Site-related discussion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents


«1..1»(1 total)

[view] [edit]

Can I get a 3rd party review?

Hello, I am attempting to work on the Pit Bull page and I am finding myself forced to deal with someone removing information they do not like.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Pit_bull

Basically, the article is heavily slanted towards the moral panic that pit bulls are dangerous kill bots. I am attempting to bring in data from the CDC, AVMA, advocacy groups, veterinarians, and the like and I am having most if not all of them removed by a sysop named Hipocrite, who has taken to trolling me in response to my asking why he is doing that. I am not looking to claim these dogs are adorable puppies that are full of rainbows and sunshine, but I am attempting to add legitimate science rebuttals to many of the claims included and finding myself unable to.

I don't know what the rules here are for arbitration of such an issue, but as it stands this is unworkable. I'd like to work with Hipocrite in good faith but it is hard to do so when he removes things with little explanation and then curses at me when I attempt to engage him as to why I think it is inappropriate.

Help?Geekmasterflash (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

I think there should be a rule that all Sysops must have a sense of humor.

Well I was thinking, and I remembered that there is funny telling and unfunny trolling. Funny trolling is tolerated, and unfunny trolling is sent to the vandal bin. Now, if there was a sysop with no sense of humor ALL trolling would be unfunny to them, thus possibly breaking the rule to tolerated funny trolling. Is this already a rule? Please post your opinions. Also, there is a third kind of trolling that I forgot. Please tell me what it is.

--At (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Grey bicycles on toast. SophieWilder 16:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the spirit!

--At (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A bit seriously though, "sense of humeur" is a wide field. We have a regular user here whose SOH is so deadpan it's hard for many people to spot. So he could be mistaken for a troll, and has been on occasion. I think dealing with disruptive elements is a matter of building a fifty-foot atomic robot experience and fine judgement. SophieWilder 17:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
There's also the problem of editors using humour as a justification for truly awful contributions to articles, then responding with "you have no sense of humour" when others want to revert or delete them. I don't think "people with no sense of humour" actually exist; it's just an accusation people use when they really mean "you don't find the same things funny as me". WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You're right. Am I allowed to say AceMcwicked has an unfunny sense of humor? He may be a good example actually, of why you are right. Oh. I just realized what I am doing may be mistaken for concern trolling. Sorry.

--At (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

RW's direction and revisiting editorial policy

Introduction/Caveats

I'd like to start a dialog about how we as a "community" wish for RW to be regarded as a resource to the skeptical community and public at large. I think it's time to grow up and very seriously examine what SPOV means, what tone we wish to convey, what quality of material we want to present, and how we wish to treat new editors. We've only had short discussions of these topics that have gone nowhere over the last few years. We are failing our mission if we're neglecting our core material. Agree with me or not, RW increasingly strikes me as a haven for groupthink and increasingly off-mission material.

As a caveat, I'm not writing this in any official capacity because I'm not entitled to take an official position on editorial matters. I would if I could. My personal opinion is that RW is getting so far from what I still believe is its core mission that it's on the verge of requiring an itervention.

If you want to tu quoke or attack me (as has actually happened in the last several days - fucking pathetic - "I thought this was RationalWiki), go somewhere else. I fully admit I'm to blame for inserting ridiculously intemperate and unhelpful edits into articles here and there.

If you want to pop in with a "yep," "sounds good," or "me too," get back to templating and catting.

New editors

I've seen new editors attempt to add good material only to be reflexively rolled back without consideration of preserving good parts of edits and a message on their talk page referring to How to Write a RationalWiki Article and SPOV. It works when any of us do it, but I've seen editors actually tell people to put their proposed edits on the talk page and then mock me for pointing out our open editing policy. Try it. Start a sock puppet account and go attempt to flesh out a creationist or christian apologist's argument before we try cutting it apart. You'll fail. I could comment on why I think it happens, but the only real question is whether anyone else sees it as a problem, and if so, wants to do something about it. If not, I'm just a dick with too many opinions.

Core mission material, what we're presenting to the world, and snark

My particular interests are creationism and counter-apologetics. In my opinion, some of our creationism material isn't very good. It's also woefully out of date. As an example, we're a year and a half late responding to CMI's last round of "rebuttals" to various answers to the 15 questions, including some of ours. I spent hours formatting 3 pages full of their responses into side-by-sides that I, at least, think turned out nicely. I think something like 2 people took interest. Maybe 1 or 2 more. This is disappointing.

Putting aside solid scientific research for more complex topics, which is outside most people's ability, we ought to be able to give good responses to issues within our grasp. Some of our material is written with pointless "snark", which, whatever "snark" is, can be an excuse to be nasty and not cite critical truth claims. It seems to me that truth claims on this wiki end up being memetic to the point that people forget they do need to be adequately backed up (falsification, facile claims that ___ is pseudoscience).

I could have never imagined that templates and portals could have affected our public face so very much, but they have. Brainstars and article importance ratings on talk pages make me cringe. Portals that randomize within a category are pulling up articles I wouldn't want anyone to think is what we want to present as something we're proud of. We've got portals for everything. Portals that sometimes lead to shit.

SPOV is not an excuse to totally abdicate responsibility for asking the simple question: is this something I'd want to see pop to the top of Google results for a search for "rationalwiki"?

The skeptical community, RWF and $$, prestige, credibility, reputation, etc.

I'm deeply concerned about RW's critical reception in the skeptical community, and by extension our ability to consistently draw attention from notable skeptics (and obviously for the RWF to make $$ and move beyond RW). Sure, we occasionally get cited by prominent skeptics here and there, but we're not a go-to resource. We're not even attempting to engage the full range of participants in the pro-science and skeptical dialog.

I want the RWF to eventually stand shoulder to shoulder with and participate in events with the James Randi Foundation, RDF, New England Skeptical Society, Center for Skeptical Inquiry, etc. So far, RW is its only truly going concern so this is naturally where we're going to draw a lot of our energy. I want prominent RW editors and RWF officers or delegates on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. We've got real scientists with graduate degrees and real research or professional interests directly relevant to important skeptical issues. We're not going to get there if some of our articles here look like they were written by children or people with serious personal grudges to pick (fine, I've been part of that problem at times as well). And we're going to alienate donors if we don't recognize that skepticism is a bigger tent than atheism and anti-theism. We've got christian editors here, but they're not particularly open about it. They are RationalWikians. The point is to consider who we want to embrace and how we're going to do it.

I recently spoke a few older editors who are widely respected by nearly all on the site. One stated the problem as he sees it very elegantly in a way that I think answers a number of questions about how RW ought to move forward:

We're making far too many assumptions about who our readership is. The fact of the matter is that RW readers outnumber editors by orders of magnitude. They don't look at Recent Changes. They don't look at talk pages.They come here from Facebook or specific Google searches, or wherever looking for information. So we're not an encyclopedia. We are a resource people do and should turn to. They're not all liberals. They're not all atheists. Etc. Some of the assumptions RW makes and biases we express really do look like groupthink to (some of us and) outsiders. The criticism seems to get mocked, which is disappointing.

In closing

I'm not going to cite a bunch of examples to support the claims I'm making here, not just because I'm lazy. Likewise, I'm not going to make very many assumptions about where this discussion ought to go other than to predict that it will be nowhere. Older editors, who I reckon are the only ones with sufficient experience to comment, either agree that these are issues that need to be addressed or they don't. This is either obvious to people paying attention or I'm just wrong and I'll go on my way.

Is there a dialog to be had here? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg (formerly Ghostface Editah) 16:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

____________________

Initial comments

I agree with a lot of the above, & have a few things to add.

As a starting point, I'd suggest taking fun, recipe & Conservapedia space articles off the map - i.e. out of the public-facing parts of the site: remove links to them from any portal/navigation pages, and as far as possible remove links to them from mainspace content. A few CP-space articles with broader appeal (e.g. the Conservative Bible Project) could be tidied up & moved to mainspace, & WIGO:CP should be in RW space with the other WIGOs. Most of the rest of CP space isn't really worthy of public attention.

There are some major holes in our coverage, e.g. our articles on some key scientists (Darwin or Einstein as obvious examples) are so weak they're almost deletable. Arguably, these should be core articles for our missions. But on the other hand, we're unlikely to ever be a go-to source for such well known subjects, so it's a matter of deciding what approach we want to take to subjects like this.

We also need to think about notability. While we certainly don't want to tie ourselves to Wikipedia-style sourcing/notability policies, the longstanding meme that "we have no notability criteria" is misleading and allows people to write articles on obscure blogs, terms they made up (aliensdidit, falldidit, flooddidit, satandidit) or self-promoting "internet laws" based on something somebody said somewhere at a forum sometime earlier that day.

Connected to notability is the level of attention we give to subjects and how we balance this. E.g. one of our longest articles is about YouTube user VenomFangX. Compared to the scant coverage of many major influential figures and movements in science, politics & religious, the detailed coverage of YouTube (& Conservapedia, LessWrong, Citizendium, etc.) seems somewhat amiss. But again, it's an issue over what people want to write about & read about.

Regarding rollbacks of edits to articles, this isn't a problem purely with new editors. When somebody makes major changes to an established article, not all of which are desirable, it can be exhausting to have to pick through it to separate the gold from the shit. In these situations, I do think suggesting that they discuss their proposed changes on the talkpage first is appropriate. That said, we don't seem very welcoming of new editors, and especially bad at engaging in constructive dialogue (part of our mission statement) with those who disagree with our articles' POV. Far too often, all they get is the {{RATIONALWiki}} template, which stopped being funny a long time ago and is really just shorthand for "fuck off", or else they just get told to fuck off. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking through Wikipedia's Guidelines recently, and I know we're not WP, but we definitely assume bad faith more often than good faith -any suppositions why this is so should be put elsewhere. Since we're so bad at discerning good faith edits, perhaps our default position should be "assume clueless". --TheLateGatsby (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow, nice to see some of the best work on here get trashed so easily. Goddidit, Flooddidit, etc are excellent articles which neatly encapsulate positions widely held by various crowds of people. Sure, they don't refer to them as such, but these articles (and their titles) beautifully encapsulate the irrational thinking that goes on. Goddidit was the article which made me a fan of this site in the first place. VOXHUMANA 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
And I didn't say anything about it. "Goddidit" is a well recognised phrase & concept within religious apologetics & counter-apologetics, and I have no problem with RW having an article on it. But I don't like seeing it being used as an excuse for a bunch of copycat x-didit articles. If we embrace this sort of thing, where do we draw the line? It's not like there are a finite number of words you can shove in front of "didit". Angelsdidit, ghostsdidit, quantumdidit, thetansdidit, redsdidit, Jewsdidit, Popedidit, Obamadidit, etc ad infinitum. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a didit fallacy article to cover the whole lot :) But yes (and speaking as someone who invented one of them) there are too many spurious Laws, Fallacies and Argumentums. Perhaps we should munge the smaller ones onto lists. Lists are cool. SophieWilder 10:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Doing stuff

Our good stuff is great. I've been picking over it for the blog, and don't think I'll be running out any time soon. But I usually have to do a slight rewrite and definitely a references update.

I wouldn't go feral on the long tail of crusty articles. It's a wiki, it's going to have a long tail of articles. No-one will see this stuff unless they go looking. (This is the "inclusionist/deletionist" argument on Wikipedia.)

In general, the way to make RW better is to write better stuff, and visibly. Make our good stuff better, make it the go-to article on whatever it is. We do this alarmingly well in many cases (and NaturalNews is now almost-fully cited).

Volunteer effort is not fungible. Volunteers are here to do what they want, not what you want; you cannot direct volunteers to do things. (You can at best suggest.) If you go through with an axe deleting people's work, they won't go and do things you think are more productive - they will leave and not come back. And other people will see this and leave with them, which is probably not what you want.

I concur on being nicer to new contributors. Until proven utter wastes of space. Worst is an enthusiastic waste of space, which is actively damaging to the content. (Yes, after a contribution history consisting almost entirely of bad logic, bad references and bad English, I will happily tell Proxima to edit somewhere other than the article itself.) Beware the geek social fallacies.

It's all a tricky one because people are often fuckwits and nobody knows how the fuck this wiki shit works, but all think they do - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I increasingly see people casually referring to our good stuff, e.g. we appear to be the go-to article on woo. I am quite comfortable to say to people "yeah, it's a wiki, so lots of it sucks, but our good stuff is great, look for the silver or gold." I need to do the awstats charts to work out what our most popular 100 or so articles are, so we have targets for improvement - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That! Can you do that please? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I've got anonymous Squid logs here (which is a quite temporary location, I need to set up a better URL or probably a subdomain for them) - these contain only a timestamp and a requested URL, no IP/location/browser data - if anyone more bored than I am wants to analyse them. The November ones are only from the 20somethingth - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I'll mess around with this. Do you still want that dump of dead links? It's sort of hit or miss because of timeouts but yeah. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I would love it!
(This is my idea of how to improve RW: individuals bothering to do shit) - David Gerard (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok even with a multithreaded program, it's going to take hours just to pull headers on all these pages. I'll put the file up in text format on my dev server when this beast finishes. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Seriously. There are 52,000 links in mainspace. I refactored a bit and restarted the app this afternoon. It's up to i. And those server logs are insane. Don't you have AWstats? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
We have the logs for awstats - Squid's synthetic Apache-style logs - but obviously those aren't public (they have full IP and user agent data) and so Trent or I, or someone cleared by the board (did Larron send back the NDA?), would be the ones allowed to look at them. So blame us - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Outside of summary statistics the awstats reports aren't that much cleaner. For example, I can say that we had 956,880 unique visitors last month in 1,424,150 visits. And our last redit hit brought us over 180,000 visits in a 12 hours span of time etc. But for reports on more specific details such as pages visited, referrals, and the like its still a cluster fuck of data. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Those logs are a major pain in the ass to parse. I guess I can like learn more regex or something so I don't have to hold on to 3 gb of favicon hits. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I have done a lot of parcing of log files in my time, what exactly are you looking for? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm grossly overstating how big a pain they're turning out to be. If you can't pull the report for trending hits per page from AWstats... Also the date format sucks badly. I have to regex it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC) There are a few interesting looking squid log analyzers on sourceforge and github. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

SPOV

Regarding SPOV, I agree that it's often used as an excuse for shitty writing. The problem is keeping that balance between an over-reliance on humor (or "humor," as the case may be) and being overly dry. Getting rid of SPOV would lead to many of our articles being too much like carbon copies of The Skeptic's Dictionary. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be lucky if we can reach event that level of quality. A more realistic result would be pages looking like bad Wikipedia articles.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This is what I tried to convey in a recent partial rewrite of RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. Snark should be humour which helps to support points made by our articles, relating to the site missions, not humour which gets in the way of the missions by being used as a lazy alternative to analysing and refuting. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
A big problem with SPOV is that our guide to SPOV is really relative. We don't tell have any guides to tell people what defines "Snarky Point Of View" from "Crappy And Stupid Point Of View." As a result, what I view as "SPOV" is certainly different from what Blue views as SPOV, and both our opinions are 100% different from what Proxima Centauri views as SPOV. What we really need to do is have good side-by-side examples somewhere to show people what the difference is between good, snarky writing and terrible, shitty jokes. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No, we really don't. The trouble is that anyone who needs it will not read it and will not understand it. Uncyclopedia's How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid was put in place for similar reasons, and works just about as well because no-one who needs it will take it in - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. For the record, I wasn't aware any other projects had tried similar things, but that's because I usually avoid things like Uncyclopedia or ED. Still, the biggest problem is how liberally the term "snarky" can be used. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

agree with all of this

I agree with this. We really need to think about our core articles, particularly evolution vs. creationism, global warming denialism, vaccine denialism and perhaps homeopathy. What do we want from the articles? Both the pro side and the anti side? In the same article or different article? Are all the key players represented? Are all the key concepts dealt with? We haven't done that for ages.

