Staff Discussion rule addition (noncontroversial)

[ImmortalDread]

1) Okay, but it is hard to understand the intentions of the way you worded your sentences.

Well, with this wording, anything that requires a canonical/verse evidence is not official policy revision. For example, the DC/Marvel ruling (the thread you were using to veto) is an official policy revision, since it does not require any canonical/verse evidence.

Rather, it simply a specific restriction on how much a character has to appear before they can be indexed. This applies to no other verses, and is based on concerns of quality for the wiki as a whole, rather than evidence from the series itself.

Agnaa explained it here.

2) Yes, but without the bolded text, and written as: "Official policy revisions encompass..."

The bolded part won't obviously be included.

We can replace “encompass” with “are”. Is it fine? "Official policy revisions are ....etc"

 

[Antvasima]

Well, with this wording, anything that requires a canonical/verse evidence is not official policy revision. For example, the DC/Marvel ruling (the thread you were using to veto) is an official policy revision, since it does not require any canonical/verse evidence.

It concerns the overall policies for the verses themselves, rather than for our individual characters, yes, but I still think that your wording needs to turn easier to understand by itself for a casual reader.

Rather, it simply a specific restriction on how much a character has to appear before they can be indexed. This applies to no other verses, and is based on concerns of quality for the wiki as a whole, rather than evidence from the series itself.

Well, there are a few other safeguard rules there as well, but it is due to concerns about our wiki's quality drastically lessening without that page, yes.

The bolded part won't obviously be included.

We can replace “encompass” with “are”. Is it fine? "Official policy revisions are ....etc"

That seems fine, yes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Is this clear enough? Any suggestions are welcome.

In wiki policy revision threads, bureaucrats have both voting and veto rights. Administrators also have voting rights, and all staff members are welcome to comment in these threads, regardless of whether they have evaluation rights or not.

• Staff discussions that pertain to individual verses (which also encompass topics about discussion rules, cosmology, and specific aspects etc.) are excluded from veto-enforcement.

Please note that this version incorporates a universal veto, which allows any bureaucrat to block a proposed decision, even if it has the support of the majority, to prevent any possible potential damage to the community.

Official Policy Revision: These documents outline our established standards, rules, and guidelines that govern our community as a whole. They don't pertain to specific characters, but rather to the broader aspects of the verses. This encompasses rule pages for key sections and any notable changes made to our entire wiki.

 

[Antvasima]

I was also referring to the following text:

"Staff discussions that pertain to individual verses (which also encompass topics about discussion rules, cosmology, and specific aspects etc.) are excluded from veto-enforcement."

However, would something like this be workable? I am not sure what was intended with "These documents do not include guidelines primarily based on specific references that apply only to certain situations."

"Official policy revisions encompass all written documentation concerning our official standards, rules, and regulations. This includes rule pages for important sections and any major changes made to our entire wiki."

 

[ImmortalDread]

Oh, I understand the concern, let me fix it.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[ImmortalDread]

In wiki policy revision threads, bureaucrats have both voting and veto rights. Administrators also have voting rights, and all staff members are welcome to comment in these threads, regardless of whether they have evaluation rights or not.

• It's important to emphasize that the application of veto rights is solely confined to official policy revisions. This signifies that content revision threads, regardless of whether they pertain to a staff-only category or not, remain exempt from the veto authority.

Please note that this version incorporates a universal veto, which allows any bureaucrat to block a proposed decision, even if it has the support of the majority. The primary intent behind this provision is to safeguard the community from potential harm or adverse consequences that a decision might pose.

Official Policy revisions are all written materials pertaining to our official standards, tiering system, policies, and rules. This includes rule pages for important individual verses, as well as any significant modifications made to our wiki overall.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems much more coherent and easy to understand. Thank you.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Always glad to help in these matters.

May we get someone to ping all administrators (those who commented), so we can conclude it?

Also, if I may request kindly, no discussion whether veto authority should be a thing or not, since it is not related.

