Essay:Sysop rights must change

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by brxbrx.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

I believe that sysop rights on RationalWiki, particularly blocking, binning, and protecting, are given away far too freely, and that this has a negative impact on the site.

As it stands, anyone can make anybody a sysop, so long as they are one themselves. Grants of sysopship are seldom contested, and only in the case of new users who haven't made more than a few edits. By its own nature, this site attracts cranks who come here to complain that their pet pseudoscience is being treated poorly. Some of these individuals go beyond editing as IPs and create user accounts, some of these users persist beyond a few days of arguing on an article talk page, and some RationalWikians deem it wise to give these people sysop rights. Therefore, RationalWiki regularly finds itself plagued with unproductive users who are here only to complain and have the ability to unblock themselves.


Contents

[edit] Exhibit A

As the main exhibit for this case, I cite User:Abd. Abd is a veteran of many Wikipedian edit wars, and is widely feared considered exasperating for his habit of posting long rebuttals (a typical post by Abd adds approximately 1000 characters) fixated on semantics and technicalities. He does not stop a discussion, he gets the last word. And then he often feels the need to add more. He first came to RationalWiki to discuss cold fusion.

Abd is a sysop on RationalWiki.

This makes him able to discuss at length the minutiae on any matters he finds on recent changes, something he does with great delight. Recently he has invested himself in site politics, waxing tedious at the Chicken Coop, All Things in Moderation, and various talk pages. This does not help the already volatile atmosphere contaminating policy discussions on RationalWiki. Binning Abd is not possible. Giving him warning blocks to stop him derailing a discussion is not possible. Protecting a page to stop him from editing it is not possible, and he has even protected pages himself (an act largely futile when you're trying the bulk of active users from reverting you, since they too are sysops and can edit sysop protected pages), something which stirred a little bit of outrage.


Now, I'm not saying that Abd shouldn't have a voice. This is a wiki that promotes a certain standard of free speech, certainly on talk pages- where users may express dissent. What I'm saying is that he should have an off switch, particularly when it comes to pages like the Chicken coop.

The typical solution to dealing with people like Abd on talk pages is to either ignore them or move their posts away from the real discussion, such as with RationalWiki:Robrail. However with Abd this is far less effective, because he will keep posting after you ignore him, and unlike Rob he is far more active and will join any number of discussions on a single page, making it a chore to get rid of all his posts; additionally, simply moving his posts will not undo the distraction from the topic at hand- he is a discussion killer in that sense.

[edit] Exhibit B

But Abd and people like him are only a part of the problem (easily the biggest part). One of the reasons so many people are given sysop rights is that others have them. This serves as a protection against being blocked by problematic users like Ace McWicked or P-Foster, and at one time myself, who have been known to block users at the slightest whim, not as a "fun" sort of way to message people but as a way to get rid of them. This is contrary to the accepted standards on RationalWiki supporting the free exchange of ideas. So, users who use their rights to silence others completely should not have them.

[edit] Others

  • Brasov- an aggressive vaccine denialist
  • Dirk Steele- a determined anti-psychiatry activist
  • Talsley- likely a troll, but otherwise someone who opposes RationalWiki's stance on pretty much everything

[edit] Conclusion

Sysop rights should not be taken lightly, should be taken away from obvious troublemakers, and shouldn't be disbursed so freely.



Seriously, though. Can we stop making everybody techs and sysops?

[edit] Alternatives

The following ideas are meant to promote discourse, are not mutually exclusive, and are not well thought out.

[edit] Proposal #1

Cease granting sysop rights altogether, by everybody complying or by removing the ability to make and unmake someone a sysop.

[edit] Proposal #2

Remove everyone's sysop rights, except for a small group of trusted individuals.

[edit] Proposal #3

Remove the sysop rights of problematic users only.

[edit] Proposal #4

Sysop rights should be granted by moderators.

[edit] Proposal #5

There should be a limited amount of active sysops.

[edit] Proposal #6

Sysops should be nominated and then elected, much like moderators.

[edit] Proposal #7

Sysop rights should be granted by board members.

[edit] Proposal #8

Sysop rights should be limited (page protection disabled, blocking disabled, etc).

[edit] Further, related contentions

Blocking or binning people is almost completely useless when any block or binning, of any length or intent, is sure to be reversed in minutes. No such action is ever justified enough, apparently.

[edit] Taxonomy of discourse on RationalWiki

I should also take time to distinguish between different kinds of discussions.

  • Casual discussions: these are the discussions that take place at the Saloon Bar, on WIGOs, on forums, and on essay and user talk pages that do not concern site policy. These should be available to everyone, but with some means of avoiding trolling and derailing.
  • Content discussions: these take place on the talk pages of mainspace articles, and should be available to all. Content discussions do not include ratings and templates, but rather the facts of the article.
  • Policy discussions: discussions pertaining to site policy should be restrictable to more established users. Such discussions include those at the Chicken Coop, votes, article ratings, and templates.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support