I also agree about snark. There's a difference between humor an obnoxiousness. It's better from a rhetorical perspective not to be obnoxious. A little humor is apporpriate (especially as a rebuttal to reductio ad absurdum but whole articles are hard to take seriously. (Anyone who hasn't seen Phil Plait's "Don't be a Dick" video needs to go watch it.)

We have an audience, and we need to attend to it if we want to remain fo the long haul. Many wikis die over time. Sterilesig.svgtalk 12:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Groupthink

Groupthink and "being part of the cool gang" are RW's worst vices, and can be damaging to the site. There was an incident recently where I got into an argument somewhere, and another user took my side - because I am a major site user. See what happened there? SophieWilder 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Sophie on the above. Truth be told, it's the groupthink and the fact that everybody seems sooo entrenched in their own little clique here that they reject good, creative idea about RationalWiki and related projects that have driven me far away from RationalWiki lately. Far too often have I observed how RationalWiki handled a dissenting editor, and noticed that the overwhelming arguments put forth were ones that assumed the editor already agreed with the POV of the people arguing with them (said editor did not) and the way that people were either mocking them for dissenting from the mob's opinion or telling them that, for example, "God is just silly" is quite an embarrassment to us all. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement

WP once did had WP:ACID, where users could nominate articles for improvement. Perhaps something along those lines might help? SophieWilder 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Once upon a time RW had the unfortunately-named Project Whitewash. There've been various other well-meant but half-arsed article creation/improvement drives since. Try launching another one, but I can't see it catching on beyond a few dedicated editors. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Bloody hell, ye olde project whitewash! You're probably right though... maybe I should follow my own dictum of "if you want anything done on a wiki, do it yourself." SophieWilder 22:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That's basically it. It's easy to nominate articles that need work (& we already have various categories for this) but much more effort to actually do it, and most users would rather put the effort into subjects they choose to edit than working through a list of nominated content. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be great, Sophie. I want to warn warn warn warn against this starting (and ending) with another namespace purge. They end being nothing but divisive wankery. We need updated core articles. Purging garbage is a priority but it's way behind making sure there's cream to rise to the top. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we've had enough purges now. What's a good way of identifying articles that need improvement, ie, are central to the mission but actually a bit crap? SophieWilder 22:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
High importance, low barnstar? What's that turn up? - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Respect and agreement (with a caveat...)

First off, all respect to you Nutty. Me and you have, at various times, discussed this issue in private and I am glad to see this up for discussion. Secondly I agree with you in totality....thought not without a caveat. CP space and fun space are important for historical reasons. While weasel states the should be taken of the public face of RW (agree) I am concerned that dicks like Ty (who seems to think that if he and 2 other people don't like something it should be deleted) will use a new editorial policy to mark a wholesale deletion. This I would vehemently oppose. That said however, kudos to you. I would like to comment further but I am on my phone somewhere near the base of Mt Fuji and reception isn't great. I'll leave you with one final thought - I am in bed in my hotel room and not wearing any pants. Think about it...Acei9 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

80% chance this ends in frottage. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ace makes a good point, and one that I've been thinking about more and more. That being that we should avoid massive deletion orgies like we had with Conservapedia-space and Fun-space. If people really think a page should be deleted, we should leave them the burden of having to go to the talkpage and nominate it for deletion. That way, at least, those who bother to vote for/against deletion will have to go and actually read the page. When we did the CP-space and Fun-space mass deletions, there were far too many people with a stake in one side or the other who voted accordingly all the way down the page, without even having lifted a finger to read any of the articles. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bump Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Explain your love for goats

I don't get it.-24.130.145.40 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just a thing we do. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

this will help you understand.

Acei9 02:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha.-24.130.145.40 (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Blocked for trying to de-bias an article.

Then later when it became obvious I would not stop trying to create a fair non-biased version of the article, the article was locked. These are not 'Rational' actions. — Unsigned, by: 98.158.177.244 / talk / contribs

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Hydrogen and Time (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No I was trying to de-bias an article. Not add bias. This response by Hydrogen and Time though proves though that maybe this site should be called TrollWiki.— Unsigned, by: 98.158.177.244 / talk / contribs

Which article? Theory of Practice Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 16:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
So, stop being a dick, stop trying to enforce your views and take your points to the talk page. We're quite ready to listen, we don't like drive by major changes to long established articles. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:20 am, Today (UTC−5)

The article was British_Constitution_Group. Innocent Bystander

I'm not being a dick, nor am I trying to enforce views I was simply trying to take out the obvious bias in that article to make it more accurate and not a page full of troll diabtribe. Since you all seem to prefer the diatribe I will after this response stop feeding the trolls. Don't worry you'll never hear from me again. Not that listening and understanding are parts of your skillset anyway. (That last sentence is an example of 'being a dick'.)— Unsigned, by: 98.158.177.244 / talk / contribs
Here's the thing -- we don't "de-bias" our articles, because we have a bias, one which we wear pretty proudly on our sleeves. If there are specific elements of that article you want to address, take out an account and bring those points up on the article's talk page. But an anonymous editor trying to totally change the tone of an article is pretty much guaranteed to have no success. Theory of Practice Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 16:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees

Turdblossom
This is one of many discussions that has descended into petty snipping and trolling idiocy on RationalWiki.
Here are the others, in case you are curious, bored, or enjoy pain:
- Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union -- Barroom brawls -- Cat fight -- Chicken coop -- Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009 -- Community Standards/Revamp draft -- Community Standards/TK -- Community Standards/disruption -- Constitutional Convention, April 2008 -- Drama dump -- Epic debate -- HeartOfGold Sysop vote -- Inactivity -- Make TK a sysop? -- Nuclear Option -- Privacy clusterfuck -- Property rights in WIGOs -- Requests for comment/HeartOfGold -- Serious Business -- Site politics -- Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees -- The Rationalwiki Reform Society -- The case of MarcusCicero -- The mobocracy -- User:Copyvio's campaign to stop copyvio -- User rights and moderation revisited -- Voting Procedure -- Voting standards -
This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar. 18:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement on my candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees

For all intents and purposes, 2013 is going to be a banner year for the Foundation. It’s unavoidable. We will see not only internal changes—administrative shakeups, bylaw revisions, new faces and positions and responsibilities—but an expansion of the Foundation’s activities, partnerships and prominence in the broader skeptical community. What remains to be seen, however, is the direction these changes will take: will the shakeups be antagonistic, and introduce new inefficiencies? Will the Foundation acquire a good reputation or a negative one? Ultimately, will we have an active, visionary Board, or an unproductive, inept one?

I cannot claim to be a visionary, of course. But if the new Board has the right synergy, I can contribute my ideas and time to make 2013 a great year for us. I’d like to explain what I’ll propose and what I’d like to accomplish as a Trustee, and then talk a little about my experience.

One of my big goals would be maximizing exposure in the broader skeptical community, especially on the internet, that we can get for free or nearly so. For example, I'm interested in growing our blogospheric influence. The Board could license willing RWians to write for an official "RationalBlogs" (yes, I do remember the RationalBlogs project of 2008). Perhaps established, popular skeptical blog conglomerates like Freethought Blogs might add a licensed RationalWiki blog to their repertoire.

The back-end component of promoting RW is quality control. Mainspace is only about a quarter of the way to being something I can feel comfortable recommending as a general resource, rather than just linking to individual articles. A ton of mainspace articles are Uncyclopedia worthy, a ton are Ed stubs, a ton are Proximaic ramblings. A fair amount of our "most beloved" articles are badly written, outdated and/or overly dogmatic. This is not just a community problem. If the Board wants to promote the site, our articles ought to be up to snuff. It's hard to sell a shit sandwich.

Within the Board itself, I think some administrative changes should be made. The Fundraising Officer, or Treasurer, position should be (re)created. The Legal Officer or Adviser or whatever you want to call it should also be created and filled by whoever else is willing and qualified, and given full responsibility to file the Foundation's legal paperwork should the Operations Manager abrogate that duty.

The way the Board interacts with the site itself needs to be clarified. What are Trustees' powers and prerogatives on-wiki by virtue of their position? Some believe they are legally unlimited as individuals; but despite the law, are they morally limited by respect for the community and its traditions? (It should be noted that the bylaws do give the Board as a body effectively total control over RW.) On another note, communication between the Board and the wiki needs to improve. The Board should inform, and then solicit feedback from, the community on any projects that it's considering.

As for finding new sources of revenue for the Foundation, there are a few things we should try. We should keep the current freewheeling donation system, but I think we should introduce a voluntary membership with a recurring cost of maybe $5 per month or $50 per year or something similar. The benefits of membership probably shouldn't extend to voting in Trustee elections, but could include some on-wiki swag as it were, like a signature badge, special RC identifiers, userpage additions, etc, as well as perhaps membership in a special listhost that would be closely connected to the Board's own communications. The great scholar Mancur Olson famously noted that material benefits (the swag) go a long way toward encouraging active membership in a voluntary association - it's a lesson we should take to heart.

I am in favor of expanding our public image, but not at expense of money we don’t have or through projects that are not overseen by the whole Board. If we have new domains that are clearly related to RW, the Board needs to know and needs to okay them, regardless of their creator; we need to protect our brand.

I have worked at a small 501c(3) nonprofit, during which time I helped solicit donations, do publicity, organize and plan events, and did plenty of Web support and programming. I know how nonprofits work, at the very least. I know how Boards of Directors are supposed to work, and I know how different our Board of Trustees is from a traditional Board.

I have also been an editor on RationalWiki since March 2008, which is almost five years ago. I have a long history with this site, and it has had a profound influence on my intellectual and moral development. It is very dear to me. I have grown up with it just as it has grown up itself. Editors come and go; leave forever and come back when you least expect; argue passionately with each other on one page and share a laugh on a different page. RationalWiki is truly unique, and I am eager to dedicate myself even more to its continued growth.

Yours truly,

Picon small.pngAcer Blue 08:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

One other quick thing - we should be very very careful in this idea that we can have a "legal advisor or lawyer" crap. Either we hire a lawyer, or we don't. We can't have a position of something, even if tehy are a trained, licensed lawyer as some "go to position". It exposes us to all kinds of risks, and exposes the lawyer (if it's a lawyer we have in mind) to even more. While a lawyer may take a case on pro-bono, you can't just "give advice" without an express client/attorney relationship. And the way you word it, it's as if you want anyone who has watched a few shows of L&O to be open to such a postion. If you mean someone who is the administrative go-to; who files whatever needs filing on whatever day it needs filing - that's one thing. but what you seem to be suggesting is somethign far more legal. and by the way, your hyperbole of "some think they are legally unlimited, but are morally limited" is just that. If you have specific challenges, raise them. but we are not great spectors on this Board, moving about in the dark cackeling wickedly, and we are not doing anything that usese Foundation money for anything beyond Foundation issues. I'm not sure i'm convinced that the board "needs to inform, and await replies" on *any project*, because Wiki is just one project of a larger entity. Communication is critical, but don't overstate either side's role in the Foundation. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 15:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
We have a lawyer. Nutty Roux is not our lawyer, but he appears to have helped a great deal with paperwork. The Legal Adviser (or whatever you want to call it, as I clearly stated) would essentially codify what Nutty Roux appears to have done; nothing more, nothing less. An original draft of this mentioned Nutty Roux by name, but as I didn't want to talk about specific people, I deleted the reference.
Similarly, the section about Trustees being "legally unlimited as individuals" is a direct reference to Nutty Roux's posts saying that "in [his] capacity as a Trustee I will be deleting unhelpful comments" and is "inclined to perma-ban anyone who accuses a Board official of malfeasance". The by-laws pretty clearly give the Board as a unit total control over RW; I am not suggesting that this control be used in any real way, just emphasizing the difference between the clear powers of the Board and the unclear powers of individual Trustees.
My oblique critique of RWDocs did not necessarily have to do with money, but rather with the other concern - that this was a project done "under the aegis of the Foundation" without the knowledge of all of the Trustees.
It is fine that you believe the Board shouldn't necessarily inform that wiki about any Foundation project (and it's true that at certain points in development, the Board may find it advantageous not to inform the general public). That is simply a different perspective than mine.
Thank you for your criticism. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 17:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You are so wrong in many ways. "We have a lawyer" No we don't. Retaining a lawyer could easily cost $5000 up front in retaining fees. Nutty is not our lawyer, he just does good research, among many other things. Vote for him. — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs
I was told we had a lawyer and our lawyer was User:Godspeed. My source is apparently wrong. And, you'll note if you actually read past the first sentence, that the second sentence of my post is "Nutty Roux is not our lawyer." Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, and I love your enthusiasm. I strongly oppose any homegrown blogging initiative, though, for a couple of reasons.
In the case of the former, rather than trying to raise up something like that, the better thing to do would be to sponsor a dedicated three or four posters who already have a track record of frequent and quality contributions. It should be a people-based initiative: when the right people turn up, then look for a role for them. Don't try to create the role and then fill it.--ADtalkModerator 09:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. I thought of all the RationalWikians who do run blogs, a lot of them quite decent, and thought that licensing a couple willing bloggers to write under the bracketed brain might be a way to branch out into new forms of media, in a little bit of an easier way than RWDocs. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 09:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I just am not sure those people are around at the moment. An intermediate step might be some sort of RationalBlogs ring... a dedicated column on the front page with the latest post from whichever blogs wish to associate themselves with RW (via a prominent image-link on their blog). White Coat Underground, PalMD's blog, might be approached about that.--ADtalkModerator 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
IIRC Linus set up a RationalBlog space years ago. Obviously it didn't take off and got discarded the various server changes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 11:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I made reference to that project; it happened in 2008. But we've clearly changed quite a lot since those days, for one; also, there are many different ways we could go about a blog space, making it more integrated with RW proper for example. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 11:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A RW-related blog on FTB has been a dream item of mine. I would suggest the very best argument would be a functional example that's actually good and stuff. RW has a Twitter and a G+ and a quite active and enjoyable Facebook group, I think we could really do with a blog. Who wants to write stuff for it? - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Blogging is hard work. You need dedicated people who are willing to consistently come up with material. (That is why RationalWiki fell apart IMHO.) Do we really have people who are willing to come up with entries every day, or even every few days? What content will you/they talk about? How do you draw an audience? (I do have some interest in a Google Hangout twice a month.)
I also think there is this false dichotomy that people have created for the Board vs. everyone else with coming up with iteas. They have always been receptive of good ideas.
I also strongly oppose the Board coming involved on-wiki, and that was the way it was designed. There's no clear role for them, so why create one? sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well Blue, now I kinda want to vote for you. If only you posted this before the polls opened so I could have seen your perspective before I voted.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
We pretty well cancel out, Hamilton: If I'd seen this before I voted I would NOT have included Blue. Scream!! (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Because you disagree with Blue, or because you think that publicly acknowledging that a person is running is automatically evil?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps if we'd had any inkling of when the polls were going to open, I'd have had an easier time getting this out beforehand. Appreciate the sentiment though! Picon small.pngAcer Blue 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as we're making campaign statements:

I view the Board as subordinate to the community. The Foundation was formed so the community could sustain itself if anything happened to Tmtoulouse, and the only reason the RationalWiki "brand," so to speak, has any value at all is because of the community's own efforts. The Board is elected by the community, and the Foundation is funded by the community. The Board should accordingly respect the commmunity. That means communicating with it as much as possible, encouraging people to speak up and listening to what they have to say. If the Foundation doesn't have the trust and support of the community, it will fail.

I treat project proposals in any organization, including the RWF, with severe skepticism. We don't have an infinite supply of goodwill from either the community or the greater public, and projects and outreach efforts should only be undertaken with careful consideration.

