Requests for Comment/Changes to the Content Policy


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Withdrawn. The support votes on the first section and it's activity makes me think that this is not suitable for an RfC. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 08:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I propose a big change about the content policy. One things is, the policy not not that strict, and therefore some wikis have been either deleted or have been marked private (see proof here). This shows that the Content Policy is incomplete in managing wikis. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 08:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

General discussion
= Scope =

Proposal 1
Leave everything as it is.

Support

 * With no other proposals. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and am opposed to any other proposals below unless otherwise noted.-- 13:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the same as 開拓者. -- Dark Dragoon  (talk)  22:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Something needs to be changed at least. See my proposals below. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
The "Miraheze is permitted to re-distribute your content" section is removed from the policy.

Support

 * I actually think that the wiki needs to be simplified but more strict. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * If this is removed, Miraheze can not legally host any content not licensed under public domain or CC, which will exclude certain wikis, non-free images, and private/organisations and university content (of which the latter 2 have been our largest donators and contributors to the growth of Miraheze). John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * per John Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 16:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Leave everything as it is.

Oppose

 * Something needs to be changed. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Make the first section about not allowing ad wikis to be hosted on Miraheze more restrictive such as "Wikis used for advertising will be deleted as soon as they are discovered, and using a third party advertising network is solely prohibited on Miraheze."

Support

 * This policy is outdated. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3
Wikis about harassment and/or vandalism will be immediately deleted without request from a witness or without prior notice.

Oppose

 * It is best to wait for the founder to make improvements to the wiki first. Fung ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4
Wikis that have illegal content will be suspended immediately as they are discovered.

Support

 * Already current practise. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * It's better to do it later if the wiki problem persists. Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5
If a wiki hosted by Miraheze violates the Content Policy, it shall only however be deleted only at the request of Stewards and the discretion of System administrators.

Support

 * Probably the best option. Not immediate, but only at the request of stewards. Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * On both the grounds I don't support immediate deletion and that Stewards are able and in fact encouraged to delete wikis over sysadmins. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1
After a wiki is found to be violating the Content Policy, it will be deleted immediately.

Oppose

 * No, Miraheze should operate the "in good standing" model. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not immediate deletion. Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
After a wiki is found to be violating the Content Policy, it will be deleted after 7 days.

Oppose

 * No, Miraheze should operate the "in good standing" model. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Too short. Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3
After a wiki is found to be violating the Content Policy, it will be deleted after 14 days.

Support

 * This is the only option.

Oppose

 * No, Miraheze should operate the "in good standing" model. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4
Per the Dormancy Policy, wikis that are violating the Content Policy will not be deleted immediately, but will be closed if the wiki itself is already inactive.

Oppose

 * No, Miraheze should operate the "in good standing" model. Plus closing a wiki defeats the purpose of having a wiki potentially becoming compliant. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * per @John. Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5
Wikis that are found to be violating the Content Policy should have a Steward contact the lead wiki bureaucrat to discuss improvements to the wiki. If the lead crat does not adhere to the Steward's guideline then the wiki should be deleted within 7 days.

Support

 * although 14 days is a better option. Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * No, Miraheze should operate the "in good standing" model. (Oppose per the deletion part) John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1
If the wiki bureaucrat states that the offending wiki is not against the Content Policy, but the wiki itself is deleted, Sysadmins may hold a discussion or a vote where all community members of that deleted wiki will make and state their opinions.

Support

 * Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I find a flaw in the logic, if the wiki doesn't believe it's violating the policy, why should sysadmins hold a vote with the wiki to clarify if they're breaking the policy they've already said they're not? John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Wikis that are found to be violating the Content Policy may not be restored under any condition.

Support

 * This makes sense, and not other votes matter. Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * No, Miraheze should operate the "in good standing" model. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

= My opinion = I think that the Content Policy is outdated following the closure of Horrid Reception Wikis Wiki. That means that the Content Policy needs to be more strict and stately. Fung</b> ster (contribs - email - CA) 08:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference, the Horrid Reception Wiki wasn't closed under the Content Policy, it was handled under the Terms of Use directly I believe. John (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section