NOTE: This recap was written by the Recap Team, which is comprised solely of humans. We’ve done our best to check for errors, inaccuracy, and incoherency where possible. If clarifications are needed, or if you spot any errors, please let us know and we’ll try our best to help you!
NOTE 2: Since the last recap, we’ve added a note of how long each conversation has taken. This is typically just a measure from the first message about a topic to the last; it’s not suggesting that conversation has been continuing consistently throughout that time. Not all recaps have this, as they may have been written before we standardized the inclusion.
NOTE 3: Certain topics included in this recap have had their date removed. All topics which have had their date removed are placed at the bottom of the recap, outside of the normal chronological order.
Topic: Author Page Requirements | 2021/09/01
Summary: Staff discuss edge cases in the author page qualification metric (three pages surviving 24 hours on the wiki). It is agreed that the precedent of co-authored pages counting towards the total should stand. Rewrites prove more complex, and the decision is made to postpone a concrete policy stance until such time as it becomes necessary. The general feeling of those involved, however, is that top-to-bottom rewrites should not count for the original author's author page requirements, but anything equitable enough for an article to be considered properly co-authored should.
This conversation took place over 8 hours.
Topic: Cimmerian Contest Ban Discussion | 2021/09/03
Summary: After a site user creates a thread requesting Doctor Cimmerian's contest ban be removed, it is brought up in staffchat. During discussion, LadyKatie provides additional details about Cimmerian's engagement in -INT communities that are not included in the relevant 05command thread. An official response to the complaint is put on hold until logs of these engagements can be provided by staff.
The conversation is derailed somewhat when some members of staff raise concerns about the characterisation and discussion of site members by staff. Staff members involved are reminded that Staff Chat must follow Rule Zero.
The next day, LadyKatie responds to the post explaining the basic details of the ban. The original 05command thread has not yet been updated to include the information that was not previously common knowledge.
This discussion took place over roughly 7 hours.
Topic: Gun-Printing Group | 2021/09/06
Summary: A discussion arises about the possible impact of media coverage of the group using the name Are We Cool Yet? to distribute 3-D Printed Gun files. It is acknowledged that the group has recognised Yoric's statement and has responded, and discussion largely focuses on the fact that the SCP Wiki is distanced from the group's activities. LadyKatie assures staff that staff of -INT wikis are aware of the situation.
This conversation was brought up early in the day and returned to frequently, taking around 13 hours to reach resolution.
Topic: August Recap Review | 2021/09/08
Summary: Recap Team's August Recap is presented to the entirety of staffchat for review. Athenodora notes that some summaries reference 05 threads, but do not link to them. This is noted by the Recap Team, and addressed. This is the only concern raised, and the August Recap is published two days later. In bringing the Recap Review to the attention of all staff members, Many Meats accidentally pings active staff three times. Meats promises "3 uncontested me-pings at their discretion" to all pinged staff. This is judged acceptable as compensation.
Relevant concerns were brought up and acknowledged within 2 hours.
Topic: Acceptable Image Sources | 2021/09/07 and 2021/09/11
Summary: Naepic notes that some ostensibly public domain image websites actually scrape their images from other sites which do NOT have public domain, or even Creative Commons, licenses. Some sites even include malware, or engage in shady practices such as reversing an image to claim ownership of it. Naepic and LilyFlower decide that images derived from problematic scraping websites should be banned from the wiki, but in the absence of Licensing Team Captain ProcyonLotor the final decision is deferred. Naepic does update the existing image guide with more advice for good/bad source sites. He also notes an existing policy: the incompatible blanket licenses of several websites do not apply to images posted there before a certain date, and those older images should remain acceptable — it would not be an appropriate use of time or energy to blanket ban the relevant sites and then replace images whose licenses are still compatible. LilyFlower agrees.
After ProcyonLotor also agrees, Naepic posts links to an 05command discussion post regarding amendments to the image use policy to provide a whitelist of acceptable sources. This in turn leads to a voting thread, which passes on 2021/09/25, resulting in changes to the Image Use Policy page on-site.
http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14194282/
http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14199922/
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/image-use-policy
Topic: Staff Presence in Official SCP IRC | 2021/09/12
Summary: CuteGirl/Flagsam requests greater Site Staff presence in IRC, noting that the few that are present have to cover more ground. When the relevant Site Staff are not present, a small number of IRC staff have to ferry messages from #site17 to the relevant teams on Staff Discord. She points out that a listed responsibility of Community Outreach staff is to maintain a presence on IRC. The idea of a discord-irc bridge program, as used in tech's Site11, is brought up as a more feasible solution than requesting more people log onto IRC. ChatStaff suggest this would not be useful when issuing bans to users, however Stormbreath points out that this is the responsibility of Chat Staff. The discussion shifts to focusing on what responsibility site staff have on IRC. CuteGirl maintains that a two-way bridge would suggest staff do not care enough to log in, while AthenoDora, another member of Chat Staff, suggests the bridge proposal could be useful. The discussion circles back to whether Site Staff are required to be present on IRC for staff business, despite not using the IRC chat. Members of Community Outreach state they were never informed that being on IRC is a duty, and that it is not written as such anywhere. stormfallen points out a bullet point stating that CO staff must be present to answer questions in #site17. Chat Staff state they were told otherwise. Rounderhouse notes that, when Site and Chat staff were more of a homogeneous group, no clear definition of duty was required as site staff tended to be present on IRC. He suggests formalizing the duty as one for Chat Staff now, now that there is more of a concrete difference between the two roles. AthenoDora puts out a call for staff volunteers to become half-operators. HarryBlank steps forward. Shortly after, WhiteGuard calls a stop to the discussion as ProcyonLotor is not present for it.
The discussion continues, focusing on whether the two-way bridge is a solution to the issue, and whether moderating IRC is the responsibility of anyone but Chat Staff. It is pointed out that the top-level moderators in #Site17 are historically Site Staff. The discussion shifts to considering promoting current operators and half-operators to solve this. It is stated that site staff should not be leaving IRC unread when it is the official chat platform of the wiki. stormfallen posts a draft of a related IRC Policy, the discussion of which is also summarised in this recap. The discussion shifts again to discussing the decrease in IRC population that has been occurring for years, with some staff saying IRC is an outdated and hard to use platform, and others stating IRC is "alive and well". After the discussion focuses on the fact that staff should want to interact with the community on IRC, CuteGirl requests that the conversation be tabled until those with the power to make decisions are about, Gee agrees that the conversation has become heated and calls a 10-minute timeout. The discussion is not returned to in any lengthy capacity.
This conversation took place over 12 hours.
Topic: Sandbox Applications | 2021/09/12
Summary: Staff talk through the existing process for applying to the mainsite sandbox. Can users ask to be invited by proxy, or must they do so in person with a staff member? Zyn decides firmly on the latter, but allows for case-by-case flexibility where necessary. Limeyy asks whether a return to the earlier, less moderated form of sandbox application might be prudent. The point is raised that vetting applications allows staff to block underage users; the counterpoint is raised that this was not the reason for the original measures, and if it's the reason they're being put in place, staff should explicitly decide on that. Limeyy also suggests that this might be a source of undue workload; CuteGirl states that managing sandbox applications is not particularly onerous. No conclusion is reached.
This conversation took approximately one hour.
Topic: Rewriting Abandoned Sandbox Drafts | 2021/09/15
Summary: After a question by a user in IRC, Naepic clarifies that rewriting abandoned drafts found in sandboxes is not allowed even when text is not lifted directly (to the degree that it would be plagiarism); the drafts are not considered publicly released, and are therefore not released into the Creative Commons. GremlinGroup asks about whether ideas "inspired by" abandoned sandboxes would be permitted, as they are for copyrighted material. After researching the topic, Naepic states that it is likely such an event would have to be judged on a case by case basis, depending on how similar the ideas expressed are. He mentions that this topic is likely within the remit of the Rewrite Team to address, and that judging each individual request would likely add a significant workload to this team.
This discussion took place over 12 hours.
For those interested, the links Naepic found while researching are provided below.
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2012/01/wheels-on-birss.html
https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/rights-permissions/using-reusing/
https://www.copyrightuser.org/faqs/question-10/
Topic: SCP-DISC-J | 2021/09/15 to 2021/09/16
Summary: An unknown user posts SCP-DISC-J to the mainsite, featuring a thinly-veiled satire of the Disciplinary Team. Staffchat discusses the article, finding nothing obviously rulebreaking. As the user deleted their own account, it is impossible to determine their identity; the question of whether the article can be deleted is raised, and immediately argued against by numerous staff members. Initial consensus is that, as with most articles, votes should decide whether it survives. Attempts are made to guess the author's identity, and Dexanote suggests this line of questioning should be abandoned as it's likely futile. Everyone agrees, and periodically keep guessing anyway (particularly as new staff members enter the conversation late).
MomBun considers the article to be extremely suspect and written in bad faith, raising the possibility of a banned user having posted it. She advocates for summary deletion. gee0765 disagrees, noting that the article is positively rated and there is no proof a banned user wrote it. stormfallen asks if the article can be considered defamatory; negative responses ensue. Lily suggests that deleting the article would be a victory for the author, feeding into the perception of staff it depicts. Most agree that it would be poor public relations to remove an article still being received positively. MomBun feels the PR angle does not matter.
Dexanote halts the conversation to note that it is within his power to delete the article unilaterally and ignore complaints, and also that doing so would raise the ire of staff and users alike. He suggests that staff continue to discuss the potential deletion and cautions against acting purely in the interest of public relations. He however personally opines that the article is nearly indistinguishable from trolling, and the user has fled to avoid possible repercussions. He then notes that the article attacks the Disciplinary Team specifically and was not written in good faith, which may trump worries about PR.
A discussion ensues about whether or not the article qualifies as trolling or merely satire, with opinions evenly split. Rounderhouse notes that the question of whether rules have been broken should come before the question of whether deletion would be in poor taste. gee notes that the majority of downvotes are from staff, who are the subjects of the satire, and deletion would therefore be indistinguishable from censorship for the userbase. Dexanote re-asserts that public relations concerns prevented him from summarily deleting the article before this point. From this point onward he begins to note his own emotional investment in the conversation, particularly as he is not feeling personally supported, and periodically withdraws when he does not feel capable of objectivity.
MomBun calls on her community management experience to advocate a zero tolerance stance for trolling and bad faith, and a zero interest stance on the topic of public relations. She restates her desire to delete the article regardless of blowback, citing the best interests of the community. Dexanote and ChaoSera agree, and MomBun adds that the fear of looking bad should not outweigh the responsibility to act.
YossiPossi, ROUNDERHOUSE and gee counter-argue that deletion could make staff appear to be acting in bad faith. J Dune notes that fear of criticizing staff has been prevalent in the past, and that public relations efforts diminish this fear over time. MomBun amends her position to state that satire is acceptable, but creating and deleting a new account to post it is not. stormfallen notes that this increasingly-heated staff discussion was likely one of the goals of the unknown author; MomBun and Dexanote point out that the effects of the post matter, while the author's motives do not. MomBun suggests that it is harming discourse on the site, and staff members directly.
PlaguePJP suggests starting an official policy discussion to create rules for this sort of situation.
MomBun argues that the user's deletion of their account muddies the waters, and represents a pattern of behaviour which should not be allowed. She also questions whether statements made about the article's content are correct, prompting Dune to ask her if she has read it; she has not.
stormfallen suggests that if the article is deleted, an O5 post explaining the reasoning should be made, with the article's full text made available. gee notes that new site rules are not typically applied retroactively.
Everyone briefly stops arguing to compliment their collective civility.
Pedagon reiterates that the article should only be deleted if it breaks a rule, and that in that scenario the reasoning should be simple to explain to the community. The content, if not rule-breaking, should not be considered, as the right to criticize hierarchy should not be infringed upon. Dexanote reiterates his stated position that staff have responsibilities which other users do not have, and therefore must work for the wiki's health even if their actions are unpopular with the rest of the community. MomBun agrees.
DrBleep notes that summary deletion would be an attack on author autonomy and the right to criticize, and precedent against such exists. MomBun suggests that existing precedent on author autonomy has been inconsistent: prior to the pixelatedharmony incident, users were allowed to ask for their articles to be deleted, but this right was not extended to Harmony. MomBun belives this was because the work of removing the articles was considered too onerous. Now a bad-faith article cannot be deleted for being in bad faith. HarryBlank suggests that the issues cited cover a wide range of time and membership, and no coherent group of individuals has held all the opinions described. He also notes that the Harmony decision was reached by community vote.
Pedagon addresses a point made earlier by MomBun, where she suggested that site staff should trust that the users are adults and will understand staff's reasoning. He points out that treating the users as adults should involve including them in the decision over whether to delete this article. He feels that the best PR move is to actually be open with the community about what's going on. The impression that staff is a blackbox from which information cannot be pried creates an artificial division; he feels the community would support staff's decisions if they were made aware of them.
HarryBlank and Dexanote discuss the fact that the deletion of works by banned users who request it is a courtesy, and MomBun asks whether keeping their articles up is also conversely a courtesy. Dexanote and HarryBlank reply that survival is the default state for an article not at the deletion threshold, and that not deleting is not an action staff perform.
Pedagon, Bleep and MomBun discuss the fact that progress has been made building trust between staff and other users, that it has been difficult but the gains are real.
MomBun calls attention to the fact that there are "apparently two suicide jokes" in DISC-J, implying that the staff members being satirized wished death on the subject of their disciplinary proceedings. Bleep and Dexanote now support summary deletion; gee and ManyMeats point out that this is still not rulebreaking. Dexanote asks the room to justify not deleting the article; ManyMeats replies "I dont (sic) need to explain why it should stay up, it needs to be justified why it must be deleted." stormfallen considers the suicide references to be a personal attack; Dexanote agrees, and that the attack is on him specifically. He acknowledges his personal stake in the matter and therefore briefly leaves the discussion.
After several minutes of unproductive conversation Pedagon reminds the room that if the article is harassment, it should be labelled as such and deleted, and that if it does not break any rules, there is nothing to discuss. MomBun suggests it breaks Rule 0, "Don't be a dick." gee points out that Rule 0 has never been used to justify deletion. Pedagon suggests that this now has the appearance of hunting for a reason to delete; HarryBlank agrees, and suggests that if a rule had actually been broken the preceding conversation would have already reached that conclusion.
ManyMeats and Bleep argue that the user deleting their account prevents the usual approach of asking for the most offending elements to be edited; HarryBlank points out that there is no way to know if they deleted their account to circumvent that process, or what their motives were in any case, so speculation is unproductive.
PlaguePJP again suggests a policy discussion and rule creation, rather than searching for deletion excuses. He further suggests, since the article remains popular, it could be rewritten. GremlinGroup suggests making a public statement on the topic to clarify staff's concerns and intentions; Dexanote assumes this would be used as fuel to mock him, and CuteGirl asserts that being attacked does not behoove one to make statements. As the conversation has become heated, Bleep calls a stop order.
When the conversation resumes, MomBun asks whether a healthy community would allow an article which paints users who made mistakes and acknowledged those mistakes as suicide baiters to go undeleted. Pedagon agrees that a healthy community would not, but that this consideration does not enter into the question of whether rules have been broken. CuteGirl feels the users arguing against deletion are saying that attacking staff is fine. A conversation ensues about whether the article can be considered a targeted attack on specific individuals or not.
Captain Kirby appears and suggests that having this conversation on Discord is "actively hindering communication and making this a significantly more heated argument," which receives general agreement. He suggests putting the conversation on 05command. Limeyy, gee and ROUNDERHOUSE agree.
Pedagon notes that if a new policy comes out of this, it should specify that no users are to be attacked in this manner, not merely staff. MomBun agrees.
LadyKatie suggests the conversation will not require a detailed recap if the discussion moves to 05command. All Recap Team members present disagree.
Dexanote makes the 05 thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14197858/
OCuin points out that a mainsite mirror thread is required. Dexanote wishes to delay this; gee points out that policy does not allow for a delay. After a brief discussion, the mirror thread is agreed to. Dexanote workshops the content of the mirror, and it is posted as well.
The following day, Naepic points out that DISC-J is no longer enjoying a positive receptive due to the discovery of transphobic material. It quickly strikes the summary deletion threshold, and Naepic deletes it in full accordance with existing deletions policy. It is agreed that the DISC-J threads should be locked, and Naepic locks them after making statements on both threads.
This conversation took several hours over two days.
Topic: Vote of No Confidence Proposal | 2021/09/17
Summary: Optimistic Lucio brings up the Vote of No Confidence policy, originally discussed in August. This policy would allow staff members to highlight misconduct of another staffmember, possibly leading to action as light as a formal warning, or as severe as a full removal from staff. A number of changes have been made to satisfy concerns brought up during the previous discussion. A thread is created to discuss this new policy. Stormbreath identifies a concern he has with the policy; that votes can be brought to 05command with only five or more Operational Staff members sponsoring it. He states that a public thread being made with so few supporters could be bad on two counts; publicity (as it could tarnish a reputation whether the vote goes through or not) and inciting inter-staff tension. Gee suggests that this concern, while valid, may only relate to edge-cases of the policy in action. Ocuin brings up the "Great Seal Incident" (Link: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14129317) as an example of such an edge-case having far-reaching impacts. GremlinGroup suggests that summary posts could be used to mitigate negative PR from a rejected VoNC vote.
There are also concerns that a VoNC can be created by members of staff not on the same teams as the subject of the vote, who may not be in a position to appreciate whether a staff member is working appropriately. It is agreed upon that the likelihood of such an occurrence is small, and that even in such a case there may be members of the team supporting the vote but not sponsoring it for fear of retribution. Whether or not there are current members of staff who would cause such retribution, Gee states he would prefer the policy be future-proof, in the case that such staff members do exist in the future. Stormbreath states that it is more likely that such occurrences would happen for teams like Disciplinary or Internet Outreach, rather than for MAST, as a Disc-Staff member's fitness for the role should be more evident to staff and the wiki as a whole. It is of note, at this point in the conversation, junior staff were permitted to vote in a VoNC; stormfallen suggests these staff members should have been part of staff for at least 2-3 months to ensure they're experienced enough to provide an informed vote. Lily advocates for j-staff being able to discuss but not vote. Gee agrees that removing the j-staff vote makes sense. Further edge-cases of conspiracies to either create a vote or defend a staff member from one are brought up. Vivarium suggests that if either of these situations were to occur, it would be a sign that a significant number of staff members were unfit for their position. It is agreed that such a situation would be dealt with in a unique fashion unrelated to the VoNC proposal. Lucio and the others proposing this policy address some discussed concerns, as well as some minor wording change suggestions.
The above conversation took place over roughly 24 hours.
Topic: Vote of No Confidence (II) | 2021/09/19
Summary: Many Meats brings up concerns that the proposal appears to be a method of side-stepping the Disciplinary Team’s Censure system, bringing particular attention to the wording of the proposal that suggests a VoNC could be called for behaviour that would not be sufficient for a censure. Meats argues that, in most systems, a VoNC could only be levied against a person in a *leadership* position, rather than any member of the team. Yossi argues that giving more staff members the ability to call for consequences from misconduct is not a downside, while Meats argues that this is an authority that cannot be given to all staffers. Yossi suggests that giving a group of staffers (in this case the Disc team) the exclusive ability to start censure votes gives them undue power, which is vulnerable to misuse. They point to the Great Seal Incident (Link: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14129317) as an example. Yossi also suggests that the staff body as a whole could be at odds with the Disciplinary team, meaning a staff member who may be (in the eyes of staff at large) worthy of censure or treatment could be left untouched. In counter to Meats’ request for a reason to give this power to the rest of staff, Yossi suggests that a justification is required for keeping the power limited to only Disc-team members.
Many Meats suggests that the VoNC proposal does not eliminate misuses of power, but instead would make them more likely, with staffers being over-zealous in calling votes. In response, Yossi argues that while this may be true, the VoNC proposal would solve issues where Disc is unwilling to address problematic staff members who have not strictly broken rules, and points to a recent ex-staff member. Meats asks whether the policy is a reaction to specific, recent incidents, to which Yossi responds that the policy is built to future-proof against further misuses of power. Meats argues that the VoNC proposal appears to be side-stepping an apparently-flawed Censure system, and that efforts should instead be focused on fixing that system. In response, Yossi suggests that the greatest problem with the Censure system is that it can only be initiated by Disciplinary members.
The discussion then focuses on what areas of misconduct the Censure system and the proposed VoNC system each cover; Many Meats suggests there is little difference between the two, while gee0765 and Ocuin state that the VoNC covers behaviour that does not break site rules but is still harmful to staff’s efficacy. Staff continue to disambiguate between Disciplinary Censure requirements and Vote of No Confidence requirements. One notable point brought up is that it is not clear whether the 5 staff members proposing a VoNC should first bring their complaints to Disc.
This discussion took place over roughly 10 hours.
After this discussion ends, it is agreed that the conversation has gone on long enough that a discussion on 05command would be suitable to judge the staff body’s opinion on the proposal.
OptimisticLucio posts the discussion thread: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14201899, and mainsite mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14201901
Later in the week, Lucio and Leveritas discuss a concern Leveritas raised in the 05command thread. This particular discussion is summarised in Lucio's final reply to Leveritas in that thread.
A voting thread is posted on 21/09/26, it expired on the 2nd of October, with 20 votes in favour, and 1 against.:
http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14207624
Topic: IRC Handover | 2021/09/20 to 2021/09/22
Summary: Hexick ports over a statement by Kufat on IRC where the latter announces that he is taking over ownership of SkipIRC from bluesoul, removing its affiliation with the wiki. The wiki channels will continue to be moderated by staff. DrMagnus, MalyceGraves and DrBleep will become network operators. Kufat promises to address recent issues with low staffing and insufficient moderation.
CuteGirl is pleased this will help with chatstaff's workload and help keep users safe. Hex suggests an official statement be made on O5 to inform the community; the room agrees. MomBun notes that some users (not her) may protest Magnus and Malyce's appointments.
Bleep explains that she has been "ironing out" this handover for the past six hours. OCuin is concerned that chatstaff were not given prior notice. Bleep feels most chatstaff probably knew it was coming. CuteGirl notes her belief, later found to be incorrect, that chat admins were consulted.
The following day, OptimisticLucio expresses pleasure that the chatstaff shortage is being addressed but is not pleased at the recruitment of two former staff members, one of whom left in inauspicious circumstances. Zyn asks whether Lucio has practical alternatives to these measures to suggest; Lucio merely feels the existing solution was poorly-considered.
Calibold asks whether a statement could be made about whether the IRC will continue to be our only official channel, or whether additional platforms are being considered, to assuage worries. Many staff feel that the IRC will continue to exist as a utility no matter what other platforms are created; some feel that it will not.
Bleep feels that complaints about this issue are unfounded, and that it has little to nothing to do with staff who have after all largely abandoned the IRC to chatstaff. ChaoSera asks whether complaints are coming from people who actually use the IRC.
CaptainKirby asks whether new operators will be able to see the IP addresses of people who joined prior to the promotion of said new operators. Hex relays the fact that they will. stormfallen says that there are few ways to exploit access to someone's IP address; Kirby re-orients to clarify that we have essentially handed people's IP addresses to a new group of operators without permission. He does not expect malicious action, but is raising this as an ethical issue. gee notes that operators can also see email addresses. Limeyy and OCuin raise concerns about this. Athenodora feels users were aware of this possibility when signing up for bluesoul's network. Vivarium perceives these statements as attacks on the integrity of the new owners of SkipIRC.
ManyMeats starts a thread to continue the conversation. gee0765 feels it's pointless to go over all the mistakes made in the handover, and that staff should now transition to damage mitigation. Kirby agrees. ChaoSera feels there is no damage to mitigate; gee notes that more than one user has already expressed discomfort with the new arrangement.
Most conversation members agree that the main push now should be to make an official statement clarifying the situation. gee feels this will not resolve the trust issues; ChaoSera feels there are no trust issues to resolve. ManyMeats does not feel these denials are a practical means of dealing with concerns, but does not believe there is any way to satisfy users who do not trust the new operators. It is suggested that gee's concerns are vague; gee points out that he is passing on the concerns of others. Vivarium, Meats and Bleep press him on what action should be taken. gee suggests giving non-staff a forum to respond to the changeover. Athenodora suggests concerns can be anonymously reported in #site17 on the IRC; it is pointed out that, access to user information on the IRC being the primary sticking point here, this option would not see much use.
Bleep feels the concerns being raised are unfair to the new operators, and suggests that most chat staff missed them when they originally left. She feels it is unproductive to assume they will behave maliciously with their authority, and notes that this concern over the state of the IRC was not apparent until the changeover.
Hairs are briefly split about whether the IRC was official before, and whether it is official now, with no particular resolution.
The point is raised that DrMagnus has had access to a great deal of personal information for a long time, due to the widespread use of his bot Helen. stormfallen, CuteGirl and Vivarium note that he has proven trustworthy in this regard.
CuteGirl emphasizes that the present situation is a tremendous improvement over the previous lack of manpower.
DrBleep clarifies that bluesoul, Kufat and some members of chatstaff initiated the changeover, and she came into the conversation after. Lucio wants to know why the entirety of staffchat and staff at large were not consulted. Bleep responds that of chatstaff, only gee seems concerned with what happened; Lucio counters that reactions or their absence, after the fact, are not justifications.
A tweet from Kufat describes who was consulted: "Almost all relevant staff members (bluesoul, despite being quasi-retired staff, as the owner of SkipIRC + available admins) were informed. A supermajority of active admins approved the decision. The only active staffer who should've been informed in advance but wasn't was Corvus." Rounderhouse presses the question about why all of chatstaff were not informed. As a chatstaff member, ChaoSera takes issue with this frequent complaint, noting again that only gee appears to be anything less than enthusiastic.
ManyMeats notes that the primary issue here has been a lack of communication. Rounderhouse feels that if two "disgraced former wiki staffers" were approached for these roles, site admin approval should have been sought. This characterization of MalyceGraves is questioned by ChaoSera. Rounderhouse clarifies that Malyce resigned as a protest against motions for staff transparency, which affected their standing with the community.
ChaoSera continues to insist that no issues exist. Pedagon argues that the perception of an issue is itself an issue — if users feel unsafe, they will not use the IRC and will engage with the community differently. Lucio notes that frequent demands for a solution to the trust issue are unfair, as this changeover was essentially sprung on everyone very suddenly.
It has been generally agreed that a statement will be made. User distrust of DrMagnus and the need for future actions to be properly communicated are the main remaining takeaways. Pedagon feels that actively seeking feedback from the userbase is the best way forward, with a focus on what these actions mean for the wiki community. Kufat could be consulted if the questions require a technical perspective.
The statement goes up on 05command the following day: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14204420/
This conversation took place over a period three days.
Topic: Collab Log Curation | 2021/09/22
Summary: During a conversation arising from the Collaborative Log voting thread (also recapped in this post), it is noted by DrBleep that Collab Logs are under MAST’s responsibility, but that this leads to some bureaucratic inefficiencies. The main problem identified is that while the wiki gains curation rights over articles written by accounts abandoned for over 1 year, it does not do so for Collab Logs created by an active author who no longer curates them, meaning that collab logs can go un-pruned for long periods of time. A discussion begins on how to solve this problem of uncurated Collab Logs, and how to source the manpower to curate each log. While it is suggested that all users of the site be allowed to prune poor-quality collab logs, in that it would rely on the judgement of any single author representing the judgement of the entire wiki. A solution to the curation rights problem is proposed by GremlinGroup: that MAST should message authors of new Collaborative Logs, with a request for shared curation rights, which the author may decide to share immediately, after a period of their curation inactivity, or after a period of overall inactivity on-site. While it is agreed that creating a sufficient policy for this may take time, it is suggested that MAST informally approach authors of recent collaborative logs anyway, as a means of building rapport and precedent. DrBleep notes that she and another member of staff have discussed a similar solution in the past, stating the topic is worth re-approaching.
This conversation took place over half an hour.
Topic: Voting Threads | 2021/09/22
Summary: Leveritas mentions that the timer on the proposal to turn the SCP-914 Collaborative Log guidelines into an official guide had expired, and asks if the change could be made with no voting thread. There was some discussion about this, and gee0765 brings up a line in the Site Charter stating that voting threads are 'optional and to be used in the event that a consensus cannot be clearly reached on a given topic.' There is further discussion on the correct applications of this line, and whether it would always be appropriate to skip votes when there appears to be a clear consensus in the discussion thread. DrBleep says that while she believes major site changes should always have a voting thread, skipping it when there is clear consensus is acceptable according to the charter. ManyMeats suggests that certain proposals could be voted on by only members of the team responsible for it, and there is some brief discussion on how exactly this would function.
This conversation took approximately two hours.
Topic: Liaisons Revival | 2021/09/21
Summary: In a conversation budding from the discussion of the IRC’s new owners, staff begin discussing introducing the Townhall’s liaison system to the 05command Mirror Threads, or the site as a whole. One idea suggested is that staff have a public notice if they are willing to act as a liaison. Discussion on this point revolves around whether this is necessary when people will likely message staffers they trust, and whether a public statement is inherently helpful in gaining trust.
The discussion then turns to brainstorming methods of vetting Staff and User members of the community to act as liaisons. A number of systems are suggested. An anonymous recommendations system was suggested, but could turn to a popularity contest. Alternatively, a low bar for recommendations is suggested; three staffers and three users, each. It is recognised that selected liaisons should be representative of the community, but this is difficult to achieve. It is suggested that all staff be given permission to act as liaisons, with some community members highlighted as "trusted" liaisons. Bleep announces that the reintroduction of Townhalls may be delayed due to limited manpower. It is reiterated that liaisons could operate outside of Townhall, such as in main site mirrors of 05command discussions.
This discussion took place over roughly 15 minutes.
Topic: Archiving Articles | 2021/09/22
Summary: When controversial dairy-based article SCP-6542 became eligible for deletion, Limeyy suggested archiving it in its discussion thread. (Archival denotes moving an article to a new page with the -ARC suffix and protecting it from deletion, on the basis of its importance to other, non-deletion-threshold works.) All subsequent comments were against archiving, with stormbreath adding "Archival is a deprecated process that should be considered defunct." gee0765 brings this up in staff chat and suggests this de facto situation be made official. Recollections of an earlier official statement are aired, but without evidence; general confusion about whose purview -ARCs fall under follows. gee decides to make an O5 voting thread on the matter, pointing out that responsibility for creating -ARCs won't matter if their further creation is barred. No change to existing -ARCs is planned, as that already falls under a separate policy recently agreed upon. The thread goes up, proposing that no further archiving be done, and on the 25th of September, the proposal passes.
This conversation took approximately three hours.
http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14204748/
Topic: Age Unraising Proposal | 2021/09/24 to 2021/09/27
Summary: The mainsite is presently rolling its minimum age requirement up towards 18. OptimisticLucio starts a Discord thread in staffchat to discuss overturning this, because it potentially just discourages minors from reporting harassment and does not prevent them from joining (as they can simply lie on their applications). In this interpretation, raising the age limit merely absolves staff of guilt rather than actually protecting anyone. Lucio and others have prepared a policy proposal which recommends lowering the minimum to 15 or 16, and reviewing whether or not staff should still be required to be 18+ in that situation.
UncertaintyCrossing, as "someone who works with our 13-16 age group closely," is conflicted. He would like there to be a place for younger writers to get feedback, but feels this proposal neither suggests how we keep the younger users safe nor starts a conversation on that question. He wants plans in place before the decision is made.
Lucio feels these plans will require a very long and complex discussion, and the age limit change should happen first; the wait could be indefinite otherwise. He cites the issue of the site charter, changes to which have been needed but not completed for a very long time. UncertaintyCrossing says there should be, at least, temporary measures implemented first.
ChaoSera notes that underage users will "sneak" into the site no matter what, but that setting the age limit at 18 tells minors this space may not be suitable for them. He feels this discouragement is important.
Lucio says that users who know they’re not breaking the age rule, but are still minors,
will feel safer coming to the Anti-Harassment Team if they know they won't also get banned for their age. He feels this is the most important issue at hand. ChaoSera suggests stating that users will not be banned for their age due to an AHT complaint; aismallard points out that this is legally impossible.
UncertaintyCrossing suggests using the Internet Outreach programs to give minors writing opportunities without having them join the site. ChaoSera agrees; Lucio does not feel this would prove a sufficient substitute to posting works on the wiki. UncertaintyCrossing says it would, at least, be a start.
The question of whether harassers could use the high age limit to blackmail victims who fall below it is raised. ChaoSera feels that lowering the limit simply lowers the age bracket of the individuals affected; Lucio notes that lowering the bracket dramatically lowers the number of individuals affected.
GremlinGroup notes that a user who is 15 and claims to be 16 is in a much less dangerous position than a user who is 15 and claims to be 18. ChaoSera feels that people circumventing the rules and putting themselves in danger should not provide the impetus for changing said rules. He also notes that having more minors on the site provides more targets for abusers; Lucio disagrees, suggesting that "satellite communities" are where most abuse takes place. YossiPossi notes that minors are members of the community whether or not they have joined the wiki, and can be at risk offsite. Agreeing, Lucio feels the higher age limit only limits the userbase and does not protect most users.
A theme throughout the discussion is that some staff feel the rolling age limit raise will subject more users to potential blackmail and harassment, while others do not. The eventual consensus is that this isn't something we can determine beforehand.
GremlinGroup tentatively suggests adding a note to the "Join This Site" dialogue informing minors that they may encounter unwelcome content and will be interacting with non-minors if they join, and having them sign off on this fact. They would be provided with resources and told who to contact if they become targets of harassment. ChaoSera is uncertain of the merits of noting the presence of adult content, though welcomes the idea of adding warnings to the dialogue. GremlinGroup notes that the adult splash pages already in place denote the presence of adult content, and this would be no different.
MomBun suggests staff consider the opinion of a non-staff member who was targeted for harassment; they believe banning minors to be an appropriate measure for safeguarding them.
CuteGirl feels the difficulty of reporting users with strong social standing is more pertinent than the issue of being underage. gee0765 and Lucio note that the existence of other considerations does not diminish the importance of the one at hand. CuteGirl feels it should be discussed here; Lucio feels it's a separate issue.
stormfallen states that unbanning underage users is an unfeasible amount of work which can only be performed by chatstaff and site admins. gee says he'll do all the chat unbans himself if this proves a sticking point. Lucio suggests that previously-banned users could simply be told to send a message to staff asking to be unbanned.
ChaoSera feels this proposal relies on the supposition that blackmail will happen, but provides no evidence. Lucio feels that blackmail often leaves no evidence.
A heated discussion ensues about whether the policy proposal should include counterarguments against itself. A second, less heated discussion follows about whether 15 or 16 should be the age target. The question of age versus maturity as a criterion is also raised.
CuteGirl notes that not being able to vote on this proposal, since she is Junior Staff, is unfair, as she is also a chatop on IRC and this affects her work. Limeyy notes that her input remains valuable, and also that the conversation is trending toward resolution. CuteGirl and ChaoSera disagree.
Athenodora raises the question about whether staff will be able to cope with the duty of care of a younger userbase. Limeyy argues that it is better the duty of care is handled by staff than by no one, which they believe is currently happening. Athenodora points out that the Wiki's staff are not the sole guardians of site users, and may not be capable of dealing with situations that arise as a result of having younger people on-site. This discussion is folded back into the general point about whether minors are protected more by an age ban or by being able to contact AHT.
ChaoSera ends the day's discussion by reiterating a concern he has expressed periodically throughout. The policy proposal ends with "It's understandable to have made the initial decision at the time that it was made. It is inexcusable to refuse to admit it ended up doing much more harm to the site than it helped protect it." He feels this is needlessly combative and devalues/demonizes opposing viewpoints. CuteGirl agrees.
Dawn of the Second Day.
The proposal is posted on 05command: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14207258/ and the mainsite: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14207259/
Outside the staffchat thread, Dexanote, stormfallen and MomBun express dismay that the discussion was so brief. Dexanote would have liked to have a conversation regarding legality. Everyone is ushered back into the thread.
In the thread, CuteGirl asks why the ending statement wasn't changed for the final post. Lucio explains that no sufficiently-effective alternative could be written, and suggests that since most users do not have a problem with it, the conversation focus on the meat of the proposal in the interim. CuteGirl, Lily, Athenodora and stormfallen press the issue, and Lucio cuts the line.
Limeyy passes on concerns from Kufat, who now manages the IRC network. Kufat feels that exposing more minors to the site causes a legal liability issue which could be costly - to him, as owner of the chat, and to the site, once it leaves Wikidot and is fully responsible for its own content. It is noted that the IRC can maintain a higher age limit, but MomBun counters that letting users join the site but not its official chat would be unfair. Limeyy asks if that's a good reason to prevent them from participating at all.
Dexanote would have preferred that administrators and team captains had been given the chance to review this policy before it went up on 05command. Lucio, Limeyy and GremlinGroup feel that allowing a wider discussion rather than stalling it for higher-level approval has been beneficial. MomBun now feels that this policy was brought to the table too quickly as a reaction to perceived issues. stormfallen agrees, and says that the 05command post should have been for a discussion, not a policy vote. He suggests extending the conversation for as much as three months to do preparatory work he feels was not done.
stormfallen and Dexanote assert that chatops and admins will be required to implement these proposals, and therefore should have had more time to review them. Zyn, being one of the most common points of contact for site users, notes she also would have preferred being consulted on this issue. She is particularly concerned that staff who deal with new users, who would be most impacted by this proposal, were not proportionately represented in the consultations; she highlights the Forum Critique team as particularly unrepresented. Lucio responds that he asked eighteen staffers for opinions before the proposal was made. stormfallen feels that most staff in the present conversation were either against the proposal or felt it needed more workshopping.
Lucio now wants substantive commentary, rather than focus on the fact that certain parties were not asked beforehand. Zyn raises the legal issue again, and thinks a plan needs to be put in place for dealing with potential lawsuits. Lucio feels legal issues are too broad to be considered part of this proposal; Dexanote is frustrated that there was not previously time to discuss this aspect.
A brief break is called. GremlinGroup suggests moving the entire conversation to 05; Lily prefers to discuss it on Discord, and Bleep feels that the 05 thread was premature and the policy proposal rushed.