 

[Agnaa]

Here's a ping of all the admins who have commented here this month.

@AKM sama, @Elizhaa, @Crabwhale, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Damage3245, @Mr._Bambu, @Qawsedf234, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Ultima_Reality

How do you all feel about this text?

In wiki policy revision threads, bureaucrats have both voting and veto rights. Administrators also have voting rights, and all staff members are welcome to comment in these threads, regardless of whether they have evaluation rights or not.

• It's important to emphasize that the application of veto rights is solely confined to official policy revisions. This signifies that content revision threads, regardless of whether they pertain to a staff-only category or not, remain exempt from the veto authority.

Please note that this version incorporates a universal veto, which allows any bureaucrat to block a proposed decision, even if it has the support of the majority. The primary intent behind this provision is to safeguard the community from potential harm or adverse consequences that a decision might pose.

Official Policy revisions are all written materials pertaining to our official standards, tiering system, policies, and rules. This includes rule pages for important individual verses, as well as any significant modifications made to our wiki overall.

 

[Agnaa]

I get why it was changed to something like that, but I'm not a huge fan of how it's ambiguous whether it covers things like the Scaling and Canon Rules for the SCP Foundation. To me, that's just a very long-winded way of putting down how SCP's supporters currently view canon for that verse, rather than an official policy. All other verses could have pages for that, they'd just be much shorter.

But I think resolving that is pretty hard to do without sacrificing readability. I already gave my best suggestion in that vein through Dread's earlier suggested text. The next best I've got is writing the exceptions in brackets immediately after, i.e. "This includes rule pages for important individual verses (although not statements of canonicity, outliers, and powers for individual verses, as they're solely based on evidence from the series themselves)".

EDIT: I'd also point out a more grammatical issue. It should not say "Official Policy revisions are all written materials..." since the policy revisions aren't written materials. The policy revisions are all attempts to revise those written materials. I think we should go with Ant's original suggestion there, "Official Policy revisions encompass all written materials..."

 

[ImmortalDread]

As for grammatical issue, I agree. It should be “encompasses” rather “are” to make sense.

I suppose, it is better to leave it like this:

Official Policy revisions encompass all written materials pertaining to our official standards, tiering system, policies, and rules. This includes rule pages for important individual verses, as well as any significant modifications made to our wiki overall. This includes rule pages for important individual verses (although not statements of canonicity, outliers, and powers for individual verses, as they're solely based on evidence from the series themselves)

 

[Antvasima]

Well, personally I do not mind not having a veto for the SCP rules page. I am mainly worried about that we really need our in my view mostly reasonable restrictions for Marvel Comics and DC Comics, since those two verses fundamentally function so very differently from other stories.

 

[Agnaa]

For what it's worth, I do believe that some of our SCP rules would deserve a bureaucrat veto.

The one that comes to mind, is how we don't allow articles on the SCP wiki to be used unless they have 10 or more net upvotes.

This isn't really based on any fundamental idea of canon on the SCP wiki's side. They start the process of deletion at 10 or more net downvotes, but they still treat stuff that straddles that line as canon. (And, potentially relevantly, they don't delete author pages, yet some tales have made author pages canon, so we need some way to decide when to accept those).

We don't accept those, since we don't want our profiles fluctuating with new, bad articles that see little widespread acceptance, and may get deleted soon.

I want this rule to capture that sort of thing, and not just explanations of what's accepted as canon, or our examples of Outliers.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems to make sense. So do you have any good and workable suggestion for how to slightly rework Dread's suggested rule text above to incorporate that?

 

[Agnaa]

I tried to do so in my original suggestion, but that later got changed for readability issues. Here was my next best suggestion:

But I think resolving that is pretty hard to do without sacrificing readability. I already gave my best suggestion in that vein through Dread's earlier suggested text. The next best I've got is writing the exceptions in brackets immediately after, i.e. "This includes rule pages for important individual verses (although not statements of canonicity, outliers, and powers for individual verses, as they're solely based on evidence from the series themselves)".

