Type of Fiat: Acclaim

Context: Given the admission of new evidence into the wackdog Demotion Thread, we believe an extension is necessary.

Description: Due to new evidence being submitted outside of Disc channels to the case, we admins believe that an extension of the discussion is in order. Three days (72 hours) is the recommended extension.

Reasoning: Allow all parties to review all submitted evidence and make their decision accordingly.

Supporters:

• Uncle Nicolini
• stormbreath
• AriadnesThread
• Kufat

Dissenters:
None

Timer:

Type of Fiat: Red Tape, Acclaim

Context: Given the ongoing situation with the V/H/S SCP Foundation Film and related matters, close cooperation with the Internet Outreach Team (which manages social media communications) is crucial.

Description: This fiat gives staff member pr0m37h3um, captain of Internet Outreach, temporary mod tools access, on O5 only, for the duration of this incident. This will enable better coordination of this important matter on our staff site.

Reasoning: At the time this fiat was being discussed pr0m37h3um did not have mod tools access. This inhibited her ability to perform relevant functions on O5 Command as part of our coordination in response to this matter. (Further details are available to operational staff.)

Supporters:

• aismallard
• AriadnesThread
• Prismal
• Kufat
• DrEverettMann
• HarryBlank

Dissenters:
None

Timer:

Review:
Rule of Three passed (no objections)

Okay, so I hesitated greatly before writing this post, hence it coming in the final hours of the final day of the review.

I'm certain it's not going to change the minds of anyone, so why bother?

But as an admin I ultimately have a responsibility to voice my disagreement with the consensus here so here I am.

Something I think is important to note publicly and for the record for contextual purposes, which AHT and admins are already aware of is that I disagreed (and still do) with the majority consensus re: the removal of DrBleep.

I'll avoid talking about the specifics of the case (evidence involved, parties involved and the like), the specifics of AHT cases are sensitive and for good reason. However, I will be speaking on the decision making process that led to DrBleep's removal from staff and this fiat, as this fiat is directly tied into the case to the point where I can't really vocalize my issues with the fiat without broaching that context.

Another important bit of context is that I am in a sense responsible for this fiat, or at least the idea behind it (at least I believe I am).

I'm going to put the detailed contextual information that I think is relevant in the collapsible, since it's less relevant for those admins familiar with the case (vast majority of present admins) unless y'all want to see me yap about my perspective of events.

So, firstly:

• I dissent this fiat on the grounds that the process enabled by this fiat should have allowed for a defense to be made by the accused, in a manner similar to that laid out in the charter for Demotions.

Secondly:
Something I broach above in this post is that ultimately the discussion and decision-making was not just by AHT, it was AHT and admins that made this call. As such the phrasing in the fiat “allow AHT to remove an individual from staff, without banning them” is not representative of reality in this instance. This would be more acceptable to me if this fiat were intended to be a basis for future cases of this sort, however as the description ends with “allows the Anti Harassment Team to do so in this instance.” the fiat is understood by me as an attempt to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive, of this case. Due to its failing in that department I also believe this fiat is not a solid foundation for future cases in this vein or clarifying policies regarding AHT powers. As such

• I dissent this fiat’s wording on the grounds that it is not an accurate description of actions taken or powers exercised.

Thirdly:
I have several objections to this fiat due to the ill-considered knock-on effects of granting this power to AHT. For AHT, Disc, the Discord Team cases don’t truly end after action is taken, because an appeal can (almost) always be made. In this case it is precisely the appeals process that concerns me.

If AHT or Disc enacts action against a user than it is my belief that they should always have the ability to reverse the action. Seems only logical to me.

So, if AHT has the ability to remove an admin, do they have the power to reinstate an admin upon a successful appeal? Should they?

When a staff member is removed, as opposed to them choosing to retire, they are automatically considered to be in bad standing, and require an admin review to be readded to staff.

As such I’d say that AHT does not have the sole ability to reverse the action this fiat allows. This fits with my opinion that the decision regarding the case was not made by AHT alone, despite what this fiat asserts, but by AHT and admins in tandem. Yet it is also my understanding that AHT are the ones to receive and discuss appeals relating to this case. It seems to me there’s some contradictions there.

as such:

• I dissent this fiat on the ground that the power granted does not create a sane policy regarding appeals of this case.

Suggestions:

Ultimately I will not suggest that this fiat gets reversed in such a way as to automatically re-add DrBleep to staff. That would be preposterous. While this fiat defines and allows the method by which DrBleep was removed, it could have just as well been another way, DrBleep would have been removed all the same, because there was a desire to do so by admins and AHT, due to the evidence provided for the AHT case. There’d be no point in reversing that aspect of this fiat.

However, the fiat as currently written is insufficient in terms of explaining what actions were taken, explaining why this procedure was decided upon and ill-considered on the subject of appeals. This is understandable as this fiat was written in relatively short order, however we no longer have time pressure for writing up a fiat and discussing policy regarding this case, and so I wholeheartedly believe we should endeavor to consider this a temporary draft of sorts and build off of it for a better fiat.

As such my suggested actions:

• Grant the power to remove an admin in this instance to AHT and admins as a combined body rather than solely AHT, so as to be better in line with the charter.

• To the extent possible, while respecting the necessary aspects of the AHT blackbox, create a write-up suitable for the public of the decision-making process regarding the removal and methodology of removal of DrBleep. (essentially what I put under my contextual collapsible but mutually agreed upon, more accurate and better organized) Something that could serve as a guide for future incidents of this nature.

• Require appeals in this particular case to be determined by the combined body of AHT and admins, or solely admins, to better be in line with the accepted practice of “admin review” of former staff members in bad standing.

All effort was made to not only comply with the charter in an exceptionally fringe case but to also protect the reporter from further distress as well as not subject the respondent to an unfair demotions proceeding where most people voting on the issue would be unable to view the full scope of the evidence. It is very difficult to imagine a more transparent, accountable, and secure situation than the one that both groups worked to adapt for this extremely difficult intersection of differing rule sets per the charter and other established site practices.

As at this point every admin with the exception of the recused were present for these discussions, it is also impossible to imagine how rescinding the fiat and subjecting the respondent to demotions would represent fair or good policy, nor how the reforms requested would be possible as this solution was discussed at length (over the course of the week) with all active admins. Furthermore, several users have come forward to thank us for the clarity of messaging with this fiat and case, grateful that there is an effort to be as responsible as possible when reporting decisions without exposing details to put any user (complainant or respondent) at risk.

DrBleep

Procedural issues

First of all, it is not justifiable to label this as an emergency fiat. From the fiat guide:

A situation requiring immediate staff intervention to prevent and/or repair significant harm done to the SCP Wiki, the community and/or anything else staff is responsible for.

No "immediate staff intervention" beyond normal procedures was required in this case. Had AHT believed that allowing DrBleep to retain administrative powers in the interim would have resulted in "significant harm [being] done to the SCP Wiki, the community and/or anything else staff is responsible for," they could have recommended that DrBleep's administrative privileges be held in abeyance during the discussion as provided by the Charter for exactly that sort of situation. They did not do so.

Regarding the Red Tape aspect:

A Red Tape Fiat allows an admin to "cut red tape" to temporarily or permanently put into abeyance unnecessary and/or functionally ignored requirements.

Red Tape Fiats have historically been used to implement uncontroversial changes or modifications to already-passed policy. For instance, they've been used to extend votes when a quorum hasn't been met. During the Bright Works Project, they've been used to implement specific aspects of policies which have received overall approval after staff and community voting. They've been used to patch overlooked corner cases or omissions in newly-passed policies. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a red tape fiat to skip the entirety of the demotions process and go straight to full removal. I do not believe that the demotions process can realistically be viewed as "unnecessary," and I do not like the precedent set by ignoring it in this case.

Policy issues

To the best of my understanding, this case differs from most demotions cases in that the alleged misconduct occurred in private and was of a personal nature. This would necessitate and justify some degree of variation from normal demotions procedure, to safeguard the privacy of the user making the complaint. (E.g. anonymization of records before they were presented to Disciplinary and admins, and AHT review of draft posts to the O5 thread to ensure that they didn't unintentionally expose private information.) However, the following additional variations from standard policy were or seem to have been taken:

• Allowing AHT staff who are not peers of DrBleep or members of the Disciplinary team to vote on a demotion
• Preventing administrators and members of the Disciplinary team who are not members of AHT from voting on DrBleep's removal
• Disallowing DrBleep from offering a statement in her defense prior to reaching a decision
• Conducting the entire proceeding in private rather than on O5

Separately from the procedural issues of fiat compliance with the Charter, I do not believe that any of the listed deviations from standard demotions policy were justified by the situation. (Put another way, I think it's bad law and bad policy.)