I'll also add that I have no grand ambitions for the Foundation. I see no problem with growingly slowly and steadily. The Board's efforts should be low-cost and of interest to the community, rather than spent in pursuit of rapid expansion. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 18:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that's a campaign stump I could get behind but alas, I have already voted. Acei9 18:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. Stabby, i really liked your letter, cause it called us all to task about how we communicate, and how open we are and should have been. But you also had quite a bit of misinformation in there, or you appear to. What money do you think was spent on these "other projects" and why are you so threatened by them? As far as I've seen, and to the point that the financials represent, no Foundation money was spent on the RW Docs project. Trent was trying to find some grants, but again, that would not have been Foundation money, specifically. ONE PROJECT is hardly "rapid expansion". it's a youtube site, a video, and lots and lots of personal time. His time. (well, and Nutty's). Where is this great harm? Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I apologize. "Rapid growth" was poor choice of words. My fundamental objection towards doing projects like RW Docs or buying a TAM table now, is that while they're high-impact projects, they're also high-cost and high-effort. As a tiny nonprofit with barely enough money to cover server costs, low-cost projects have to take priority. Spending vague, unspecified amounts of money on projects that will require vague, unspecified efforts to accomplish, and take a vague, unspecified length time to complete is a terrible, terrible idea, for any business, much less one so young and so poor. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Stubby, your view is wrong. The Foundation *owns* the wiki, not vice versa. This is Trent's project and is on a long term time line plan. Trent did not ask "us" when he started this project, but he has "included" us as he tries to build his vision. Which I suspect is far beyond the vision of many on the wiki, sadly. That might be his fault in terms of communication, or the users' fault in terms of lack of understanding. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement against Blue's candidacy What Ace reckons

Anyone who wants it this bad probably shouldn't be elected. Just saying... Love, kisses, bluebirds and all things nice - Acei9 08:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am unhappy to see this reaction, though I am equally unsurprised. The fact that I want to help - and I do not think I sound too desperate - should not be an argument against my candidacy. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 08:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I am unhappy I said it too. But such is life. Acei9 08:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
We should keep the current freewheeling donation system, but I think we should introduce a voluntary membership with a recurring cost of maybe $5 per month or $50 per year or something similar. The benefits of membership probably shouldn't extend to voting in Trustee elections, but could include some on-wiki swag as it were, like a signature badge, special RC identifiers, userpage additions, etc, as well as perhaps membership in a special listhost that would be closely connected to the Board's own communications. The great scholar Mancur Olson famously noted that material benefits (the swag) go a long way toward encouraging active membership in a voluntary association - it's a lesson we should take to heart.
A terrible idea that divides users. Acei9 08:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Divides users? This type of plan has been implemented across numerous online communities, and no division has ever been apparent. You might as well say that having sysops divides users. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 08:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You might as well say that having sysops divides users And how many sysops do we have to non-sysops? You can't have a special class of paid user. This isn't a membership organisation. Acei9 08:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to say that I am glad this discussion is happening, as we ought to see more discussion of Foundation activities on-wiki. As to your point, Ace, you may be right and represent the majority viewpoint; my goal in introducing the idea was to generate discussion on novel ways of generating much-needed revenue for the Foundation. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 08:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yah, but special forums/emails that others don't get but certain members do is very much against the spirit of this site which has always been open, free and vocal to every user. (p.s. I do apologise for my original comment - it was brusque and rude of me. It isn't often I apologise for something, because I am a right bastard, but in this case I feel I should). Acei9 08:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
When you brainstorm, you're bound to get some bad eggs. I think I'll strike the special listhost, as I do agree with you as far as that goes. Might we change the title of this section? Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 08:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
sorta. Acei9 08:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
But even your idea of a special signifier for paid up users goes against the site narrative wherein we have always maintained there is no special class of user. Bad idea all around. Acei9 08:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's not as if members or subscribers or whatever you want to call them would have any special privileges or prerogatives on-wiki, just some identifiers a la the moderator brains or something. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 08:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
So then for what reason is it outside of identifying yourself as distinct from others? Still seems to go against RW ethos.Acei9 09:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing - it's like "free RW t-shirt when you sign up". Swag. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 09:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well then, if you donate $10 get a free t-shirt - but having people editing with special "donator only" badge and signifier seems to divide us into "donators and others" when we have gone to lengths to ensure that no one is a 'special' kind of user which is even enshrined in our sysop guidpe and moderator guides. Acei9 09:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
A userpage thingey doesn't seem like it would be divisive much at all. $5 a month and you get a userbox that says "contributor," maybe. Hell, I already do it.--ADtalkModerator 09:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I certainly think any and all revenue raising proposals should be considered. I would be very nervous about having different classes of user, such as exist on other forums and places, so I wouldn't support that, but it is healthy to have the discussion about what rewards we can offer to those who contribute. — Unsigned, by: Damo / talk / contribs 09:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary. I can think of fewer more fitting punishments than to grant such a wish.
I suspect quite a lot of the stuff could be done without a board seat, since the missing factor at the moment is getting out there and doing stuff, at length, ignoring the howler monkeys - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Given RW's general malaise when it comes to getting off our collective asses and doing something, plus the thankless nature of the job, and the fact that you will have some people bitching at you no matter what you do, then if Blue has the passion and the ideas for it, then I say all strength to her. If she gets in our faces to make us actually do something, then good. Far better than having somebody on the board who doesn't want things to change. --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"Anyone who wants it this bad probably shouldn't be elected. Just saying... Love, kisses, bluebirds and all things nice."
Really? I would have thought that being passionate about your cause was one of the staples of a good leader. Guess I was mistaken. I agree with David about ignoring the howler monkeys, since they are becoming a serious barrier to progress for the wiki. Especially the king of the howler monkeys here. --194.35.219.99 (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I did apologise for my brusqueness (both on and off wiki) then offered some serious opinion of why I though Blue's ideas were bad. What's the problem? Oh yeah, there isn't one. Please do carry on. Acei9 18:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
/me flings poop at BoN - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why this is in the Saloon Bar, and not the candidacy page - but it is, so it is. Membership has its advantages and disadvantages. The concept has been tossed around by the current board, and other boards for years. I'm personally in favor of it, not only because it incidentally rasies some extra money, but because it gives us a more clear idea of who and what the "Foundation" is, and who and what the Board represents as the Board of the Foundation. It is important to keep in mind, the Board is *not* just the wiki, and does represent a larger project - and much of what is discussed, when I say "who and what we represent", includes the Foundation's outreach beyond the wiki.
That said, I don't personally think supporting a blog (which may or may not be a good thing) should be under the control of the Foundation, as much as it should be under the control of the wiki - here. I say that because inevetably someone will post something someone else doesn't like, under the name "RW", and everone will drama-out what we think should be done. That should stay a creature of the Wiki, where the mob can better assess how it relates to the wiki and if so-and-so's blog is worth of "us" as teh mob. Besides, if the board really is as "incompetant" as one or two of you seem to think -- and having served, I don't think that is the case at all, i think it's more a failure of communication that can and will be remidied by the 2013 Board -- then having one more project in the hands of such serious incompetance seems rather silly. Again, i don't think we're really all that bad.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 14:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It's in the bar because there is no campaign page. There is no campaign page because nobody else did any campaigning, which seems a little silly, but that's just me.
At some point in the development a blog project, the Board needs to become involved, at the very least to okay the affiliation with RationalWiki and allow the use of the RW logo. This can't stay totally in the mob's hands anymore. But the scenario you describe is probably likely, which is why a disclaimer discouraging such a dramafest would be needed, which we can certainly discuss if the support for this idea grows.
I didn't really have much to say about the current and previous Boards here; you may be reading my words to be accusatory where they are not. I don't think you're all "that bad." Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 17:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I echo Godot's querying of why you posted this here Blue, rather tab on a specific election campaigning page. I don't think that the the fact that there isn't already one has stopped you from taking the initiative in the past. As regards the membership idea then I have some sympathy. I have previously suggested that voting criteria be amended to cover recent activity rather than some arbitrary threshold. That way people who are active and involved with the site have a greater say in the running of the site because they are actually the ones most affected by any decisions. I don't think that The casual drive-by editor who may have only contributed occasional talk posts over a period of 5 years should not be able to hold the site back when policy issues are discussed and voted upon. Now some people might object to this but to move forward we need to be driven by people who are committed to the site. It also reduces the risk of sleeping sock accounts being resurrected at voting time. It would only be in relation to voting that this would apply, in all other respects editorial/sysop rights would be unaffected. Now you could also argue that voting rights apply only to paid-up members - I say this as a possibility for discussion, not something I am particularly recommending. Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator 18:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
And we are still confusing "running of this site" with the Foundation. the Foundation does not, and should not be runnign this site. They do and should be providing legal/redpaper administrative support, they do and should be looking at the finances, the should be and are working on being as strong a voice against psuedo science that there is. But that is voice doesn't have to only be this wiki. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well the issue is confusing as currently it's only the members of this site who elect the board just as it's only the members of this site who elect moderators or vote on site policy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисpillagingModerator 10:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's blogs ideas

  • Set up a blog planet. RWians who have an on-mission blog and want to be on it get on it. We link it around.
  • Would also be a good time to set up a blog about RW happenings (e.g. top articles of month, new cover articles, RWF news) and put it in there.

Do we have material for the first? Who wants to run the second? Other blogs ideas? - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a blog/blogplanet could work quite well if there are enough interested contributors to sustain it. Reproducing some of our best essays and articles in the blog would also be a good way to give them & the site more exposure. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Blogs should be vetted for quality. Established bloggers with ties to RW should be asked to join or occasionally contribute. brx should be worshiped as a god--"Shut up, Brx." 13:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
A blog network is a good idea. Acei9 18:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
What if we had another Thunderf00t? Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 18:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You would need at least the theoretical ability to remove bloggers from the network, but I think we should make any new users spend some time on the wiki so we can get to know them before they joined to avoid that kind of problem. Peter Subsisting on honey 18:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiki content quality control