It is noted that many talented writers on the site in the past have been "teens."
Dexanote suggests shuttering the proposal and creating a weeklong 05command discussion. The second day ends.
Lucio notes that Bleep claimed she would issue a fiat to stop the proposal from going to a final vote; she clarifies that she meant she would use fiat if necessary to ensure that the discussion was carried out at greater length. Lucio wonders if threatening fiat and using it aren't actually the same thing. It is generally now understood that the proposal will not be voted on as it stands, and the fact that this was done via fiat, if not directly, is largely conceded.
Limeyy is now taking over as the policy's spokesperson. Limeyy and Yossi agree that the policy needs to be discussed in the present, not in the future. stormfallen responds that "Without proper legal consultation any proposal to change the age requirement should be dead in the water." CuteGirl agrees that the lack of an expert legal opinion is a problem. A conversation ensues about hiring and paying a lawyer. Yossi asks if the money acquired for legal defense against Andrey Duksin could be used; it is generally agreed that it cannot be.
Dexanote suggests having team captains comment on how the proposed age limit change would affect their teams. Limeyy adds this to their plans.
The conversation resumes for a fourth day, but nothing substantive occurs.
This conversation took four days.
Topic: Archiving Login Guide | 2021/09/25
Summary: aismallard asks Chat Staff whether any users had recently joined the Official SCP Wiki IRC with requests for help logging in due to a specific problem. After Chat Staff confirm they have not had any such interactions recently, aismallard posts a proposal to archive the "Fixing Logins" Guide that has become defunct, as the fix it details is now performed automatically on the SCP Wiki.
05 Link: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14207040/
Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14207042/
This summary consists only of the announcement. The vote ends in October.
Topic: Fiat | 09/27/2021
Summary: When the Recap team was under initial consideration, DrBleep proposed the use of administrative fiat (a means of intervening with admin authority) to block Pedagon's entry to junior staff. Limey brought this up in a conversation about fiat in the #meta-scp-discussion channel of the SCP Declassified server, calling the action disgraceful and potentially indicative of a self-policing problem. This apparently sparked some conversation in Admin/Captain chat, and ROUNDERHOUSE asks for clarification: why did Bleep wish to use fiat, did Limeyy behave inappropriately, and does the fiat policy require modification?
ManyMeats adds that he gave Limeyy the authority to bring the issue up. The wording of Limeyy's concerns is generally agreed to be harsh, but the point is generally agreed to be valid. gee0765 asks how such misuse can be prevented in the future; ManyMeats notes that this particular fiat, due to "popular sentiment," was retracted within minutes. gee does not feel that "having to rely on a few specific staff members to shout at admins enough to make them choose to retract" is an effective mechanism.
Meats and Riemann have discussed fiats, and feel a formal reasoning which can be debated should be supplied when it is used. gee feels fiats, as conversation-killers, give admins too much control over discussions.
Pedagon thinks fiats need to be discussed among all admins, and should come with instructions for satisfying the concerns of the invoking admin. He feels a distinction should be made between orders to slow conversations and orders to stop them dead. As only admins can police whether fiat has been misused, it is inherently unbalanced.
aismallard asks what a better mechanism for stopping heated conversations would be; gee replies that "any staff are allowed to call for temporary stop orders," as per recent policy. MomBun wants to know if we're saying admins aren't allowed to stop conversations when a proposal's success is in doubt; aismallard replies that "the concern is about it being a directive as opposed to a recommendation." stormfallen argues that "Stopping a potentially drastically harmful policy from even having a chance of passing before it can be adequately explored and refined feels like exactly the kind of thing fiat should be used for." OptimisticLucio wonders: "Do you believe the majority of staff would pass something that would be that harmful, after it is explained to them?" stormfallen responds: "I'm unwilling to take any risk of that."
gee suggests that a failed vote can be valuable — it tells us whether the proposal is desired by staff.
Zyn agrees with giving a clearer definition for fiats, involving the other admins, and reducing the chilling effects. Dexanote also agrees.
Another fiat situation, on the Age Unraising Proposal, is summarized: Bleep noticed a flaw in the policy which would make it difficult to pass, and stated she would fiat it if it went to a vote to prevent it from failing.
gee feels there should be mechanisms for voting no confidence on a fiat, and for preventing fiats from being used to stop conversations or votes, or for overridding the rest of staff. stormbreath instead recommends keeping the fiat as-is, but having a non-admin group review each fiat (possibly team captains). gee doesn't like concentrating that power in a specific small group. Dexanote states: "We can't have everybody be in charge of a tool that's used to surgically prevent things from progressing that everybody might not agree with." gee doesn't think such a tool is necessary. Dexanote does, due to the size of staff. gee does not believe there is a need to overturn the decisions of a majority of staff. Croquembouche hypothesizes a situation where most staff want to do something, but one member has (for example) legal experience which recontextualizes the issue. ROUNDERHOUSE thinks any such insight should not need the fiat behind it to have effect.
CuteGirl feels that potential misuses of the fiat are not sufficiently plausible to deserve response.
DrBleep clarifies that fiats are used in one of three situations: a rushed and/or flawed policy needs to have its flaws addressed or it will fail; staff are "incapable of, or are unready to hold a discussion on the topic at the given time"; or the topic is too basic to deserve discussion and the proposed action should simply be implemented. She intended to fiat Pedagon's junior staff position because of the first concern, that the proposal would not succeed otherwise. gee then quotes Bleep's original statement: "FYI, I know this is going to be extremely unpopular and while I like Pedagon as a person, and I think he has done a very good job on the recaps, I am outright vetoing his inclusion in this proposal. There is no world in which I can see that his candidacy doesn't cause a complete schism in staff at this time, and I have to consider in my capacity as an admin the consequences of this proposal with Pedagon as a candidate and they are currently untenable in either direction. This doesn't mean that that might not change in the future, but for now, Pedagon will not set foot in this server."
CuteGirl thinks this phrasing was acceptable because "That's how people here talk about Magnus." Several users take issue with her reasoning, noting their concerns go beyond phrasing. When it is pointed out that this digression is not helping move the conversation forward, CuteGirl agrees to drop it.
ManyMeats asks why removing one member from a proposal, if their presence would sink it, is problematic. gee still does not feel the situation would warrant overriding the majority of staff. ManyMeats replies "Respectfully, I find that position super dumb"; gee responds "the feeling is mutual." They each spend several minutes assuring everyone that they're happy with this interaction.
The idea of requiring two admins to implement a fiat is floated. "two admins is less than 41 staff," gee responds, still preferring a more democratic solution.