Recommendations

Immediate:

• Rescind/invalidate the fiat.
• Begin demotions proceedings against DrBleep in a manner compliant with the Site Charter, while preserving the privacy of the user who made the complaint. As mentioned, I will not involve myself in discussions as to guilt or innocence, or as to any punishment which might result.

Intermediate term:

• AHT reform. In its current form, AHT completely lacks transparency, to an extent beyond what's necessary to safeguard the privacy of harassment victims, and it is insufficiently accountable to anyone. It is the only team whose work currently cannot be reviewed by site administration as a body. It's become something like a special court. We should research recognized best practices for internal harassment investigations and apply them to all investigations of both staff and non-staff members. Additionally, we should modify AHT operations and/or amend the Charter so that the former is fully compliant with the latter.
• Limit fiat scope and require clear and specific justification for emergency fiats, including an explanation of what "significant harm" would result from handling the situation through means other than a fiat.

Longer term:

• Create a Site Charter that we can actually work under than working around. We've known that this has been a problem for years, and fixing it will likely require changes to both the Charter and staff practices. Everyone (myself included) has been kicking the can down the road because as important as it is, it's never been urgent at any given moment. We need to make the time.

References:
Site Charter
Administrative Fiat
Administrative Fiat subforum

Edit: Removed mention of discussion occurring in a DM thread, as I felt it was a secondary issue that was distracting from my primary concerns.

Type of Fiat: Emergency/Red Tape

Description: Allow AHT to remove an individual from staff, without banning them. AHT having this power is ambiguous, with senior team members disagreeing whether on policy allows for this. If AHT does not have the power to do so, removal from staff would need to be handled by Disciplinary through the Demotions section of the charter. This fiat cuts through the red tape of determining whether it is the case and the potential to pass policy, and allows the Anti Harassment Team to do so in this instance.

Reasoning: There is no need to expose the Disciplinary Team to the evidence gathered for the Anti Harassment Team, and to have Disciplinary take action to remove the individual from staff without them having proper context would be inadequate.

Supporters:

• Uncle Nicolini
• stormbreath
• AriadnesThread
• DrEverettMann
• aismallard

Timer:

Type of Fiat: Other

Context: Reservation of a specific slot during the release of the Lost Series.

Description: This fiat is for the reservation of slot 173 in the Lost Series.

Reasoning: Details TBA.

Supporters:
DrEverettMann
DrBleep
Prismal
Kufat
Stormbreath
Dexanote

Dissenters:
None

Review Timer:

Type of Fiat: Red Tape

Context: A prior fiat (link) made to allow those working on the Bright Works Project to modify works contributed to, but not authored, by Bright is unintentionally restrictive in the method of modification, specifying "remove material added by Bright" .

This technically strictly allows *only* for *removal* of the specific content Bright added, which does not allow:

- reverting a work modified by Bright to a version without their modifications.
- re-adding content removed by Bright.
- editing content added/removed or otherwise edited by Bright.

Description: This admin fiat is intended to allow for additional methods of altering works Bright contributed to. This fiat will not be used to counter the previous fiat but rather to expand on the powers granted by said prior fiat.

The Bright Works Project team may, as needed, revise edits made by Bright on pages controlled by users inactive since April 13th 2021 who are not known to be in contact with staff.

All other users controlling pages modified by Bright will be contacted, as able, if the team identifies a necessary revision of Bright's modifications on said user's page.

Administrators may revert or otherwise alter any of these edits upon consensus of at least three active administrators.

Reasoning: When countering Bright's contributions to the SCP Wiki, we want to be minimally disruptive of works we must modify. The more tools we allow the use of, the easier it is for us to seamlessly make said edits.

The line about admins being able to revert or modify allows for an administrative review of edited content without slowing down the Bright Works Project.