Blue, I agree with most of your comments re the quality of mainspace, but it's not clear what role you see the Board playing in this. The roles of the Foundation explicitly state that the Foundation doesn't exercise editorial control or dictate community policy at RW. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also an extremely bad idea to, per section 230 immunity, which we know works for wikis because Mike Godwin and Wikimedia won that precise battle - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The Foundation is both bigger and smaller than the Wiki. We at teh wiki need to take control of our wiki. the Foundation is there to help in matters of funding, not editorial decisions. Also, you have to be careful as a 501(c)3, what "opinions" you put out there. Keeping a semi Chinese-wall between the Foundation, and the wiki itself prevents us from being challenged (not that it would happen, but I'm just saying...) as presenting political positions on candidates or positions. I don't really think the wiki does that - but it's a nice separation. There isn't a reason one couldn't have some kind of Editor committee working on this, or have some tier of editors who review things. But if done - it's wiki business, not foundation business. and it's very much something we as a wiki could/should maybe NEED to be discussing.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
More to the point, any board of directors for any organization wouldn't involved in that level of decision. It's just not what a board does. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
What you are saying is true. If the RWF were a traditional organization, and if the Board of Trustees were a traditional board of directors, the Board would indeed have little else to do other than ensure finances are okay and support Trent as the "chief executive." That might be the appropriate role of the Board, but I think that the fact that our Trustees are elected by the community makes them at least nominally different from traditional board members, and also gives them the ability to have a more active concern in the activities of the Foundation, in my opinion. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 18:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Where are you getting this legal gibberish? This is Not Even Wrong. Members of the boards of directors of every single corporation in the United States are elected. By shareholders. Shareholders of corporations have, under certain circumstances, the right to get shareholder resolutions considered and voted on by a board of directors. I'm not aware of any similar provision for not-for-profits, which have no shareholders. What you've expressed here isn't an opinion. It's a completely unsupportable factual claim. I wish you'd stop pontificating about legal matters without doing your research. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I was unclear here. When there are shareholders, shareholders have a limited right to put shareholder resolutions to the board. We have no shareholders. Therefore, nobody has any such right. This is all in the context of what I take to be claims that the board is beholden to editors of a wiki it owns, which is not true, though the board is obviously beholden to the wiki's success and each of us cares deeply about RW. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't use really any legal language, for one. And the "research" I've done is actually working at a nonprofit with a traditional nonprofit's board of directors. Let me know when the RWF becomes a public for-profit corporation, and then your point about shareholders might be relevant. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 21:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Then you've learned nothing. When you talk about what the law of corporations is, you're using "legal language." You've completely missed my point about shareholders. We have none. If by "the ability to have a more active concern in the activities of the Foundation' you mean control of the corporation is other than what the by-laws and state law says it is, you're dead wrong. Here's your chance to back pedal on that claim, if indeed I'm correct. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
That was not my intended point. I intended to point out that the fact that we hold elections for the Board of Trustees is rather unusual for nonprofits. That does not translate to "they thus have more power than the by-laws and state law say they do." I am not talking about the law, as I am sure you have much more experience in that area (as an aside, it's also my own career of choice). I was talking about concern, i.e., it would be nice if they participated in a robust dialogue with themselves and with the site, and perhaps do it a little more than a traditional nonprofit board would. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I still disagree with you here. I'm all in favour of the community discussing how we can improve standards of content at the site, but that has to be a discussion made by the community & settled by the community. Obviously the community includes the Trustees & I hope that they would be involved in & take an interest in that discussion -- but as community members, not in their capacity as Board members specifically. For people to be speaking on or acting on behalf of the Board in that discussion (except in issues that fall within Board remit e.g. legal or technical implications) would put altogether the wrong flavour on the proceedings. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Blue, non profits are corporations, and their boards are often (even usually) elected by members of that corporation. in this case, our "members" are users on wiki who have been here X number of days and made X number of edits, yadda... How that plays out in anything youv'e commented on, about the role of the Board is beyond me. The Board is elected. They do what the bylaws state and nothing else. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC) PS, this is exactly what "traditional non profit boards" do. Nothing more, nothing else. I'm not trying to be intentionally "gotcha", but in this specific context, details matter. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Gosh, I am failing at being clear here. I wrote a long response but I realized it probably wouldn't stand muster against Nutty Roux's Legal Gibberish Test. I'll just leave this discussion as it is and will continue it if I am elected to the Board. You're all very smart people and I appreciate your criticism. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 22:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, over and over, the Foundation is not the Wiki. it was, once, but the Board, even when you represented on it, has worked to expand what we do as a Foundation. Blue, your point is to limit the Foundation to the activities of this wiki, cause that's what you see and care about. the Wiki is and should be a self sufficient entity that the Foundation supports. Limiting the foundation to just the wiki, is limiting our reach as a organization that want's to combat pusedo science. Again, not everyone likes wikis. The Foundation asks itself "what else can we do to reach like minded people, and build more tools". If we want to work on the wiki, AS EDITORS (and here, i'm speaking as an edtior, not anything to do with the foundation) WE WE WE need to do that, we need to state what we see the wiki as, and becoming, we need to put rules and regulations in place we like, we need to figure out what works for us. the foundation does and should not have much to do with those ideas. but "we" seems to be a concept that this wiki has a hard time with. heh. is it about a vote? is it about being bullies? I don't have a single answer. but WE can figure that out! Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
My initial reaction, which is why I was concerned by Blue's enthusiasm (though I didn't make it clear) was that she appeared to want to use the foundation to drive onwiki activity and editing. That isn't what the foundation should be doing and sounds like Citizendium's "editorial council". Acei9 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
(EC, pagemove, etc.) Blue, you're still not being at all clear about what rights you think the Board & its members have or should have over wiki content. Please elaborate.
Let's be clear about this: candidates in the Board election have volunteered for the legal/fiduciary/administrative role as defined in the existing by-laws & related guidelines. We are not electing a ruling council to govern the wiki. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
(EC)In no way did I ever imply anything of the sort, and I suppose I would blame the history of accusations of fascism for people jumping to that conclusion in a way that I submit most other editors certainly would not have experienced. Nutty Roux recently said that he would use his power as a Trustee to go far beyond moderators' power to unilaterally permaban editors and delete "unhelpful" comments during the discussion over Stabby's letter. I would like to discuss whether this is an appropriate role for a Trustee to play. As for my comment about quality control, all I said was that the Board should be concerned about the state of mainspace, I did not call for them to take editorial control, as that would be patently ridiculous. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 18:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not clear whether this comment was directed at me, but I'm not aware of having made an accusations of fascism, now or any previous occasion. My comments were in response to things you said on this page, viz. asking "what are Trustees' powers and prerogatives on-wiki by virtue of their position?" and stating that "the bylaws do give the Board as a body effectively total control over RW". It's a little naive (or disingenuous?) to say that these comments "in no way" imply you think Trustees should have oversight of wiki content. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying you personally accused me of fascism in the past. The section you quoted was intended to do just the opposite of how you're interpreting it - I thought that the role of Trustees on-wiki was unclear, with at least one instance of a Trustee taking too much power into his hands. The "total control" comment was not made in reference to the content question. I am sorry if I took your comment too personally. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Nutty was frustrated - just like we ALL GET AROUND HERE, blue. but he didn't do anything. He knows his role as a Board member, vs. his role as an editor and/or Mod if he is one. I'm deeply concerned at the amount of crap slung in all directions. I took Stabby's letter to be "this is what I've seen and heard". I took it personally as a place to say "shit, if i'm elected again, there are changes I want to try to push with this board to be more communicative" and/or "shit, we dropped the ball." But it quikcly turned into the idea that this board is incompetent, largely because many editors think the Foundation and the wiki are the same thing. Think that the goals of the Foundation, are linked to the way the wiki is run. They aren't. Our wiki, is ours. At some point, there will be voting memebers of RWF that have little to do with the wiki, cause they will come to us via other projects. At one point, Evo wiki was discussed (a few years back?), Trent works on his RW Docs project, and some other person here may say "I've a great idea" (like your blog idea) that gets picked up and supported by the Foundation. None of these projects are necessarily related - though they may be closely related. but we have to keep the sepration of "foundation" from "wiki" in our thinking and action. I didn't even know they were different, till i was elected, and started working with the Board. So it's a learning curve for all of us. But don't be quick to point fingers. Let's see where an election gets us, and what we want to do moving forward. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I would hope that we are able to discuss the activities, on- and off-wiki, of various Trustees. They are, after all, chosen by competitive election. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 19:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
What "activities". seriously? He was ticked off, and made a comment. did he follow up? Finger pointing is childish and does not help. Being specific about what you think the Board should be called to task for, is helpful. any board, no matter who gets elected. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
While there is a great deal of evidence from the tone and follow-up edits that he was not ticked off, and was in full control of his reason, the last thing I want to do is turn this into a he-said-she-said/mudslinging contest about Nutty Roux of all people. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Threats are not action, Blue. Nutty DID nothing. yet you keep accusing him of bad behavior on and off line. I really think, truly, it's critical to not just sling mud (from them to you, too) just for the sake of it. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"[T]he last thing I want to do is turn this into a he-said-she-said/mudslinging contest about Nutty Roux of all people." That is what I just said. I do not want to engage about Nutty Roux. He is not on trial here. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No one is on trial. Acei9 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course you're mudslinging me of all people. To claim otherwise is dishonest. What's to discuss? How in the world is this subject relevant in this particular discussion at this particular time unless you're trying to affect the outcome of the election? There have been several incidents of editors here accusing a board member of financial malfeasance. If memory serves, one such allegation, if true, imputed criminal misconduct. You're not seriously saying there is something wrong with a board member making a preemptive statement to head off this kind of tortious conduct, are you? Do you want to have a legal discussion of whether a board member can take good faith action on behalf of the corporation that may even require later ratification. Do you have Westlaw? I find it astonishing that you'd imply there's something wrong with preemptively indicating that I will remove unhelpful comments in a discussion of RWF business. You know perfectly well that when drama ensues, as Jacob's bad judgment was bound to cause, the standard cast of trolls comes by to dole out unhelpful, hateful, one liners against people who aren't the popular kids anymore, if they ever were. These comments have no place in a discussion you purport to want to have. My god. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh, I don't have Westlaw access, but I do have LexisNexis and JSTOR. Understand that I am not accusing you of breaking any laws or "breaching your fiduciary responsibility" or anything like that; I am not accusing you or the rest of the Board of anything in particular. I wanted to clarify whether the action you stated you would take during that discussion is something that ought to be encouraged or discouraged, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Are these "one-liners" really so deleterious to the Foundation that they cannot be allowed to stand? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 21:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Then start citing some cases or stop telling us what the law is. Of course you're accusing me of breaching duties to the board. "at least one instance of a Trustee taking too much power into his hands. ..." Again, it is dishonest for you to suggest that you want to have a discussion of anything in the context of a campaign statement and a very clear claim and sideways intimations that I've engaged in misconduct. There's nothing inherently wrong with that except that you're still being dishonest about why you're doing it. If you don't want me to be elected, just say so and we can get down to brass tacks. I'll be happy to tell these people exactly what I think. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Which brings me back to my statement that anyone who wants it that bad shouldn't be on the foundation. You see what I meant now? It came out wrong and I couldn't elaborate further but Blue's statement seems to suggest that the foundation will have an active 'on-wiki' presence which it isn't meant to do. Acei9 18:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Blue and Stabby are providing great examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. I've refrained from commenting very much so far, but so much of this is Not Even Wrong that I'll prepare a substantive response to both of them when I finish work. . Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding link. He is accusing you of being incompetent, which you are, and thinking you are far more competent than you are. If I am re-elected to the Board and you are also elected, I relish the concept of watching you flounder. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Human, back the fuck off. He did what he did, cause he felt it was a good thing to do. Not everyone has the same goals about the Foundation, the Wiki, anything. He's hardly "incompetent" but even more, you show a contemptible position when you say shit like you "hope someone will fail". Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 02:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
What the heck are you saying? "He's hardly "incompetent""??? Who? And you know what? If Blue gets on the Board she will flounder. I didn't say I "hope she will fail". I simply expressed the opinion that she will flounder. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't our Board get along marvelously? WaitingforGodot thought Human was talking about Nutty Roux or Stabby, when he was really talking about me. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Bitter much, Blue? You have no idea what you are talking about. Not the slightest. You have no idea who I am friends or colleagues with off line, you have no idea how I feel about Stabby (who isn't even on the board, you know, right?), Nutty, Human, LX, or RNS. You really don't even know how I feel about you, since I've not told you. So instead of silly insinuations, why not just ask. I thought human was attack stabby. Everything on human aside, and how i feel about him aside, we all know he's harsh - too harsh - often.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I don't want to add any more to this but to say two points:

  1. Boards of directors would never micromanage as implied like this unless there is a crisis. Actually, it would be somewhat amusing to see them try. (Perhaps a writing plan, Ken?) The continued bleeding of our user-base may just get worse. If you want to improve the content of the wiki, why not just everyone work on content rather than the protracted conversations on governance which have changed very little and alientated many people for about a year and a half now?
  2. The implication that the role of the board will be redefined after the election is problematic. You can't. The board does what the board says it will do in its description. The ongoing charge of users to redefine their role to increase their small kingdoms on this wiki has got to stop.

sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we not have a campaign/election page for this stuff?

Let's keep the bar for drinkin'. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, there is no campaign page, because there has been no other campaigning. There was apparently a concern that the Board elections would turn into a mud-slinging/popularity contest like the mod elections. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 18:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
And yet, you posted one... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, now that that seems to be happening, can we please make it happen somewhere else? Thanks. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Open Letter to the RationalWiki Foundation

This discussion was moved here from Saloon bar.

Notice

Please confine your comments to substantive concerns, suggestions, constructive criticism, helpful observations, compliments, etc. As of Jan. 14 at 11:30 am CST I have not looked at RW since the board began discussing Jacob's post early this morning so I'm not prepared to make the substantive response that many claims on this page require. As this discussion bears on official RWF business, not editorial or content-related issues on the wiki, I will in my capacity as a Trustee be deleting unhelpful comments. I'm inclined to permanently block users who libel RWF directors/officers with claims of malfeasance or criminal misconduct. The RWF has no obligation to any of you as individual editors to provide a forum for you to engage in tortious misconduct. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Doing good. Thanks for keeping the tone mostly pretty constructive.

:wq


Open Letter to the RationalWiki Foundation (sticky)

(I ask that this be left in the Saloon bar, and not archived or isolated on a forum prematurely. This is important, and I feel that as many RationalWikians as possible should read it — including people who don't stop by every day or keep track of the forumspace.)

Over the past year I have learned many things about the Board of Trustees, responsible for running the RationalWiki Foundation. And what I learned has been shocking. Unfortunately, due to the Board's disinterest in communicating with the very site it was created to support, not many are aware of its egregious flaws.

I post these concerns, and my suggestions for solving them, in good faith. I have nothing but respect for the various Trustees. Tmtoulouse co-founded and has spent years maintaining this site with little thanks. Nutty Roux is an experienced lawyer and supremely qualified to be a Trustee. Quirks aside, ListenerX is even-handed and far too educated for someone only a few years older than me. Human has over a decade of experience running a small business. WaitingforGodot is smart, patient, and highly educated. Reckless Noise Symphony is amazingly level-headed and extraordinarily cooperative.

But even good people can make poor decisions. And as anyone who has worked in a group knows, simply putting the best and brightest people together and expecting the best and brightest results doesn't always work. But I still expected better than this. RationalWiki itself deserves better.

Failed quixotic projects

Here is what I've learned: Some time after the RationalWiki Foundation was formed, the Board of Trustees became concerned that they would have difficulty expanding the Foundation, and partnering with other skeptical nonprofits, if it couldn't shake this site's reputation as a home base for vandals. The Board decided that the Foundation needed something other than the RationalWiki website to show to prospective partners and interested outsiders, so they partnered with Media for Social Change in order to create a multimedia skeptics resource.

The result was RationalWiki Docs. Its goal was to create a series of videos that would do in video form what the RationalWiki website does with its articles.

Almost a year has passed, and no progress has been made. More to the point, no actions were taken to ensure the project would succeed in the first place. There was no plan. No schedule for progress was worked out or next steps plotted. The Board didn't have the resources or manpower available to produce any follow-up videos, and no effort was made to commission anyone who did. No scripts or outlines for prospective videos were written, nor did they ask anyone to write some.

RW Docs was stillborn, doomed by the utter incompetence and disinterest of the Board.

The Foundation does have something to show for all this. It's bank account balance is smaller, from paying for the extra domain name, and maybe paying Media for Social Change to make the webpage and a video, too. And should the Board ever pursue a grant, partnership, or major donor, those people may ask the Foundation's only previous partnership, Media for Social Change, what we're like — and MfSC will say we didn't follow through.

I find this deeply embarrassing. In the process of trying to improve RationalWiki's reputation, the Board potentially further damaged it. Rather than try to improve the site's reputation by engaging with the community, they chose to ignore it and hope future partners would too. Rather than make or follow any sort of plan, they stumbled forward blindly. Rather than work to make the project a success, they sat around waiting for things to fall into place.

In short, RW Docs has been a clusterfuck on every possible level, and the Board has made no effort to learn from the experience.

Complete disengagement from the RationalWiki community

The Board is planning even more "big projects" this year. What projects? Why hasn't the Board told us about them? How much will they cost, how will the Foundation pay for them, who will be involved, and how long will they take to finish? What is the Board doing differently to ensure the projects succeed this time? And again, if they're so big and important, why hasn't the Board told the community anything about them?

I don't know how much time and money the Foundation has lost in pursuit of its first quixotic project. I don't know the terms of the Foundation's association with Media for Social Change, if we legally still owe them anything or not. What I do know is that the Board should have, from the moment the partnership was formalized, told us all these things. I do know that Board should have told us about any and all of its "big plans" for this year.

They did not and they have not.

Until now, only three RWians outside Board so much as knew RW Docs existed (Tyrannis learned about it from a Board member, I learned about it from him, and a single other RWian stumbled upon it by accident). The Board created RW Docs out of embarrassment for the very community that elected them, but their utter silence about it towards the community suggests, not just embarrassment, but contempt.

And yet, the Board expects us to care about the Foundation — why should we, when the Foundation's Board doesn't care about us? They expect us to vote in Board elections — why should we, when the people elected hold us in silence and view us with embarrassment? They expect us donate money to the Foundation — why should we, when so far the Foundation has made no effort to show it deserves our money?

The Board wants people to donate to the Foundation? Make people feel involved in the Foundation. Want people to feel involved in the Foundation? Tell them what the Foundation is doing. (And no, posting the Board's meetings minutes doesn't count.) Every meeting, post on the Saloon bar a brief summary of what the Board discussed and why the Board discussed it. Every time a project is considered or a plan made, post a summary of what the project or plan is, why it's worth doing, and why the Board thinks it's doable. Every time the Board progresses on a project or reaches the next step of a plan, trumpet that across the damn wiki. "Hey everyone this is what your money is paying for! You made this possible!" And above all else, listen to what people have to say about those things. Answer any questions and respond to any comments — even if the Board's decision is already made, communication is vital.

As it stands, the Board pretends the community doesn't exist, then every few months asks for its money. There is absolutely no excuse for this state of affairs.

General incompetence

It's difficult for me to put this into essay form, so here's a list of the things I've learned so far:

  • Tmtoulouse said he would file the paperwork necessary to make RW a nonprofit, then procrastinated so long he almost missed the filing deadline. The only reason RW is currently a nonprofit is because Nutty Roux did it himself. Despite his questionable work ethic, the Board approved Foundation by laws that gave a staggering amount of responsibility to Tmtoulouse.
  • Tmtoulouse was (until only a few months ago) the only one with access to the Foundation's finances, but he didn't actually do the financial paperwork. Instead, Nutty Roux had to pester Tmtoulouse for the information he needed to complete the forms. The bank Tmtoulouse used wasn't very good, and the data Nutty Roux received was presented in a hard-to-work-with format. If Tmtoulouse had gotten sick, injured, dead, or simply procrastinated a little too long, the Foundation would've been screwed and potentially faced penalties for missing crucial deadlines. Despite the Foundation's finances being managed via a clearly broken process, the Board took over a year to force Tmtoulouse to give Nutty Roux direct access to the Foundation's bank account.
  • While Tmtoulouse's duties as Operations Manager mean he's officially responsible for advising, conducting research, and filing paperwork, all on behalf of the Foundation, he does little to none of these things. Almost all of this work is done by Nutty Roux, while Tmtoulouse is effectively a glorified server admin. Despite this, no effort has been made to formally give Tmtoulouse's non-tech duties to people who will actually do them.
  • Several months ago, an RWian expressed interest in leaving some money to RationalWiki in their will, but was concerned about the less-than-admirable status of the community. While I specifically contacted Nutty Roux (and he in turn Tmtoulouse) about this, no action was taken. The Board elected to do nothing rather than make any attempt at courting donors. (And if Nutty and Tmtoulouse did take action, why doesn't the rest of the Board know? How can the Board be expected to run things if only half of it knows what's going on?)
  • In my previous contact with Nutty Roux, I'd referenced my brother (whom has seven years of experience as a professional fundraiser for small nonprofits). Nutty expressed interest, and I accordingly interviewed my brother for further advice and collected it in a document, which I emailed to him. I was thanked, and then... nothing. The next fundraiser came and went, and the Board made no attempt at incorporating even the most trivially easy-to-implement parts of the advice.
  • When viewed in conjunction with its idea to use merchandise to encourage donations (i.e. "free coffee mug if you donate X amount"), it would seem that the Board views bumper stickers as the height of building donor relations, rather than communicating with the people it wants money from.

What the Board should do

I give here what I feel are the most straightforward solutions the Board should take towards addresses the concerns I've raised:

  • Communicate with the community. Post bi-weekly updates, summarizing in a few sentences what the Board is talking about, what proposals and ideas are being considered, how projects are progressing. If there is no progress, then report no progress and explain why that is so. Answer any questions people have and acknowledge any discussion that occurs. And no stuffing it onto an obscure page so a tiny handful can put it on their watchlist — post it on the Saloon bar, at the very least. This is about, not just communication, but making the community feel involved and informed. You want as many people as possible reading and understanding what the Board and Foundation are actually doing. You want as many people as possible asking questions about and discussing them.
  • Recreate the Treasurer position in the Foundation. Make them responsible for managing the finances of the Foundation and completing any tax forms and other finance-related papers. Since Tmtoulouse refuses to carry out these duties in a timely and competent manner, the Board should appoint the person who does (Nutty Roux). (I say "recreate" because there originally was a Treasurer role, but it was merged with Tmtoulouse's Operating Manager duties in 2010.)
  • Create a Fundraising Officer position in the Foundation. Make them responsible for communicating with donors and researching other sources of income for the Foundation (grants, ads, etc). Half-formed plans to sell merchandise aside, the Board has made no concrete efforts towards building the Foundation's donation base. It needs someone who will make those efforts on behalf of it.
  • Create an Adviser position in the Foundation, and appoint Nutty Roux to it, provided he is willing. Nutty Roux is extraordinarily helpful, competent, and hard-working on behalf of the Foundation. He is the Board's go-to resource for questions on legal and financial issues. He is an invaluable asset to the Foundation, and it would be a shame to lose that if he were to lose the upcoming, or any future, Board election.
  • Cancel RationalWiki Docs. It's been a year. The project has failed in its goals, and more to the point, the Board has not put in the effort needed to make it a success. The Board should apologize to Media for Social Change (it doesn't matter if the Foundation paid them or not — the Board let down a fellow social activist, and it should apologize) and officially cancel the project.
  • Put plans to appear at TAM or partner with other skeptic organizations on hold. The Foundation needs to put its training wheels back on and learn how to pedal without its feet slipping off. It can learn how to pop wheelies later.
  • Deal with EvoWiki. EvoWiki is (a) owned by the RW Foundation, (b) completely dead, and (c) still gets half-decent traffic to it — traffic that RationalWiki would appreciate a lot more than a ghost town wiki. This is exactly the sort of small-scale (small as in we don't need to hire or partner with anyone outside of RationalWiki for it), immediately relevant project the Board should be focusing on, rather than flailing about pursuing grand goals that are way above its competency level.
  • Spin Conservapediaspace into its own site, separate from RationalWiki. If the Board wants other skeptic organizations to treat RationalWiki as more than a vandal base, then it needs to let go of the part of the site dedicated to obsessing over and trolling another site. I agree that this would be painful — people have a right to learn and enjoy our site's history. I agree it would be difficult to split the Conservapediaspace into its own database. But if the Board really wants RationalWiki to be overcome its reputation as a shady hangout for vandals, then it needs to excise that very hangout from the greater site.

Comments and further discussion

I hope what I have written proved informative. I hope everyone here asks more questions about what the Board of Trustees has been doing, and that the Board will answer them. I hope it strives to do better than it has.

Thank you for reading.

Sincerely,

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 05:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Nobodydon't bother 06:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting reading. I'd certainly like to see more transparency in how the Board uses RW user's donations. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not even sure why there is a "Board", because, as this article points it, it doesn't really do anything. Nihilist 07:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
"Not effectively justifying their existence" could probably be added to the list then, under communication. But having the foundation is important, and you then need somebody to run it. Peter Subsisting on honey 08:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Why? As far as i'm concerned, this is just a small wiki. Sure, it'd be cool if it expanded, but until that happens, "The Board" is like electing a government for your semiweekly DnD sessions you play in your friend's garage. Nihilist 08:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You know - boring things like non-profit status, and escaping from Trent's tyranny. Peter Subsisting on honey 08:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
"Trents tyranny"? Please. The issue is his lack of control and grip on the wiki, not his over0bearing presence. Don't be a idiot, Peter. Acei9 09:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it was meant as a joke, Mr M. rpeh •TCE 10:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
PeterL is incapable of humor. Nihilist 15:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to see more transparency. I give somewhere between 60 and 100 bucks to RW a year, which seems fair enough, but I must admit the number of fundraisers last year seemed excessive to me. One of them I just didn't bother with. I give because I want the wiki to keep running, but then what' are these "major projects" that are "nearing greenlight"? Am I paying for them, if so, how much? It'd be nice to think I was more than just a cash cow for someone else's ambitions. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
As a donor, I also find this unsettling. I am very unhappy not only with this sort of behavior, but also that it took us this long to find out about it.--ADtalkModerator 09:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I was somewhat aware of these issues. Not to this extant but knew of a few of these problems. I also think that some people owe Nutty Roux an apology. Acei9 09:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
In all honesty, I can't say I'm surprised. I always thought the board idea was a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It's clear that a couple of people have put in a lot of work, but equally clear that others had no idea what they were getting themselves into. The upshot is that there seem to have been several grandiose schemes mooted but nobody to actually get them done.
Jeeves claims elsewhere that it's time RW left behind its childish things but I think this whole saga proves the reverse. There just aren't enough people prepared to work hard to make RW into some kind of Internet sensation. There are, apparently, fewer than 80 users of the site, and most of those spend their time faffing about on talk pages instead of improving the site (to be clear, I'm placing myself very firmly in the former category).
There's nothing wrong with being a fun site where people who want to laugh at Andy, Ken, Chuckarse and the rest can gather together. I've never understood the desire of some people to get away from that and try to turn RW into something it was never intended to be. rpeh •TCE 10:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, put it this way. I don't think tying RW's fortunes to CP's is a good bet. It's a dead horse, and I think this new year is a good time to stop beating it. I think those of us who participate in CP space ought to take the initiative rather than wait for it to be forced on us. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Trying to force disengagement from CP has always been terribly unpopular, though. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The Conservapedia question is best dealt with separately. It's really a community issue rather than a Board one (IMO) & if we get too much into it here it's likely to derail from the more pertinent issues raised by Stabby, such as Foundation transparency & communications, use of funds, non-RW projects & partnerships, etc. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Everyone on the board is a volunteer who have otherwise busy lives and careers. If anything, it needs to delegate more if other media is to be successful. Oh, and the wiki will not survive long without CP. It brings people in if you count the edits. Yes, I'd love it to be separate but users just don't make enough skeptical/evolution/evolution/global warming/denialism/etc. edits to sustain the site. Users are too obssessed with site functioning instead of site contributing (including meself) as well. It's been evolving over time and it just can't be sustained. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this Stabby. Not surprising that we're as messed-up off-wiki as we are on-wiki. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Response from RNS

I think something that's generally amiss is the general apathy that always seems to show whenever RWF business is brought up at RationalWiki. I know that some of this falls on the trustees needing to better communicate what we are trying to do, but, for example, when I asked about ideas from the community for things that they'd be interested in getting as little "Thank you"s for dontating to RWF, and for basic design ideas for such things, 95% of the post was tarnished by RWians trying to be funny and not serious. This is also reflected in the general misunderstanding of the roles of the trustees vs. any other role involving the Wiki: techs, Sys. admins, moderators. I, myself, have noticed this gap for some time and have been trying my best to get through to the Wiki purposes for the Board vs. other things. Unfortunately, it always seems to fall on deaf ears. People still think we are the SUPERMODERATORS or some such. In fact, I was disappointed when the general consensus (grant you, it was non-binding) of the current trustees was for us all to respectfully not campaign, out of fear that it would become a mud-slinging contest similar to the Mods. In reality, I think if we were to actually hold some sort of campaign, we could better communicate what the Trustees actually do. On another note, it's been my intention, should I get re-elected to the Board, to put items on the agenda to shift much of the work load that seems to be on Trent's hands. His position on the Board, as it stands, was a great idea back when the RWF was founded, but I think everyone realizes now that, as we continue to grow, duties like fundraising, like networking with the greater skeptical community, like doing the bookwork, need to be more spread out amongst the trustees. Indeed, positions like being in charge of the financials or being in charge of fundraising (the two most important things the RWF does) should be streamlined and delegated to people whose sole responsibility on the Board is to do those things. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll grant Stabby that not everything the RWF has done has been perfect (somethings have been far from it), but as an organization, we are still in our infancy and have only just begun to move beyond the old problems of things like having enough server bandwidth and having enough infrastructure so that power outages or an influx in views doesn't stop the site cold for days or weeks. Now's the era where the Foundation is trying to move forward onto our other lofty idea. Grant you, so far those ideas have been mostly talk and no action. But the "big projects" we have planned for the coming year, so far as I, the chair, are concerned are putting all these ideas into action. There seems to be two glaring issues here that Stabby has put bluntly and for which there is absolutely no excuse on the part of the Board. And those issues are:
  1. Lack of communication, both within the Board and to those outside the Board. As Chair, this should've been my undertaking, and there is absolutely no excuse for this. Going forward, assuming I am re-elected, I fully plan to get right to work on this problem.
  2. Lack of accountability for getting things done. Again, as the chair, I should be getting on these guys (and gals) more about what needs to get done. It's Management 101. This includes the need to split up responsibilities such as finances from technical. And in the last month, I've been coming up with an action plan to propose to the Board to get this done with.
While I certainly understand and completely, 100% empathize with the concerns Stabby and the community have expressed in this post, and they are very good concerns, it doesn't mean that nobody is in the process of trying to fix them. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Apologies if this should be posted elsewhere, but I would like to point out that I have made a suggestion for the site, and none of the responses were from members of the board. I'm not going to say that it is, but it may very well be the case the site members don't make suggestions because they don't think it will change.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The board doesn't run the site, it just raises money and pays for it, among other non-site activities. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
See, I think part of the issue people are having is that no one knows who does what.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It is most of the issue. If the OP really is 70% wrong, an unfounded conspiracy theory, and libel—even despite the effort the went into it to ensure that it would be otherwise—then there is a massive communication problem at the heart of a fundimental misunderstanding about how the site is run, common no doubt to everyone who isn't intimately involved. Peter Subsisting on honey 04:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The OP did very little, if any, fact-checking. As I understand it, Stabby ran an early version by a board member a week ago, without mentioning that he would publish it on the wiki as "sticky" and demand that it stay on the Saloon Bar. I got an email from Stabby requesting "comment" a few hours after it went live here.
And yes, the OP is easily 70% wrong. Attacking people based on rumor and conjecture, while pretending to honor their credentials, and without contacting any of the involved parties? Fairly disgusting, in my book.
In my slightly stretched opinion, the OP is running for an office he has no idea how boring it is to hold, and hoping to shape the "illiction results" accordingly. Best of luck to him with that. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Reckless Noise Symphony was personally witness to and provided regular feedback during the writing of the open letter, from its very first draft to the very final revision, and he was aware of my intent to post it on the Saloon bar. He has not been misled in any way. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 06:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, for the record, that's pure bullshit. You never told him you were going to post it here. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Godot's response

The Wiki needs to expand and grow. All things need to. It is short sighed to think that trying new projects or needing to stay just as you are, has much value. While there were costs to bear for trying new things, which did not get off the ground, they were not large and did not drastically effect the monies available for this site and this project. The board by and large, hasn't been highly involved on this project, it was the brain child AND EFFORT CHILD of Trent and Jason. But it was an attempt to expand our horizon - I fail to see why that is something unwanted or mismanaged. And I have no idea why anyone would expect that such a new project should Fail or Fly in one year - else proving the project was/is/willbe a miserable failure. I'm not sure it was well organized. but I'm equally not sure that's worth the kind of drama being played out right now. For the record, Nutty has request input into both his new project, and our current project here at the wiki, and virtually no one offers up any ideas, input, thoughts, concerns, questions about financing, ect. Virtually no one on the wiki (myself before I worked on the board, and little after) says "here's things I think", or "gee I want to get involved" or "hey, it might be interesting if we..." This issue of lack of input is discussed AT LENGTH at board meetings.

People here like drama. All of us, it's part of what keeps us involved as more that just strict editors. But we are, as a group, highly disinterested in the wiki or the Foundation as a whole. I assure you, 5 new Board member, 10 old board members, or a change in the structure isn't going to change much, because as soon as this particular drama goes away, we will be back to "where are we". If you do not want to move ahead, and try to grow that's fine, and when elections come up, make sure that is your position. But to simply say "the board is incompetent", when no one really has any idea how they think things should be different, nor any input when specifically asked about it is a site wide problem. It is, deep down, no different then every other issue we have here. How to handle trolls, how to handle CP focus, what a mod should be, how to deal with uber drama. We like to talk, fight, whine, argue, and play lots of mind games on each other. We have very little follow through, actual action, actual goals (and I can't tell you how often i hear off line that "no one at RW remembers the reason we started" cause some think it's to combat creationists, others think it's to make fun of CP, others think it's to attack religion, others think it's just about science and disproving non-science. and all sides use the same line "no one at RW remembers why we started".

Specific point - rational wiki docs has been discussed in the Salon, and brought up independently on various talk pages - this wasn't something hidden in the dark, for all it is a new / young project that may or may not have failed.

The current board has 3 strong voices, voices which do disagree often about where to go and how to proceed. And while any given voice may change, or all 5 voices may change, it is unlikely to change the nature of the Board, what is tasked of the Board, and teh fact that the board acts as if it were isolated, because repeated requests (not just while I was sitting on the board, I remember such requests for the last two years as well) for input, ideas, reviews, etc. go unanswered. Maybe I'm biased, cause I've seen us try to actually work with the wiki at large, and watch all 5 members get frustrated that no one is giving any feedback. If you think that answers are that the next board , who ever they be, write up and publish minutes (which are available if anyone had ever asked, by the way - no one did, no one cared) that can easily be done. Issues to be discussed by this or any board should be published a week before teh board meeting, so the wiki and the board can have input. IF you think the board is just moving in the wrong direction, how come for 3 years, (i can't go further back than that, but i suspect this issue goes much further back) how come no one is saying, but Stabby, "this is what I think the Board should be focused on". or even simply WHAT IS the board focused on?

Cause even the letter from Stabby says "you're ineffective", but doesn't really offer solutions for that. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 14:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
PS I would like to state that Stabby, you deserve huge pats for actually bringing this kind of thing up, daring to jump in the water, and saying "let's look at ourselves". And I respect what you said. And love your ideas about the changes in position. I just, respectfully, think that the frustrations felt by you personally, are echoed by the current board, and prior boards. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 14:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Future

I think we have one, as a skeptics' site. Traffic only goes up (and now we have a system that can cope with it - didn't even hiccup at our last Redditdotting). WIGO:CP remains quite popular, as do the other main WIGOs, but yeah. I link to RW articles when apposite commenting on skeptical blogs and forums, and you should too. I don't feel a burning urge to throw away the CP stuff or hide it in an attic. I guess the main thing we need is more "don't be a dick", but then again we are largely a bunch of dicks. I'd rather gargle my own piss than actually be on the board, and I'm sure many on the board feel the same - being on the board of a tiny nonprofit is basically just made of suck, necessary as it is - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

When I am commenting on forums, boards, blogs and facebook I frequently link to RW. Acei9 19:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
When I am commenting on articles about male porn stars, I frequently link to your user page. rpeh •TCE 19:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That explains what happened to me Tijuana then. Acei9 19:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Depending on context, linking to RW can be a dicey proposition. "Here's a link to a great article on vaccine hysteria. But don't click too many links on the website, or you might end up staring down an image of a bat with a giant penis, and then the argument that I'm supporting with that link will be shot to hell." Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I tend not to worry about that. I assume people are smart enough to understand it's a wiki (unless they're on LessWrong) - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Possibly... although it still doesn't explain the incident with those howler monkeys, the bathtub full of jelly and the waiter from Asadero Kino. rpeh •TCE 20:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I link to this place all the time when I am pissing people off on facebook. But I check the article first to make sure it hasn't been ruined. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

ListenerX's response

I generally agree with the points raised in Stabby's missive, but there are a few areas that need clarification.

  1. Had the Board been given any chance to vote on the "RW Docs" project, I for one would have voted against it (i.a., "quixotic" is an excellent adjective to describe it); but we never voted on it — it was presented to us as a fait accompli.
  2. I have never seen the document with the fundraising advice from Stabby's brother, nor any discussion of the person who wanted to leave money to the Foundation in their will.
  3. The Board is not in communication "bi-weekly;" sometimes months can go by without any e-mail crossing the mailing list.
  4. As several people have stated, Trent has a large number of duties as Operations Manager; and while we hear a good deal about his tardiness when it comes to filing paperwork, we hear very little about all the work he puts in day-to-day to keep the Wiki running.
  5. Because he does so much for the Wiki, Trent has an effective veto over any decisions of the Board. For example, in one discussion recently, there was a measure proposed that most of the Trustees seemed amenable to, but Trent went much against it, hinting that he would refuse to implement it if the Board adopted it. For those who see this as a problem, one solution would be to distribute Trent's current duties more widely, but we are a small enough project that that approach might be setting us up for disaster, especially given the mob's much-derided apathy on Foundation matters.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I never said I would fail to implement it. I said I would not be responsible for overseeing it, and the part I said I would not be responsible for over seeing had nothing to do with the wiki or the tech support of the site. It involved coordinating the mailings of 100+ "codes" to people all over the bloody planet. I am not going to spend hours licking envelopes for a dumb idea. I said you would have to find another volunteer for that. Your right that would probably kill it because no one else would volunteer for it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Per the by-laws, as Operations Manager, if the Board tells you to do something, you do it. In reality, if you refuse, we are up a certain creek without a certain instrument. This response rather demonstrates that point. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The proposal being discussed was to force people use snail mail for Board elections as a way of curbing sock voters (which there is no evidence of ever being in a board election). I said I would not be responsible for trying to snail mail stuff all over the planet. It was a waste of my time for a dumb idea. I am not an indentured servant to the foundation. I can not be forced to lick envelopes. I said someone else would have to do it. If no one else volunteered its not my fault. Also the board tabled the idea so I never refused to do anything directed by the board. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, and i'd supported you in this till right now, that's NOT what you said, since **I** was going to be mailing out the stuff, as I have both the time and equipment to manage it. Trent, go take a break or something, back off like Nutty is doing, cause you are walking a thin line, and i want to support you and the Board's actions, but you're not helping yourself here. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest all the board take a step back here? Temperatures are obviously on the rise and a big fight about who said what in meetings the rest of us know nothing about isn't going to help. Email each other, Skype each other, come to a consensus - or a set of opposing views if that's what there is - post everything at once then we can continue. Washing your dirty linen in public isn't helping. rpeh •TCE 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that no more needs to be said about that specific debate, which it was not my intent to re-ignite. I only brought it up to point out the constraints under which the Board is operating. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Rpeh - While your advice is or should be very well headed, a little dirty laundry in the open, sometimes let you see that what you thought was pure and white, is grey. ;-) but you're right, and i personally appologize. To the wiki at large for being personal, and to trent and listener X for getting in to their conversation. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just enough information to not know anything

This is a fairly epic Gish Gallop, many points and details that are actually very wrong that will take hours to address fully. I will try and hit some highlights:

  • The rwdocs project was my idea and it had nothing to do with being embarrassed by the wiki community or the content on the wiki. The project was started because of a cool idea, that is it. I have seen this project through every step of the way working far more on it than anyone has any idea. There are about 2 1/2 people heavily involved in the development and potential financing of the project, and none of the detractors in this thread nor their "deep throat" informants are one of them. Yet they are all ready calling for it to be dumped because they haven't seen, what exactly? What obstacles, progress, plans do they know we have failed to overcome, make, or plan for?
  • The board is disengaged from the community as political entity but not as individuals. The board has no business as an entity micromanaging the community, its rules or the content production here. As individuals every single one of us is highly involved with RW and its community.
  • Financial mismanagement has been accused in several different ways, but the idea that we are flushing money down the drain on other projects is flat out wrong. Not single penny of donations has gone towards the RWDOCS project, and a few bucks a year pays for the evowiki domain. Again, and this is a theme, you state as fact that we don't have a plan for financing additional projects, but what you state so boldly as fact is completely wrong. Multiple additional sources of revenue for funding RWF outside the Wiki have been proposed and vetted, and several are being actively pursued.
  • Donations from the Wiki go towards paying for the wiki we are now at over $4000 a year in just hosting costs and that is only going to go up. My goal has always been to maintain a years worth of hosting costs at all times. This Decembers fundraiser was the first one where we met our goal set out, and once again that was with some serious help of consistent big time donors (including myself). Some previous fundaisers half or more of our funds came from a single person. If we loose support from these people we will not be able to pay for the site. That combined with a board directive is why we hold the quarterly fundraisers.
  • Next we have a series of bullet points that are half truths and out right misstatements. Jacob you are not privy to the amount of time I have spent on RWF, and RWF projects. You are not privy to what "research" and "paper work" and everything else I have done. Yet, with out any information you feel you can publicly come out and say that I do nothing? I am just flabbergasted. I have always had respect for you, and liked you, but this...your handful of specific examples fall either into the category of something you don't have the facts behind, or things that I have never even heard of.
  • Your suggestions are pretty Milquetoast, assigning positions and duties requires people to volunteer, something that is not happening. I have made several attempts to ask for volunteers to handle certain aspects of RWF and I might as well post a tumbleweed gif. Your suggestions on projects flatly lacks vision. You want to dump one project you know nothing about (that actually has far more potential and is costing the RWF less) for EvoWiki? Pray tell what wonders does EvoWiki offer RW? Yes there are reasons we acquired the project and maintain the project, and there are reasons why substantial investment in it is a waste.

Take home message: About 70 percent of the information in here is flat out wrong, just flat wrong, 25 percent is misleading, and without context that would take hours to breakdown, difficult to address fully. About 5 percent is probably legitimate criticism, but mired in an attempt to publicly tar and feather two of the handful of people working to keep this website and its goals growing (hell just working) its hard to take much heart in it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Stabby was just expressing his uncertainty, and meant you no ill. He didn't mince praise for you in his letter, though he did imply that you are either too busy or too lazy to be the volunteer the foundation needs. I think that the best way to summarize his letter, or at least the feelings behind it, would be to say that he doesn't know what's going on, and he's worried.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
For the record, my open letter was read and shaped throughout its development by Reckless Noise Symphony, who is Chairman of the Board. Furthermore, both he, and now ListenerX, claim that you did not discuss it with the board, but simply said you were going to carry it out. RNS — who I will repeat, is Chairman of the Board, and if he isn't aware of what you are doing, who is? —, nor, it would seem anyone else, has been updated on the project's progress. In other words, you started a project in the Foundation's name without the Board of Trustee's approval, did not disclose to them (or us) how it was being financed, and have not disclosed how it was progressing.
The best case scenario (that everything has been secretly just peachy) requires that you aren't even interested in engaging with the rest of the Board, much less the community. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This here is your fundamental problem. You do not know what a board of directors does or is responsible for. The board does not micromanage the business of the Foundation. For all intents and purposes the main purpose of the board is to hire and fire the COO. The board appoints the COO and empowers them to run the Foundation. Every so often the COO reports to the board what they are doing and what they want to do. If the board is not happy it can vote to remove the COO and bring in a new one.
Frankly, at this point, I stand by my record and my history. Ultimately everything comes down to what it always has since RW was a box in a corner in my apartment. No one has put the amount of "blood, sweat and tears" (and I mean this literally that damn box sliced my hand more than once) into RW and I have always done what is best for the site and the community. I would say I have done as good or better than what most other people could have done in similar situations. Disagree? Fork the project and try it on your own, would love to see how you do. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I just think that there are so many other varieties of bodily fluids that you could be sacrificing for RW. How about lymph? Cerebrospinal fluid? Maybe sebum could help. --"Shut up, Brx." 18:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I sneezed in the box a few times too, if that counts. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
A question about your last point: above and especially below you emphasise the issue of volunteering. People have volunteered for Evowiki business numerous times in the last couple of years, for the various ill-fated porting projects but also for ‘curating’ on that wiki. At the bottom of the project talk page is a request from a former editor there, dating only from November, that hasn’t been so much as responded to. Above, you imply that you don’t like “investment” in that project, so should we take it that any volunteering carries your personal veto? Peter Subsisting on honey 04:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the goal is that anyone who cares enough ports over material from EvoWiki to our mainspace, adding a reference to maintain the wiki spirit of who wrote what, and then perhaps collapses the EvoWiki article down to a redirect of some sort to RW. Yes, it is work. Hard work. Hard work with no glory, except for the joy of doing it. Much like actually writing articles here is. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Move this

This is obviously going to be a very wide-ranging and long-lasting discussion. May I move it to a Forum space to keep the Saloon free for drinkin' and chasin' skirts? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is something as many people as possible need to see. I would rather it not be placed in a forum, where only a few will read and follow it. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 17:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought you might say so, and that's why I didn't move it my own self. My watchlist hates you a bit now, but I think we can live with that. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It's now taking up nearly half the bar & likely to grow. I would favour moving it to project space or a forum & keeping a link to it stickied in the bar rather than keeping the whole thing here. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Park this egomaniacal rant elsewhere. Like on Stabby's blog. It's a violation of our mission, since it is an unfounded conspiracy theory based on a complete lack of facts. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I hate to be pedantic here, but mission challenges only apply to articles, not talk-page posts. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting point. (This is not a talk page, though...) ħumanUser talk:Human 05:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The Weasel's right, this needs to be moved to a Forum. Not to hide it, nor because it is off-mission, but because it is too big to remain sticky here. I understand that the OP may have got things wrong but at least it has prompted some vigorous discussion about the direction and running of the site which is worthy of its own space. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And Stabby, you can always "bump" the forum by posting one of those top of the page message things linking to it. Just saying. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A real discussion

Stabby's attempt at a public flogging aside doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about some of these broader issues if the community actually wants to. I have attempted this more than once and its felt like pulling teeth. Being an RW users means being an RW user. The day-to-day of the board and its politics doesn't interest a lot of people. That is perfectly fine and I why I gave up except in broad strokes really pushing it.

Let's pull back a bit though. To understand the situation you have to first recognize that this is a totally volunteer system. It is staffed by people with busy lives, and many of us wear multiple hats even inside RW. You can't really make “demands” of volunteers to go above and beyond the basic job. There in lies the Ed Poor “writing assignments” approach that we mock for a reason. It is up to each individual to decide what they can and will put towards the project.

The relative strength, involvement and power of the board is up to each individual member. Nutty is responsible for a lot and does a lot not because he was given permission or was assigned from on high, but because he volunteered to do so and took an active role in helping and pushing things forward. Nothing prevents anyone else, board member or not, from doing exactly the same thing. Have a good idea? Don't just talk, start working on it. Want to get involved? Get involved!

The RWF docs project is the example floating around here at the moment. I would be happy to discuss this further with anyone, on wiki or off. But this is a perfect example. Myself along with a couple other people have a cool idea. We think it fits well with the RWF mission and are implementing it inside of that mission. Those of us that had the idea, and want to work on the project are working on it. During our own time and with our own money.

One of the big lessons I learned from watching web projects rise and fall is that you gain nothing, can hurt your chances, if you try and bring in the community of users before you have a product for them to work with. There is no point in dragging a mostly disinterested “RW community” into the project till we really have something to show. And those elements of the community that might want to work on it in the early stages have all been alerted, and you know what? None of them have stepped forward to volunteer.

Which is fine, again its a volunteer project. The few of us interested in it continue to push forward with it when we can with what we can. If it comes to fruition hopefully it will be cool, if it doesn't what exactly was rationalwiki.org lost? Again my money, my time not your money or your time has been put towards it.

Here is a measuring stick for the project. My “get hit by a bus” scenario. Every year that this project existed I assessed the situation by saying, if I were to get hit by a bus today what happens to RW. This is the very first year since inception that the answer is anything but “dead in a month or less.” Technical and fiscal solvency. When the RWF was formed those were the first two major goals above and beyond anything else. Can we create a structure for the website that is bigger than one person? I set that as a 3 year goal and we are hitting it in stride. We now have the financing and technical infrastructure to keep the site going for a year+ with little to no intervention at all. Plenty of time for RWF to transfer control over these elements to someone else (I feel sorry for them all ready) to oversee and continue on uninterrupted.

This alone should be praised as a major accomplishment of the Foundation. Two years ago RW's fate was tied closely to whether or not a hot pocket was in the toaster downstairs in my apartment. Now we can eat a reddit influx like its nothing. All the other asides are just that asides. We have made substantial progress since the inception of the corporation. The simple fact that most of the complaints outlined above involve complaining about how we are not expanding or growing or investing in other projects the right way is proof of success.

Go read the Citizendium forums and see what a real disaster looks like. We are arguing about how best to grow and branch our project, not how in the world are we going to survive another 6 months?

That said the fact that the RWF does not have a clean line of communication with interested members if a problem and one I have plans to try and rectify. Our biggest issue is that the RWF membership is tied to RW membership. The truth is that people interested in RW might not be interested in the RWF and vise versa. We need a way to move the RWF into is own space, and to recruit members for the RWF regardless of where they come from. It is within this space that we can work towards more active and more efficient communication with the population of people intersted in the RWF proper. That is exactly what I am working on right now, and what the board has been discussing for a while now. Creating a members with the RWF and getting interest and investment in the RWF itself outside of a single project. If we can get that we can do a lot more. RW and then just be RW and worry about RW. There will always be overlap but this gives us some new directions.

I am open to any other ideas from any one at anytime. Open door people, I have never hidden any way to communicate with me at any time. Hell I think my cell phone number is in the whois information for the site. But keep in mind this is a volunteer project, if you have an idea that you want to see implemented you will likely have to be the one to see it through. That is the nature of the beast. And those of us attempting to do just that should be getting the benefit of the doubt. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these detailed responses to the issues raised TMT. I'm sure everyone appreciates all the time & energy you put into the site & other projects. I have to say I don't quite agree with what you say about starting projects first & telling the community later. While the RW name, trademarks, etc. are licensed to the Foundation, they are still something the wider community feels very attached to, so I feel the community should be kept aware of any offsite projects which will bear the RW name, or potential partnerships being developed, as much as reasonably possible. Even if the community seems disinterested when a new project or partnership is discussed, they should still be kept in the loop since anything using the RW name/logo is ultimately going to be associated with the site. I think this sense of the Board (or its members) launching projects behind the community's back (even if that was nobody's intention) explains some of the frustrations raised by Stabby & others. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
While I don't totally agree with the way this issue has been framed or the criticisms leveled I accept the criticism about wanting more direct communication. That is fine. The trick is going to be linking together those people interested in the broader RWF actions (beyond paying for RW) and the RWF. That is exactly what I am working on at the moment. Here is some specifics:
  • Creating a "real" website outside RW to host the RWF information and provide a forum for RWF communications as well as presented a more professional face to the RWF proper (all ready moving ahead on this right now)
  • Creating a "membership" in the RWF that is not linked to RW. This allows people from any entrance point to the project whether wiki, facebook, twitter, or random blog post to become a part of the RWF without having to deal with the wiki. This also frees the wiki to be the wiki and not get wrapped into the RWF discussions.
  • Pursing alternative funding sources for the RWF and RWF projects not attached to the wiki. This allows us to move forward with new ideas without "stealing" money from people that just want to keep the wiki alive.
Each of these goals is currently in production and part of the major issues that the next board will be addressing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. Why does there seem to be real resistance to actually telling us peons what these "projects" are? Are they secret? You've referred to RW docs as a volunteer project, but nobody at RW seems to have been given any opportunity to volunteer. There's been reference to some other thing that involved mailing codes above, but nobody seems willing to actually say what that was either. The latest elections have reference to yet more projects, but no details. Why all the secrecy? If RWians are expected to participate in these things, shouldn't we at least be told about them? (Also, does anyone else think it's bizarre that the RationalWiki foundation should be considering having a site that isn't RationalWiki?) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It comes down to a simple calculus, spamming the wiki with every idea and every issue discussed or thought about is a bad idea. Start the spamming when there is something interesting to discuss. That seems like a good rule of thumb to me. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Reportedly, these things have been presented on the Saloon Bar and input asked on them. This is possible, although I did not see them. That does bring up the issue of whether or not the Bar is a good announcement system. It is by far the most-visible page here on the wiki and much better than Forumspace, but I suspect it would probably be better to have a dedicated set of subpages (like with the minutes). It would be best not to do monthly reports, which would seem routine and not necessary to read, and thus wouldn't be read even when something important did happen, but to only announce major things and significant requests for input every other month or so, and put up a corresponding announcement. This could be mirrored on a RW blog (I am already subscribed to the tech blog, so how about a RWF blog?) These steps would avoid the twin stigma of "routine business, I can ignore."--ADtalkModerator 20:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you came out and said that first. I don't read everything that appears here but I find the idea that I could have missed everything about, for instance, RW Docs, unlikely. Several minutes spent using the search didn't turn anything up either. Assuming there was an announcement somewhere, I can only suggest that none of the board members go into advertising. rpeh •TCE 20:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I trawled the archives for that thread while Stabby was writing this, but couldn't find it. I seem to remember it happening, though. Peter Subsisting on honey 21:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Without sounding like i'm attacking trent - i'm not - the thing is these are basically someone's pet projects, and they may or may not be ready for exposure. they may or may not be ready to get ideas. There was no, or very little money spent on them. It's like if any of you said "I think i'm going to work on a new evo project and show it when it's done". Nothing hidden, no agendas (other than, perhaps some - myself included - people's agenda to try to get RW to reach more people. If i were to write a feminst blog, and ask after it's done, if we can join it to RW, then I'd bring it out to the RW world. that's the level of this rs docs project of trent's.
As for monthly reports, that's not going to happen. we can't even get our shit (the board's) together enough, or have enough to talk about for 4 meetings a year. Again, the agenda should be made public, and in my personal mind, comming from Public Service, the meetings should be open to anyone who wants to skype into them. Then none of this he said/she said stuff gets too out of hand. (edit con) Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't say I spend a lot of time here, I tend to check recent changes and go from there. I did not see anything related to RW Docs but it sounds like a fine idea. I would ask though if its just duplicating for example Youtube. I agree that it might be hard to get other sites to support RW with the frat house conduct that seems to be prevelant. Not that that is too apparent if you just read the articles and it does lend a sort of charm to the place. A "report of the board" with specific action items would be welcomealthough it should be clear that the board is advising its actions and not seeking permission. Hamster (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
(EC) If i were to write a feminst blog, and ask after it's done, if we can join it to RW, then I'd bring it out to the RW world. that's the level of this rs docs project of trent's. No. RWDocs is accessible to the public, has the RationalWiki logo all over it, and is published under the aegis of the Foundation. If anyone but Trent had done something similar of their own accord, Nutty Roux would probably have gone after them for trademark infringement.
Jeeves, at least one of the trustees is almost as much in the dark about some of these projects as the mob in general. The mailing of codes was one proposal for dealing with possible voter fraud in Board elections; the solution we eventually agreed on was the public voter registry. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
(EC)I am not sure what exactly you guys are envisioning is going on. Godot pretty much said and I have been trying to say it, this is a pet project of mine and a couple other people that is still at the earliest stags of development. The things it needs to move forward are some back end developments (coding), and additional funding. That lead us to begin exploring alternative means of funding other than spamming RW and appropriating money given to keep the servers up to a pet project. That in turn has lead to several potential avenues that require some more work to facilitate. Right now there is no "rw docs" outside of an interesting idea that needs a couple things to land right before anything can be done with it. If it ever moves beyond that point then we can start talking about. There is not much to talk about, and that is why it hasn't been presented other than in vague terms for "copy" during fundraisers. Anyone else want to write better copy they are welcome to it. In fact, that is another position I asked for a volunteer for a few months ago to resounding sound of crickets. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses so far, Trent. I know I underappreciate the work you do for RationalWiki. I simply feel you shouldn't have to do it alone.
One thing I didn't bring up in the open letter (for fear it would tinge the rest of it with the air of a campaign statement) is that I would like to volunteer to handle fundraising duties. I'm willing to communicate with donors, write copy for fundraisers, investigate new sources of funding, and other work pertaining to raising money. I admit I'm personally inexperienced in these things, but I have a close mentor in my brother (whom I've mentioned earlier) and am prepared to put in the work necessary to do them. If the Foundation would have me, I am ready. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 22:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Volunteers are always welcome. Do you need a title to help with providing ideas and effort? If so, I dub thee RationalWiki Foundation Assistant Undersecretary of Fundraising, pending a vote of the Board. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Put plans to appear at TAM or partner with other skeptic organizations on hold"

Actually, I would argue that hooking up with TAM or another organization would be a good thing. It would give a deadline if it's for a conference, which, may help move a project forward. It may push the wiki to spiffy up parts of the site. Potentially, it would bring in a new audience (and ones far less focused on CP, for the post-Conservapedians out there). The only thing I don't know is what it actually means: Present at a conference? Present what? Write an article for one of the mags by collaboration? Produce a unique product? I just think it may help with wiki rather than waiting. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 00:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The main discussion has been about setting up an exhibitor table at the next TAM. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Will there be enough money to pay for that? TAM exhibitor tables cost $1,000. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 00:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Potentially, there are a lot of unknowns, not the least of which is the when and how much for 2013. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Human's response

1. What Trent said.

2. It's been over 25 years. I realize that is "over 10", but it does show the quality of the research that went into the OP. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't vote for me. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Weaseloid / talk / contribs 09:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Or vote for me. The job is low impact and easy, but if re-elected I plan to put myself forward for Chair, and that will involve a lot more work. I don't mind doing it. Herding cats, and all. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Meow?Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Working with you, and the other 3 Board members, has been a pleasure. I despair of the current results due to the wiki politics, but if I am, well, what I said. Personally, I think you have finally hit your stride and truly deserve a second term. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

It's been mentioned that RW Docs hasn't cost the Foundation any money. I take this to mean either it hasn't cost anything at all (aside from the small cost of purchasing the domain name), or that Tmtoulouse/Nutty Roux have been paying any costs themselves. Which one is it? Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Media for Social Change is involved too. Why are you assuming (as suggested in your open letter above) that the partnership involves RWF paying them money, when the RWDocs page suggests the exact opposite? The text & video are a pitch from Trent appealing for potential partners who would like to be involved in a project and are willing to contribute to funding, not an appeal for partners to take on projects that will absorb RWF funds. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Either way, it's pretty irrelevant, isn't it? The only thing the foundation controls is where OUR money (yours and mine) are going. If someone (in this case, Trent) has a pitch, it doesn't matter if it didn't cost anything, if there was a cost but he bore it, or if he got outside funding. This is a dead horse, Stabby - and unworthy of you. Again, I respect what you wrote in yoru letter, about how the board does, should, and hopefully will run in the future - no matter who is elected. it was good, valuable stuff. but worrying about a proposed project to further the reach of RW, that cost the Foundation nothing as a whole, why is this an issue? Even if they were off spending 10000000000 of dollars, if it's not our money, why are you bringing it up?Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Terrible and Degrading

Having browsed the content of this website for a short period of time I soon realised that it was clearly set-up and is maintained by an array of arrogant ego-minds who wish to make re-enforce their perceived intellectual superiority in the domain of the INTERNET.

The articles which appear on this website, under such blanket headers such as 'Conspiracy' and 'Pseudo-Science' reveal what is clearly a fundamental misinterpretation of reality itself, and dismissal of opposing viewpoints to those currently held. It boggles my mind that some people are so devoid of self worth and so filled with egotism that they feel the need to create pages such as this > http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank in order to discount or discredit hard-working people who are experts in their respective fields.

If I was more of a conspiracy theorist I would assume that this website was indeed set-up by agents of the New World Order, however, It is far more rational to assume that it was set up by a bunch of bored and intellectually starved, materialist/reductionist, arrogant and soul-deprived, self-inflated scientifically dogmatic and sufficiently brainwashed wooden-heads.

Congratulations, your website is very, VERY entertaining. — Unsigned, by: Wowe / talk / contribs

That's nice, dear. Tea's ready. SophieWilder 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Whats the betting that this user is on the crank names list? — Unsigned, by: 176.24.217.108 / talk / contribs

I would like to thank them for their incredibly precise and specific criticisms. I shall action those immediately. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 20:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Everyone take a drink--Logic and Empricism (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
"After reading about only the things I care about, my butt hurt so much that I make myself feel better by telling myself this website was made by meanies and losers who could not possibly be more right than me. I will now proceed to call your articles too broad-sweeping while evading details myself with lovely phrases such as "fundamental interpretation of reality itself" which sound sufficiently outraged but are even more vague than the pages I accuse of offense. I will now proceed to insult everyone here because they said bad things about kooky stuff I like. I am actually a conspiracy theorist and I actually do believe in a New World Order and I would call you part of it but that would give you power, so I will call you sweaty nerds instead." ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 21:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wowe. Welcome to RW. :-) I am glad find it entertaining. Please tell all your friends to come and be entertained. You might also like to make specific comments or point out errors on the talk pages of the articles concerned. --Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 21:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Evolution wiki domain expired

Evolutionwiki.org

Gets the typical generic homepage.

I knew I should've downloaded the creationist arguments list! — Unsigned, by: Nogods4you / talk / contribs

Try archive.org. They might have it. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Question

I've been considering updating some of the pages on (for example) Survivalists with some of their common arguments, possibly with a researched response in case someone is in a position to debate one of these people, they can go in a little better armed. What I'm not sure about is:

  • Is this even allowed for a general article?
  • Would it be better if I created a separate page based on a group?
  • If I were to do this should I use forum posts as a reference?
  • Can I even do that?

I don't think this is a terribly difficult question, I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, or if there's some consensus on doing things like this.

Thank you. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

The new inquisition

This site seems to have been taken over by ignorant 'anonymous' young teens who are anti scientology (wow how cool)(and probably anti jew as well), who are censoring any rational debate regarding certain topics.. mainly my interest in psychiatry being a pseudoscience. Within science the prevailing view, accepted by Szasz and others, is that the mind does not exist. That it is a concept and not a physical thing. The idea that there can be a disease of an idea is scientific nonsense and as such the idea that there can be a 'mental illness' is a pile of quackery. Psychiatry is akin to 'mind reading', astrology (labeling people into categories) and makes full use of the Forer effect. The medicalisation of deviance and misbehaviour (as proscribed by authority) is the erroneous belief in psychiatry. The ideology that all human brains need to be identical is a totalitarian philosophy, (eugenics) and probably a primate instinct, that has no place within science. Please can you stop censoring me by multiple bans/undoes and at least join the debate. Otherwise this site is no different from the creationist shit you eschew. I only joined this site because it was stated that the scientific method was the only pathway to 'truth' but those I have encountered are just as ideologically motivated as the intelligent design crowd. Thanks. — Unsigned, by: Dirk Steele / talk / contribs

