Forum:CT:Evergreen RFRUR wording followup

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Evergreen RFRUR wording followup
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello hello! This is a super small followup to this RFRUR wording tweak. Essentially, had been waiting for review board memberships to have their own page set up for removals (they now do) and for OOM's merge of having all the positions (SMT, CU, etc...) all merged into Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights. And, with Part 3 of this CT looking like it'll fly by, this will codify the last piece necessary for this to work—DMods not being admin-appointed anymore. Now that all the pieces are in place, though, good to swap to evergreen wording; then, if we ever choose to add any such new position, it only needs to be added to Requests for user rights, and we needn't keep tweaking this page.

As such, suggesting the amendment from current to proposed:

Current

A severe measure against rollbacks, Discussions moderators, Social Media Team members, administrators, CheckUsers, and bureaucrats who have deliberately worked against Wookieepedia…

to:

Proposed

A severe measure against individuals holding a position attained via Requests for user rights who have deliberately worked against Wookieepedia…

Sidenote: oh, how far we've come…—spookywillowwtalk 04:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 04:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird black belt in card-jitsu 04:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. I feel like Thannus's concerns, expressed below, can be addressed in a future vote. Imperators II(Talk) 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Re: the discussion below, frankly I think we can do away with the requirements. It should be valid for community members to vote whichever way for any reason. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. I agree that the latter part of the current wording is restrictive, but also agree it'd be best to have that discussion separately to this vote. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Rsand 30 (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Per Zed TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. Lewisr (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. Per Imp and Zed, my concerns below can be addressed in a later vote. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

In concept I support but there are two tweaks I feel should be made before I can support. First, as rare/not supposed to ever be the case as it is, the wording should not exclude cases of users that may have obtained a position outside of RFUR. Again, I completely understand that someone should never acquire such a position in the wiki's current state, but things happen and the policy should account for that. The second tweak is regarding "deliberately worked against Wookieepedia." "Deliberately" I can take or leave—most action worthy of a RFRUR will be deliberate, sure, but there are still accidental things that may merit a RFRUR. The rest of it, "worked against Wookieepedia," implies that a RFRUR should only occur in cases where the negative action was performed in a deliberate attempt to sabotage or worsen the state of the wiki. Past RFRURs alone set a different precedent; individuals have been RFRURed for their conduct or for negative behavior that was not necessarily in spite of Wookieepedia itself (but instead in spite of specific users/movements). Yes, these examples of conduct can reflect poorly on Wookieepedia—I highly doubt a known, vocal racist, as a random example, would be accepted by any of us as a user with specific powers on the site—but as it stands the wording, existing or proposed, fails to account for the (arguably far more common) cases of negative behavior that does not directly target the wiki. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Ah lmao; concurred. I suppose that's more an issue with the current wording too then; the deliberately wording's been there since 2007 or some such so didn't end up touching that or the worked against part.—spookywillowwtalk 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss