline personality disorder, which can also perniciously affect someone's personality and make them very difficult or even toxic to be around. People like this will range from being utterly incapable of improving (e.g. genetic psychopathy) to unlikely (e.g. sociopathy, which is similar to psychopathy but which can be influenced with great therapeutic effort) to merely uncommon (e.g. borderline personality disorder, where improvement is possible but often isn't sought).

People like this should default to no second chances, and only in rare cases like a toxic BPD person (not all are) who has finally recognized their issues with splitting and seeks therapy, should a cautious second chance be offered.

TL;DR: You need to take great care with rules that are as vast and sweeping as this proposal seems to contain. The human personality spectrum is multivariate and it's really, really hard to write a single rule that will actually work in practice. Always incorporate ways to deal with exceptions. Felice Enellen (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Result[]

Agent c (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC) The vote appears to have passed, and is in effect. In order to open up the "user rights fortress", check out this discussion: Forum:Revisiting user rights. Agent c (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)