Supporters: Kufat, DrBleep, stormbreath, Dr. Mann, Pedagon, Dexanote, ariadnesthread,

Dissenters:

Timer:

Review: Pending

Type of Fiat: Red Tape

Context: Banned users may not normally request edits or deletion of their work. However, many of them have material that showcases the works of the Author TheDuckMan, aka Bright.

Description: This fiat is for the following, to be carried out as requested of staff:

Any banned user may request that references to Bright be removed from their work. Staff will determine whether or not this should take the form of deletion or edits to the work in question; the user may let staff know their preference, but staff will be the final arbiter on what is reasonable for a given page.

Reasoning: Due to the nature of Bright's actions, which in many cases came to light after individuals were banned, it seems unconscionable to not remove it when requested. However, we do not want this to be abused by bad actors in order to force "spite deletions" or allow banned users to freely add new material on the site.

Supporters:
DrEverettMann
DrBleep
AriadnesThread
Kufat
Stormbreath
Dexanote

Dissenters:
None

Review Timer:

Type of Fiat: Red Tape

Context: The Bright Works Project is removing content introduced by Bright into pages created by other authors. Many of the authors are no longer active on the wiki.

Description: This fiat is for the following, to be carried out by the Bright Works Team over the next few weeks:

For non-spelling and grammar edits made by Bright in other articles that have not been actioned, and are not in pages controlled by staff, the Bright Works Project team will identify pages controlled by users who have not been active on the site since April 13th, 2021 (five years prior to the current date) and are not known to be in contact with staff. For those pages, staff will remove material added by Bright.

For users who have been active since then, or whom staff are in contact with, the Bright Works Project Team will attempt to message them through Wikidot (or other means if it is known that is preferred). If they do not respond within two weeks of the message, the team will feel free to remove these changes.

In any case, authors who control these pages are free to revert the changes made as they see fit. This will be communicated to authors who are contacted, and will also be emphasized in messages posted in the discussions for affected pages.

Reasoning: Authors who have been absent for greater than five years are unlikely to be reachable. Even those who have been active more recently may not actually be watching their wikidot accounts any longer.

Supporters:
DrEverettMann
DrBleep
AriadnesThread
Kufat

Dissenters:
None

Review Timer:

Type of Fiat: Red Tape

Context: User AriadnesThread took an extended leave from administrative staff and has recently indicated that she wishes to return to duties. It was decided that an admin fiat be enacted to allow her to return to full Administrator duties. During discussion of her return, it was decided that it was unnecessary for Ari to return to Operational staff and pass through the usual staff promotion process.

Description: This fiat is for the following, to be carried out immediately: return of AriadnesThread to staff duties and the Administrator role.

Reasoning: While the text of our guidelines governing return-to-staff dictate that returning members are to return as Operational Staff level, the intention for administrators specifically was that they may take temporary leave of staff duties at any point and still be permitted to return to the Administrator role when ready. Administrator level in our structure does not automatically confer greater responsibility or power; on an intended level, it is a position conferred to staff who possess specific knowledge or skills to best contribute to the staff body. On a practical level, the "Administrator" wiki role does permit one the capacity to materially affect the wiki through deletions, page locks, user revokes, et cetera, and those tools are only conferred to staff who have gained the trust of the team.

Therefore, Ari's leave of absence included a full removal of her from the admin team, including the Administrator Wikidot role. At the time it was not entirely clear if she would wish to return by the time her leave of absence ended, so we decided to return to that topic when the time came.

Supporters:

• DrEverettMann
• Uncle Nicolini
• ROUNDERHOUSE
• Dexanote
• DrBleep
• thedeadlymoose
• HarryBlank
• Kufat

Dissenters:

• Prismal

Timer:

Type of Fiat: Red Tape/Acclaim

Context: The Bright Works Project is now culminating; staff are discussing the few elements of the Remove and Counter Bright's Influence Proposal which were necessarily only recommendations, with options, when it was proposed. There are elements which have widespread staff consensus and are simple to execute, however, and after discussion with the team and admins we are going to implement these first.

