Requests for Comment/Make Qualitipedia Meta Private

Make Qualitipedia Meta Private
Hey, it’s me, Moisty. I am an upcoming moderator for the show wikis and one of the contributors to Qualitipedia Meta here. This is my third RfC here. The first one I made was unsuccessful and my second one is ongoing, but it will likely close as unsuccessful.

This Request for Comment is here to propose privatizing this wiki, Qualitipedia Meta.

Why is this being proposed?
Ever since the start of Qualitipedia, “trollism” (I hate that word) has been a big issue. Qualitipedia Meta does not suffer from this problem as much, but it still happens from time to time.

Not only that, but some users are just simply not competent enough to decide big changes that are decided here. CIR users have been an even bigger issue than trolls. Users like MarioBobFan may not have bad intent, but they have issues that make it to where they just aren’t skilled enough to vote on things that really matter here.

This Request for Comment prevents users like these from accessing this wiki and gatekeeps it to those who are responsible enough to vote and propose important changes to Qualitipedia.

How does this work?
Well, for starters, this wiki will be set to private.

Second, there’s a system for those who want to be a member. They’ll have to have at least 150 contributions across all Qualitipedia Wikis and they’ll have to have been using Qualitipedia for at least a month (check when their account was created on the first Qualitipedia wiki they joined, which is accessible on account creation logs). Then they’ll have to take this test. Qualitipedia Staff will decide if they’re responsible enough to use this wiki and can give them the member right if they are allowed entry.

Select veteran users won’t have to take the test or meet the requirements. These users are: Reviewing97Shows, Raidarr, Zangler, Moisty, ZeusDeeGoose, YouKonade, SuperStreetKombat, FatBurn0000, Sofaking we todd it, BlubaBluba9990, Bukkit, Remely1000, TigerBlazer, DarkMatterMan4500, Szczypak2005, Kiwi2002, Yonydesk, Blazikeye535, JigglypuffGuy04, Kpop And Earthbound Fanatic, DeadPixel, KumihoWolffey, Marxo Grouch, HeavenSmile, The Dunkman, Matttest, John 127, King Dice, TouhouOtaku, PlantyB0i, Mr. Dready, and Katsumi a.k.a. Upperdecker2562 plus whoever else the staff team decides to add.

Support

 * 1) Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 22:29:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * 2) This may be a good and definitive way to avoid trolls, vandals and sockpuppets inside the Meta Wiki, so I say we should give it a Shot.  King Dice (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Privatizing the central wiki for Qualitipedia isn't a great idea, as this is the place where global RfCs are made, but alas, this probably will pass. Aren't we trying to fix Qualitipedia, not damage it? Users should be allowed to voice their opinions on matters with little to no restrictions. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) The purpose of QP Central is to allow the general userbase to comment on issues related to the network, just like how Miraheze Meta concerns issues with the platform and wikis on the platform.  Making QP Central private will only result in a lack of community consensus when it comes to subjects of high stakes (ie the website wiki RfC) and thus risks a shitshow breaking out. As for CIR users like MBF, they aren't frequently seen around here aside from the occasional user who makes an undersized pointer or who makes childish comments, but even then those users are rather mild compared to users like MBF. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) If anything we should be trying to make this wiki accessible to more people. It's bad enough that anonymous users aren't allowed on the reception wikis themselves, but I was actually going to make an RFC proposing that we allow anonymous editing on this wiki only, not for them to vote on RFCs or anything, but to give them an easier way to talk to the staff if necessary. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 00:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  What is this? I'm sorry, but this will not go well for anyone else out there who would want to publicly view this wiki. The reason why I think this is a bad idea is because it legit takes away all the editing that these newcomers have planned for the future. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is too extreme of a measure to apply to prevent trolls, randos, and other kinds of troublesome users from interfering. If they do interfere, any trollism will be undone, and RfC votes from them will obviously be invalidated if not outright removed. Not only that, but this will also leave most of the userbase in the dark regarding potential changes to QP, ultimately resulting in the disconnect between the staff and trusted users and the rest of the userbase becoming even worse. I simply cannot see how this will benefit us in the long run, and if anything, the exact opposite will happen instead. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Per all the votes above, privatizing the QP Meta wiki is not only just a terrible idea, but it's also way too harsh given by the fact this specific central wiki exists just to allow users to vote on RfCs for changes and voice their opinions on them. DragoniteSignatureImage.png Dragonitetypeface.png]] DragoniteTalk.png]] DragoniteContribs.png]] 05:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I am so sorry, but I cannot support this RfC in any way. The only thing I somewhat agree with is the voting requirements, minus the quiz crap. If a user is consistently disruptive, they can simply be blocked temporarily.  17:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I think privatizing the wiki should be the last resort when all other attempts failed. As of now I cannot see any needs - the current vandalisers are mostly at the affiliated wikis, but not here.  -Matttest (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) No. This is the central wiki and the place where Requests for Comment are made. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating the obvious.... Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 20:53:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * I agree. Even if I do disagree with the proposal, that was a pretty weak argument. 21:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) People should have the right to know what could possibly happen on Qualitipedia and vote for whether they agree with the idea or not with as minimal restrictions as possible.  Some people wouldn’t  like to be surprised on new moderation rules coming to effect immediately without previous announcement.
 * 2) For all the above votes, I don't really have anything to add. Remely1000 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Per everyone's votes above. This feels like a solution to a largely non-existent problem, as trolls and vandals are relatively rare here and CIR users are frankly not that big of an issue. Even if these users were indeed a problem, this punishes legitimate users too much and frankly doesn't provide tangible benefits that other solutions couldn't provide to make up for it [if anything, this solution is incredibly harmful - why blank out policies, important pages, and pending decisions to the public?]. While I understand and agree with the need for competency requirements in voting on RfCs, this change is frankly too drastic, and in my eyes is simply not worth the massive ramifications and downsides this solution will bring. War Incarnate (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I know this RFC is already likely WP:SNOW, but Qualitipedia Meta is where people share their opinions, kind of like freedom of speech. Newer users should still be able to vote in RFCs. Limiting Qualitipedia Meta to approved users defeats the purpose of gathering opinions from users.  - 05:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) I was on my way to support the request, but after reading the opposes I realise I was acting a bit unaware. While I don't think this is assuming bad faith on our users by any means and is a mere precaution of the problems pointed out by  in the request, I have to make some comments:
 * 2) *I agree that actions of grave impact such as voting in RfCs and, to an extent, creating them, should be limited to those users that have an idea of what they are doing and can, at all times, present a defense to whatever statement they present, all while still opening these doors to the rest.
 * 3) **On the other hand however, our users should and will always be allowed to know what is going on in the background, be able to clear their doubts, have their questions answered and share their opinion on the subject, so making this wiki private isn't the answer for me.
 * 4) *In its place, I suggest following 's take on this choice regarding who should be allowed to partake in the Request for Comments area and apply Moisty's "permission requirements" (150 edits, one month) to it and not the whole wiki.
 * Zangler (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per above.  14:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)