Here's how that looks when implemented:

Official Policy revisions encompass all written materials pertaining to our official standards, tiering system, policies, and rules. This includes rule pages for important individual verses, as well as any significant modifications made to our wiki overall. This includes rule pages for important individual verses (although not statements of canonicity, outliers, and powers for individual verses, as they're solely based on evidence from the series themselves).

 

[Antvasima]

That looks good to me. Thank you very much for helping out.

Does that seem fine for the rest of you as well?

 

[ImmortalDread]

In wiki policy revision threads, bureaucrats have both voting and veto rights. Administrators also have voting rights, and all staff members are welcome to comment in these threads, regardless of whether they have evaluation rights or not.

• It's important to emphasize that the application of veto rights is solely confined to official policy revisions. This signifies that content revision threads, regardless of whether they pertain to a staff-only category or not, remain exempt from the veto authority.

Please note that this version incorporates a universal veto, which allows any bureaucrat to block a proposed decision, even if it has the support of the majority. The primary intent behind this provision is to safeguard the community from potential harm or adverse consequences that a decision might pose.

Official Policy revisions encompass all written materials pertaining to our official standards, tiering system, policies, and rules. This includes rule pages for important individual verses (although not statements of canonicity, outliers, and powers for individual verses, as they're solely based on evidence from the series themselves), as well as any significant modifications made to our wiki overall.

This is the whole draft.

• Agreements: @Antvasima, @Agnaa
• Neutral: none
• Disagreements: none

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Oh, I copied and pasted from Agnaa's post. Thanks for pointing it out. But please, next time, point it out in DMs or on the profile wall, respecting Ant's wish to keep the discussion between admins and me! Since it is strictly only staff-only. But regardless, I appreciate the assistance.

You are free to delete the post. I have edited mine. Once again, I am thankful for your contribution.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I remain in disagreement with that final bit but I suppose it matters very little, eh.

 

[Agnaa]

No that matters. Unless you think Ant would veto such a disagreement.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

No that matters. Unless you think Ant would veto such a disagreement.

I'm told he could.

 

[Antvasima]

I greatly prefer some support here, yes. This would not be a big change. It only clarifies that the veto includes changes for actual policies in important instruction pages for individual verses.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I greatly prefer some support here, yes. This would not be a big change. It only clarifies that the veto includes changes for actual policies in important instruction pages for individual verses.

Ok this just stinks of bias.

I'm not even going to talk about the elephant in the room.

Why should the Bureaucrats have executive power to modify any verse-specific policy? Is it not the knowledgeable members, staff or otherwise, who should decide these things? Considering the knowledge gap that would exist with verses none of the Bureaucrats have any stake in, it would then make no sense that they have any right to impose their will upon the verse without the approval of those who actually participate in it.

And even if said Bureaucrat had a stake in the verse, is it not more democratic to have a council of members discuss the value of a policy change instead of a single head making changes? While I acknowledge that the people may not always be right, surely the more enlightened among them should have a say? Personally I am of the opinion that change is a natural part of any community. It is important that new and fresh ideas are brought to the table and given a fair go around without the fear of being shot down. The latter part of this policy is against that notion and I'm not a fan of it, to say the least.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems like I am likely outvoted here then. I mainly just don't want our safeguards for extremely hard-scaled verses to be completely removed out of favouritism or lack of extensive knowledge regarding how they function.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Well, it seems like I am likely outvoted here then. I mainly just don't want our safeguards for extremely hard-scaled verses to be completely removed out of favouritism or lack of extensive knowledge regarding how they function.

@Antvasima What's left to do here?

 

[Antvasima]

Continue as previously I think. It doesn't seem like my suggested change will be accepted.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Continue as previously I think. It doesn't seem like my suggested change will be accepted.

What does "continue as previously" mean?

 

[ImmortalDread]

The accepted standards that everyone has agreed with (my draft).

The thread can be closed, then.