Description: This fiat is for the following, to be carried out immediately:

• Unlisting from the SCP Wiki the pages named on the proposal's Deleted and Recycled Pages list as per the proposal, leaving only pages requiring special handling which have already been blanked and disclaimered, and will be addressed by the remainder of the proposal;
• Creating staff placeholders in the blank SCP slots for recycling and removal per the proposal (tale URLs will not be placeholdered);
• Creating staff placeholders for The Self Insert and Bright's author page, to be redirected to the updated Bright note as part of the proposal;
• Altering the co-author credit on SCP-902 to TheDuckMan, ahead of that article's potential replacement by the other author;
• Altering all metadata on the remaining pages to TheDuckMan;
• Reattributing the SCP-2000 Contest Hub to staff.

The unlisting process is tantamount to deletion but allows staff to retain access to version history, metadata and comments in the event that this information is required in the future.

This reduces the author's page count to eight; staff will then be free to determine the final implementation details for the remaining pages.

This is the first step. We will be proceeding through the remaining action items as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Reasoning: There is no need to delay on unlisting the given pages, as there is staff consensus on how to handle the bulk of the proposal; this will not interfere with the remainder of the process, so there is no reason not to resolve it as soon as possible.

Supporters:

• Queerious
• Harryblank
• Stormbreath
• Kufat
• Dexanote
• ROUNDERHOUSE
• aismallard

Dissenters:

Type of Fiat: Red Tape

Context: As per the process outlined here, staff are to blank Bright's most harming articles, however, an oversight occurred which resulted in the composition of writing the page blanking message's CSS, enabling the possibility of rendering the pages non-votable, and therefore, non-deletable by vote. This is obviously, not wanted nor intended.

Description: This fiat aims to allow staff to carry out the blanking of the pages without requiring another vote, as was intended by the initial vote.

Reasoning: Harm reduction and preventing the need to carry out another vote.

Supporters:

• Uncle Nicolini
• DrEverettMann
• Prismal
• Queerious

Type of Fiat: Red Tape/Acclaim

Context: As we all know, we have been embroiled in the Bright Works Project for too long now, but are close to coming to a decision. In the meantime, a staff vote was held to determine what to do with Bright's most inherently harmful works. After 24 hours of voting, staff have reached quorum at 36 Aye, 1 Nay to blank all of the works mentioned in the thread.

Description: The fiat would carry out the blanking of what have been deemed to be Bright's most inherently harmful works ahead of the timer's end date. Do note that in the event that the Minimal Staff Intervention policy is elected to be implemented, staff will be able to revert these changes as blanking the pages will redirect to a message that has been written by members of staff for now.

Reasoning: Harm reduction.

Supporters:

• Uncle Nicolini
• aismallard
• Kufat
• Queerious
• DrEverettMann
• Dexanote

Dissenters:

• Prismal

The Bright Works project will of course continue; this is a separate action.

Supporters: aismallard, Dexanote, DrBleep, DrEverettMann, HarryBlank, nico, Pedagon, stormbreath

Type of Fiat Acclaim

Description: We are introducing the following CSS onto /nav:side. This applies the CSS on all pages on the wiki, without putting the change into Sigma-10, to avoid overreach towards other branches that fork their CSS from ours.

a[href*="user:info/adminbright"] { font-size: 0; } a[href*="user:info/adminbright"]::before { content: 'TheDuckMan'; font-size: .95rem; } a[href*="user:info/adminbright"]:nth-child(1) img { display: none } a[href*="user:info/adminbright"]:nth-child(1)::before { content: ""; width: 16px; height: 16px; background-image: url(https://www.wikidot.com/avatar.php?userid=1522769&size=small&timestamp=1769563918), url(https://www.wikidot.com/userkarma.php?u=634139); display: inline-block; background-size: contain; vertical-align: -0.3em; padding: 1px 9px 1px 8px; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position-x: 9px, 0; }

Reasoning: An AHT-banned user has a username which implies a position on the site that they do not have. As they are AHT banned, we do not expect them to change their username but need to change how they are presented. This also removes their profile picture to further limit visibility.

Supporters: stormbreath, aismallard, DrBleep, Dexanote, Dr Mann, Queerious, Kufat, Pedagon, nico

Type of Fiat: Red Tape/Rules Amendment

Context: Currently, the site charter does not define the ability for a team captain to adjust the membership of their team independently, nor is the rank of vice captain codified anywhere. Given these are standard functions of staff teams, amending the charter to match is required.