Dexanote announces that the fiat will not be removed.
CaptainKirby has a proposal: if fiats are being used for the purpose of ensuring that a proposal is discussed properly, they should come with "a defined extension for policy discussion" to prevent them from merely halting conversations. Bleep agrees, although mentions that depending on the time frame provided by a fiat extension, different people may be more or less able to utilize it properly. Zyn also has a proposal: "a pool of staff fiat reviewers" featuring nominations from various teams, to ensure that affected parties are represented. Rounderhouse feels that fiats are not sufficiently important to justify such a superstructure, and suggests reformatting 05command threads to be discussions rather than pre-votes to make fiats unnecessary. Pedagon agrees. MomBun suggests that timers will need to be extended if this course is taken. Rounderhouse decides to write a proposal for this motion. MomBun suggests that many opinions be gathered beforehand, to avoid the problems faced by the Age Unraising proposal also featured in this recap. Several users note that having more discussions on 05command rather than Discord would be a good idea.
The cliffhanger is resolved: no, Limeyy was not guilty of misconduct. This was apparently covered in AdCap, which leads to the conversation recapped under "Transparency."
This conversation took approximately two hours.
Topic: Transparency | 2021/09/27 and briefly 2021/09/28
Summary: A conversation in staffchat was disrupted by unequal access to information, because points had been made in the Admin/Captain (AdCap) chat which other parties were not privy to. ROUNDERHOUSE asks why sensitive conversations are happening in AdCap instead of the channel already dedicated to sensitive conversations, particularly when AdCap reform is in the works, and suggests more scrutiny be applied to the decision to put things in AdCap rather than other channels. gee0765 and JackalRelated agree; Vivarium believes the conversation in question was held in AdCap in good faith, but admits it should have been moved. Bleep felt the matter was appropriate for AdCap; Vivarium suggests reaching an understanding is often easier in smaller venues. LadyKatie suggests that staffchat would have automatically taken the conversation out of context and degenerated it into something unproductive, and ChaoSera adds "Y'all really need to come to terms with not always being able to see everything," which prompts agreement via emoji from LadyKatie and Athenodora. gee notes that while staffchat is has a public recap, AdCap's recap is not public. ChaoSera feels this complaint is incompatible with gee's stated opinion that there are too many people present in AdCap; others do not see these positions as incompatible. Zyn notes the trend of the conversation is toward wanting stronger codification for which conversations go where.
The following day, as per the reforms decided upon in August, ManyMeats archives the existing AdCap channel and moderators+ are now able to see the new one.
This conversation took less than one hour.
Topic: Tag Request Rework II | 2021/09/28
Summary: Stormbreath announces a new policy, a rework of a previous policy by Rounderhouse, aiming to further codify and define the process of requesting a tag. After the discussion timer expires, a voting thread is posted to 05, which expires on the 13th of October.
The voting on this policy ended shortly before the publication of this recap, with the proposal passing. More details can be found on the voting thread, linked above.
05command Link: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14210135
Mainsite Mirror Link: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14210136
Topic: Removal of IRC Login Quotes | 2021/09/28
Summary: Hexick announces that after a conversation with Kufat, Kufat removed the longstanding "Random Quote" function of SkipIRC. After some members of staff express confusion, it is clarified that this was a function which would send a random quote from a deleted "coldpost" (a post to the mainsite that has not received any crit prior to being posted) to a user who has just logged in.
This conversation takes around 10 minutes.
Topic: Vacant Disciplinary Vice Captain | 2021/09/28
Summary: MomBun identifies that Disciplinary currently has no vice-captain. Dexanotes states he is aware of this, and will be asking some Disc members if they will take the role within the next few weeks.
This question was answered within about an hour.
NOTE: This position was filled by Aismallard at the start of October.
Topic: Introductions Revamp | 2021/09/29
Summary: Hexick asks Zyn to review plans for revamping the Introductions Team. Two options are presented:
- the Getting Started threads will be discontinued in favour of monthly threads where existing users are encouraged to welcome and orientate new ones, or
- the entire process is transferred to a more dynamic community platform, encouraging non-staff users to help welcome new members and discontinuing the forum aspect. This is Hexick's preferred option, as it allows for more dynamic interaction.
For context: the Intros threads have not been responded to by staff for months at this point, and it was never intended that each user’s intro would be responded to individually.
Zyn isn't sure closing the Intros threads is necessary, but DrBleep points out that the work of responding to them has been a significant contributor to staff burnout/attrition. The general consensus is that responding to each new user's introduction post individually would be unproductive, unmanageable and unsustainable, resulting at best in boilerplate responses which in most cases would never be read by the original poster. UncertaintyCrossing notes that the platforms managed by the Internet Outreach Team are more useful for introducing people to the community than the forums have been. A general consensus emerges that there is no reason for staff to respond to each intro post, but the threads can be left up for users to use if they wish — while including a link to the replacement platform. Hexick agrees that the forum threads can remain, but notes that this will provide new users a much more one-sided conversation than his proposed solution will.
This conversation took approximately three hours in staffchat; conversations outside of staffchat on this topic have not been recapped.
Topic: Discussions with Warned Users | [DATE REMOVED]
Summary: Mann suggests that a user, who has been posting non-constructive comments on site but has been characterised by CuteGirl and Dexanote as a well-intentioned person, be spoken to about their behaviour. One day later, a discussion begins about whether this is normal practice for behaviour which begets a non-disc thread. The discussion centres around the fact that such a process is largely seen as a good move for any member of the site. It is mentioned that the user was at one point considered for staff but was rejected for the same reasons they recieved a non-disc thread. Every user in the discussion agrees that such a move, both for the user in question and for future users who recieve non-disc threads, would be a good addition to the standard escalation process. Edna Granbo states she is happy for this to occur, as long as ban occurs if the user's behaviour continues. Pedagon takes issue with this, stating that the focus should be on the warning and sit-down for now, while others state Edna was just describing the usual staff process. Dexanote reminds staff that good faith is to be assumed in all interactions, and that the process of talking to warned users is not a completely new one. Dexanote then suggests that CuteGirl discuss the user's offending behaviour, as well as discuss how the user would like to continue contributing to the site. hungrypossum volunteers to discuss the matter with the user, and the room agrees on this course of action; one hour later, hungrypossum reports that he has had a constructive conversation with the user, and enjoyed the opportunity for such a discussion to occur.
This discussion took place over a couple days. To help preserve the anonymity of the user in question, this recap is not dated.
Full Recap Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14226022/september-2021-recap