Description: The fiat would apply to the IV. Staff Rights and Rules section of the charter, under A. Staff Teams, adding an additional bullet point. This rule amendment would read:

2. Team structure and membership is determined by the team captain; this includes the authority to add or remove team members from said staff team. A captain additionally has the authority to create, appoint and remove vice captain(s) within their staff teams, and may define their responsibilities and purviews accordingly. In the event a team captain is unavailable, a vice captain will serve as the acting captain; due to this, all vice captain appointees must be operational staff or higher.

Reasoning: Teams and team captains have operated with this as the implicit policy for years - this amendment addresses an oversight in policy, where the only mention of team structure is under the staff structure FAQ, which states:

The responsibility for a team’s goals lies with the team captain(s). However, many team captains still create a formal ranking structure within their team.

Therefore, we need to adjust our charter to formally empower team captains to make these changes.

Supporters:

• Queerious
• Ariadnesthread
• Uncle Nicolini
• Bluesoul
• DrBleep
• Dexanote
• Zyn
• aismallard
• Kufat

Dissenters:

Timer:

Review:
Upon conclusion of the timer this section should note if the fiat has passed review, the number of active admin reviewers, the number of active admin supporters and the number of active admin dissenters

Type of Fiat Other and/or Procedural Stoppage

Context: Prismal found a wording ambiguity in a rule that's up for vote.

Description: Resume discussion for another week to address this issue.

Reasoning: Passing a rule known to be ambiguously-worded is not a desirable outcome.

Supporters: Dr. Mann, Prismal, Uncle Nicolini, stormbreath (in addition to myself.)

Dissenters: None at this time

Timer:

Review
Upon conclusion of the timer this section should note if the fiat has passed review, the number of active admin reviewers, the number of active admin supporters and the number of active admin dissenters

Context: The current Licensing Guide outlines specific rules for the development of video games that are derived from the SCP Wiki. The listed rules are overly restrictive, and many of the largest current games based on the SCP Wiki do not comply with the license as written — notably, the current rules prevent the usage of any major Game Development Engine, presenting a major blocker to aspiring developers. As well, when contacted with questions regarding the current policy, Licensing staff is unable to give a solid answer, due to the non-enforceability of the current policy, without potentially providing information that is legally correct, but contradicts the policy.

The proposed changes to the Licensing Guide would change from a prescriptive stance, to instead noting that we cannot give detailed legal advice, to avoid any liability. Additionally, we have created a set of internal games licensing guidelines that, although they are not legal advice, outline a set of best practices for complying with our license. If these guidelines are followed, we can consider a game as having made a 'good-faith attempt' to follow our license, and would be provided upon specific inquiry/request.

Description: The current Licensing Guide states, as it relates to all games derived from the SCP Wiki:

[The developer must release] the work under CC-by-SA-3.0, including the release statement prominently on any store page the game is distributed on (as well as developer websites and the like), releasing the game without DRM if the game costs money (steam and the like have developer options for this), not imposing additional legal restrictions through EULAs or equivalent user forms, and not attempting to impede any alternate distribution sources so long as those sources in turn follow the terms of the license.

Due to the fact that many popular game engines cannot be released under this license, and the fact that the policy as written does not allow for any games that are not entirely CC-by-SA-3.0, all popular SCP games are in violation of the current policy. Given the fact that we do not have the legal ground, nor the resources to pursue those projects, and the fact that they are considered a positive for the community at large, this policy is unenforced.

As such, to create a policy where we can advise game developers on the best ways to remain compliant, we propose the following:

1. We change the Licensing Guide's language to state the following:

2. We host a page on O5, for internal use, outlining the best practices a game developer can take, to stay compliant with the Wiki's license. This page does not constitute legal advice, and is stated outright at the top. The page will be provided to game developers on request, and subject to complying with the outlined suggestions, a game will be considered as a 'good faith attempt' to follow the Wiki's license, and licensing team will not pursue any corrections. In instances where a video game does not properly attribute the wiki, the Licensing team will be able to contact the developers regarding the issue, as with any other derived content. The contents of this internal page are listed below:
https://05command.wikidot.com/games-licensing-guidelines

Supporters:

• Uncle Nicolini
• DrBleep
• Dexanote
• Rounderhouse
• Prismal
• AriadnesThread