Thats nice. Feel free to leave if you find this site and it's users lacking. --Mikal Harass Follow 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with being anti-scientology? Are you merely quibbling about the label "illness" or are you denying that there are groups of people that exhibit similar symptoms behaviourally, cognitively and physically that they consider adverse to their well being? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Being an atheist in the USA is probably adverse to their well being. Is this a mental illness?
I do not think there is anything wrong with being anti-scientology or anti-christian or anti-muslim even though I do not subscibe to these ideas. I also do not think it is my job to force those that take comfort in their religion to take my view. As long as the religion does not force their views in state authorities and institutions etc upon me. I understand that many consider their 'behaviour' to be adverse to their well being. Some of my behaviour is too. Homosexuality was once adverse to those beings 'well being' (I hope you can see the metaphors used here). It was considered a mental disease (and still is by some). You will have to explain further your view about negative effects regarding 'behaviourally, cognitively and physically' (sic) disadvantages of the 'mental' patients. I regard biodiversity as an advantage not a handicap. --Dirk Steele (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
So the schizophrenic that plagued by fears, delusions, and hallucinations, that is unable to manage goal-directed behaviour and is so plagued by anhedonia that they can not have anything approaching a normal life. We are not even talking job/house/wife, we are talking often basic things like being able to feed oneself. This is merely biodiversity and an evolutionarily adaptive state? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
'goal-directed behaviour'. Toward what? Fitting in with society? Explain this please. A 'normal life'? What is that? What is the main reason why people cannot 'feed oneself'? Is this due to a biological disease? Where is the evidence? Is it a mental illness or an environmental/societal issue? Please let me know your thoughts.
@trent, dont bother, he wont care--Mikal Harass Follow 01:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Goal-directed behavior has a very specific definition, mostly dating back to animal research in stimulus/response paradigms. It is highly disrupted in many patients with sever schizophrenia. Many hardcore patients, with out treatment, are so unable to process reality from delusion, are so afflicted with damage to the motivational centers of the brain, that they reach a state of catatonia which could lead to starving to death if ignored. Sound adaptive to you? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You will have to define what you mean by 'delusion' and 'reality'. It would appear to me that these are social and cultural constructs and not scientific. I think 'creationists' are delusional but only a couple of hundred years ago this idea was considered to be true 'reality'. Can you cite any scientific reference that schizophrenia is related to damage to the 'motivational centers of the brain'. Where are these? Your definition of schizophrenia is also lacking - where have you read that it is exhibited by 'a state of catatonia which could lead to starving to death if ignored.' Please cite your references. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"Define reality vs delusion"? "Reality is a social and cultural construct and not scientific"? My ass. You cannot be serious, and this constitutes trolling, or else you are so far removed from what I consider sane that I cannot have a meaningful conversation with you. I may reconsider this decision if you specifically apologize for being an ass for writing that in apparent seriousness. My time is precious, and I have better things to do than try to have a conversation with a nihilist post-modernist. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not a post-modernist. Just another insult. I believe that the scientific method is our only way to uncover the reality of the physical universe. But when one starts to attempt to define the mind, our desires, our goals etc then I believe that these are cultural human primate constructs. Even our senses are false and sight, hearing, taste, touch, are not reality but are a result of our evolutionary inheritance. Thus they are not scientific but merely constructs of our phenotype. And if you use the word 'nihilist' do you refer to the definition as defined by Neitzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus or Wittgenstein? Or someone else? Please explain. Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you incapable of properly indenting your replies? I just fixed another one of yours. Look dude. People have desires. If you're not going to accept the well-formed-ness of that sentence, then we cannot and will not have conversations, because I am not going to pander to your philosophical word games. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
See here is the problem you pontificate about a subject which you obviously have zero professional training in. You have no knowledge of the field, the concepts, the vocabulary or the research. In order to engage you in a conversation about this topic I would have to spend a considerable amount of time teaching you the basics. I haven't even touched the main thrust of my argument but if you lack even the most basic conceptual framework the energy/reward just isn't worth it. For example, catatonia is defined primarily as a symptom of schizophrenia. I am not going to bother citing original research as I assume you likely don't have access to it, or the background to intelligently and critically examine it. Instead how about the Mayo Clinic summary? I have got extensive evidence showing biophysical relationship between the brain and negative symptomatology. ((Citation please or just 'hot air' posturing? --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC))) In fact, hot off the presses I have recently finished an analysis of fMRI data on schizophrenics vs. healthy controls showing some fascinating differences in vascular compliance measurable by parameter estimation of the post-stimulus response in the haemodynamic response function. We can link this vascular compliance failure directly to symptoms of schizophrenia showing a link from cognition, behaviour and physiology all rolled into one. This is only one minor example of research I am specifically involved in. The field is ample, and you have not even bothered looking at it before arm chair philosophizing, and poorly at that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Pure obfuscation. It took me a little while of internet searching to understanding what you are talking about... but why not state this in ordinary English? What are you trying to hide? --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Check this out then. A 'schizophrenic'? Will you 'examine' these people in your groundbreaking study? Against what 'control'? Please can you explain yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxZbe85RMGk You are very silent now... nothing to contribute? I think you have just been found out as a complete fake mate. Yes? --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/teens-and-sex/MY01100. What?? This 'clinic' that deals with the morality of teen sex as a medical condition? What planet are you from? --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
'catatonia is defined primarily as a symptom of schizophrenia.' I know this fact. But if you read what I actually said I questioned the fact that so many schizophrenics die from starvation. Does this actually happen? How many do you know of? So... Anders Breivik is defined by some psychiatrists as a schizophrenic - suffering from catatonia. Other psychiatrists have defined him as sane. There is absolutely no agreement on who is or is not insane (because there are no scientific objective biological markers) So in your research how do you reach the definition of those who are schizophrenic and your controls. I would be interested in your answer here. Thanks. --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Research it on your own, meta studies are good places to start. As for your example totally meaningless. One, most of the diagnosis is being done either by people with no access to the patient just as paid media consultants, or as paid consultants for legal teams. Also you don't validate or invalidate a diagnostic criteria by agreement of its application in a single individual. Like any categorization system your goal is to have general agreement most of time. Are there some doctors that will always disagree? Sure. Are there some patients that are particularly difficult to assign? Sure. That's what the central limit theory is all about. Catch the first couple standard deviations and its a success. I am really not interested in playing this Gish Gallop game with you though. If you want to play we have to set some reasonable rules of discussion. What you need to do is give me an example of specific data you would accept as invalidating your arm chair hypothesizing. Just a basic description akin to "if you can show me a case of Y being linked to some observation Z that would invalidate my idea." Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Point one. Not true. Breivik's psychiatrists had months to interview him. The fact is that psychiatry cannot agree. I presume you are familiar with the kappa test scores for the field trials of the DSM 5. Are you? --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it is too late to say that I do not have to be a professional homeopath to understand that it is a pseudoscience. Couple of things that interest me in your study. One is, since the definition of schizophrenia is very changable over time how have you determined those within your group? The meta-study you quote concludes that schizophrenia is a number of different diseases not just one. How will you differentiate? Secondly, since it is known that antipsychotic drugs actually cause symptoms - shuffled gate, tardive akathesia and dyskinesia and even brain damage which then have become symptoms of the 'disease',- how do you install and manage controls here? I would accept your finding if there is an empirical scientific observation which then can be used for a clinical diagnosis. How's that? (Sorry for the previous bout of sound and fury signifying my twatflapness.) --Dirk Steele (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The inability to answer is significant. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

'Also you don't validate or invalidate a diagnostic criteria by agreement of its application in a single individual. ' You are joking here surely? A broken leg disorder or lung cancer is not defined by 'agreement of its application in a single individual.' --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

'Are there some doctors that will always disagree? Sure.' Rubbish. Scientific medical doctors do not disagree whether someone has a cancer, a broken leg, diabetes, the flu, chicken pox, etc etc because these are all subject to an empirical measurement. I grant there may be areas where etiology is unknown and speculative but I bet you a million quid that I can always mimic or pretend to have a 'mental illness' whereas I cannot pretend to have a physical disease. Oh my poor bad back! So how have you differentiated your schizophrenic patients from your controls given that psychiatry cannot differentiate? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment. How have you accommodated this view in your research? --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Which is why no one ever gets a second opinion. My state's former senator Pete Domenici would not be a "former" senator if diagnosis in medicine was perfect. The lost chance doctrine in malpractice lawsuits would have no need to exist. Any diagnostic criteria works on the bell curve. Anyway, not much further to discuss till you provide me with what I asked. Please outline data that would disprove your hypothesis. We can continue this conversation when you have provided a specific example. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Whilst I am reading through the meta studies you might want to have a read of this as an example of the position of the British Psychological Assoc. http://apps.bps.org.uk/_publicationfiles/consultation-responses/DSM-5%202011%20-%20BPS%20response.pdf Any thoughts? --Dirk Steele (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
If you understood the scientific method you would know that I cannot disprove a negative. I cannot prove that God does not exist. It is you that make the claim that have to show empirical evidence. But maybe you could outline data that would disprove your doctorate hypothesis and maybe we could discuss that. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, Are you are too 'thick' to understand. I am a bi-polar flapwit. Can you prove it using science? No. It is not a subject that can be falsified. It is therefore a pseudo science. The fact that you think you have produced evidence of mental illness and obviously are in line for the Nobel prize!!! shows you suffer from a delusion. Probably schizophrenia? You know... grandiosity and a narcissistic personality disorder. But you are just a person with agnosia. You know.. the D-K shit. Bah! You are too ignorant to even have a debate with. --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your like some sort of weird John A. Davison remix, complete with the inability to handle things like thread structure. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Er.. do you mean to say "you're" rather than your? Do you even know the english language? Ok.. thread structure is more important to you than intellectual rational ideas.. and you cannot even take the time to answer my easy 'difficult' questions. Jeez. What a total arsewank you are. Keep posting and give us all a fuch=king giggle. We need such arsewits in this time of moronic stupidity. Keep your (you're) chin up mate! Jeez A few peas short of a casserole.......Dirk Steele (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you stupid? Please outline data that would disprove your hypothesis that there is a God. We can continue this conversation when you have provided a specific example. Ha! The fact you are a 'neuroscientist' with no idea of the concept of science makes me a scared little boy. Maybe a little mad. But the fact that you continue to ignore my most diffi-cult questions makes you no better than a creationist. You do not have the intellect to abrogate my scientific challenge. Do you? --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)--Dirk Steele (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
So you admit that what you have proposed here is unfalsifiable. You keep using the term "science" it doesn't mean what you think it means. Anyway, you have clearly demonstrated your just another internet crank. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
As explained earlier, the scientific method requires that those that make the claim, of God existing or psychiatry as a science have to provide evidence. Have you read any Karl Popper? --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
"In fact, hot off the presses I have recently finished an analysis of fMRI data on schizophrenics vs. healthy controls showing some fascinating differences' I await your analysis with interest. If, and only if your paper stands up to scientific peer review and replication, I will accept the results. If your research is accepted regarding the vascular compliance and the haemodynamic response then what will the treatment be? Who will provide it? Psychiatrists? Or another medical speciality? --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
There are a few steps in between basic research and "treatment." Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
But you must have a little idea about what the treatment could be. Otherwise what is the point of your research?--Dirk Steele (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


You evade the question very well. If your hypothesis is true then schizophrenia is not a 'mental illness' and therefore will not be treated by psychiatry? True or not? I await with bated breath the nobel prize that is due to you --Dirk Steele (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You evade the question again. Why? --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Because your question reveals such a fundamental gap in understanding on the topic its a waste of time. I outlined above what you need to provide for this conversation to go anywhere, at the moment your in full crank territory. You can start digging yourself out of this whole be providing a falsifiable theory, or not. But I am not wasting time with a crank hell bent on ignorance. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You may call me a crank but you have not given one iota of scientific evidence to demonstrate this. Only argumentum ad hominem. I still await any scientific evidence to back up your views. I only see absence of argument. Come on guys... rise to the challenge. eh? --Dirk Steele (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha! You almost have made me piss my pants with incredulity. Why not just answer the simple question I asked? Because you cannot? You are a pathetic tosspot and anyone who reads what you have written here must realise this. Oh and I look forward to your research paper. Any chance of an advance copy? No I thought not... --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your dancing on a stage with no audience mate. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Well you are still here! 'Your dancing! But despite your aspirations to being a nobel prize winner you cannot even differentiate in english grammar between the words 'your' and 'you're'. I look forward to reading you're (sic) groundbreaking research paper. I love comedy. It is so funny! you twatflaplicker, Ha! --Dirk Steele (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"[...] the mind does not exist. That it is a concept and not a physical thing. The idea that there can be a disease of an idea is scientific nonsense and as such the idea that there can be a 'mental illness' is a pile of quackery." What is this... I don't even... You're welcome to your unfalsifiable scientifically vacuous claim that "the mind does not exist". Humans obviously have behaviors, desires, wants, goals, reasoning capabilities, and so on. Obviously some humans have undesirable qualities in their behaviors, desires, wants, goals, reasoning capabilities, etc. That seems like a pretty simply definition of "mental illness" that is scientifically accurate and sound, even by your extreme world view. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You miss the point. Humans obviously have undesirable qualities in their behaviours, desires, wants, goals etc but then to say that these issues are the result of a medical disease is quackery. How can one have a disease of desire and then be 'treated' by 'medication'. This is not science. It is complete nonsense. --Dirk Steele (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do really really care. Otherwise I would not bother to post. I care that people dismiss science for a ludicrous belief. If we ignore this we are doomed. And I have not engaged with anyone on this site yet who is willing to engage in a scientific debate. Not one. That worries me. And it should worry you too. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mikal, you have already told us that you have a brain/mental disease/disorder. You have thus admitted you suffer from agnosia. Why should we listen to you? You are fuckin nuts! By your own admission. --Dirk Steele (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
... Go fuck yourself. --Mikal Harass Follow 01:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone looking at your page http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Mikal must realise you are a sandwich short of a picnic. The vacuousness and paucity of your intellect is evident for all to see. 01:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Dirk Steele (talk)


Where you got off track

I would say that your original point is pretty good and well true, but it hinges on a key point that is simply false:

"Within science the prevailing view, accepted by Szasz and others, is that the mind does not exist. That it is a concept and not a physical thing."

This is true.

"The idea that there can be a disease of an idea is scientific nonsense and as such the idea that there can be a 'mental illness' is a pile of quackery."

This is not true. Psychiatry/Psychology/Neuroscience in general does not say that mental disorders are conditions of the mind, but of the brain. The brain, being a physical object which is affected by numerous hormones, neurotransmitters, and stimuli can get ill. That is where you fail.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Neurology is the medical speciality that deals with diseases of the brain. Psychiatry deals with disease of the mind. Although psychiatrists like to think they are neurologists there is no scientific evidence of any biological markers to determine a mental illness. Read the DSM. It is a list of behaviours which are not acceptable to the authorities within society. And if, as Szasz points out, there is evidence of a physical defect such as happened with epilepsy and neurosyphilis, it is removed from psychiatry into a proper medical speciality. You will also have to explain why the concept of 'mental illness' or 'mental hygiene' exists. Why are these not just termed 'brain' diseases? There is a reason why and it may be prudent to take a minute to consider and examine this fact. Dirk Steele (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Morton's demon Also seriously? You think everyone who disagrees with you is from the antiscientology branch of Anon and you think they're antisemite? I'm too sober for this shit. Frullic (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No. I am suggesting that the persecution of those that have strange beliefs might also apply to those who believe that they are God's chosen people'. And yes... I agree that you are too sober. Therefore... Drink!! Gurls!! --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Well you have not seen all the comments I get about me being in league with scientology and the CCHR. It gets tiresome especially when I have spent time updating pages which then get undone by some infant who has a beef against scientology. Look at the mental illness denial page here to see what rubbish is spouted. Hubbard has absolutely no academic credibility within 'anti-psychiatry' and is not even mentioned on the Wikipedia site. But here... Dirk Steele (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you expect to get far in any debate when you spend most of your time insulting the other side or..?--Mikal Harass Follow 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I only insult when I am insulted first. Those here must realise that if they want to resort to this tactic I will reciprocate in kind. If anyone would like to debate with rational arguments they will find I am quite civil in return. You may like to read Steven Novella pathetic attempts to call me a troll becaused I questioned his promotion of electro convulsive therapy here http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-electroconvulsive-therapy-works/ which led to http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/responding-to-a-szaszian/. Since he is, by the standards of http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/ or even http://neurocritic.blogspot.co.uk/, a few fries short of a Happy Meal, he eventually had to ban me or lose the debate in front of his adoring acolytes. Which was not good for his 'business'. Dirk Steele (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

O, Canada! --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Good grief

Dirk, you are demanding evidence which has already been provided for you. Trent has specifically told you where to go to find what you are asking for. The way you are posting is so horrible I could only figure out what was happening by going to the fossil record. This is basically always a bad thing.

Ok I could read the 5000 published studies on Pubmed that prove the efficiacy of homeopathetic medicine. Or the thousands on acupuncture or holistic medicine. Do I believe them all? No. Do you? Why not?

Once upon a time I suggested that you might want to take some basic course work in psychology/psychiatry before arguing about what the science is and is not. Most of what you're saying does not happen in the mental health field is explained in literally the first day of an introduction to abnormal psychology course. That you think you somehow know better then I do about mental health is fine, I'll admit the most I've done is underclassman courses in the subject, but Trent is wrapping up a doctoral degree. I can pretty much guarantee you that he knows more about the subject then just about anyone here, and since you apparently need basic terms explained to you, you definitely don't know as much about it as him.

My 30 years of experience of psychiatry and I do not know as much as Trent?? Explain where I fall short. I bet you 100 quid I know more than him and if you would like this demonstrated then you could at least answer the questions I pose rather than ignore them. --Dirk Steele (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You have admitted to having ODD, which is a condition only minors are diagnosed with, and have a demonstrated lack of understanding of basic terms of art. I would doubt your parents have even known each other for 30 years.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes it true that my father died in 1974 when I was 17 and that my parents did not therefore actually know each other for 30 years. But when are you going to stop the pathetic insults and respond to my arguments. ODD is not a condition only minors are diagnosed with. Again you show your total ignorance http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=106 Dirk Steele (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
An interesting paper (not read it all yet tho) on economics, mental illness and Thomas Szasz. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/09/they_called_me.html User Hamilton may enjoy. --Dirk Steele (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
psychology is not the same as psychiatry. If you look closely... the letters used are a little bit different. This means they might have a different meaning. You must examine those letters after the first five to be able to differentiate meaning in words. Comprende? --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, for your own sake, take a few weeks off from coming here, take some basic courses in the subject, and come back anew. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What basic courses have you taken. Scientific citations are welcome. --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You think psychiatry is pseudoscience, but not psychology? o.O Also, intro to psych, ab psych, social psych, behavior modification. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You think psychiatry is the same subject as psychology? Let me give you a little clue. The words, although they may seem similar, have different letters. If you look closely, after the first five then the letters are not exactly the same. Can you see this? Why is this you may ask! Probably because they mean different things! Are you some duncefuckwot? --Dirk Steele (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Psychiatry is realistically a specialization of psychology. And Psychologists work with mental disorders as much as psychiatrists. the major difference is that psychiatrists can prescribe medication and tend to focus on the biological components of mental disorders, while psychologists focus on the environmental. They aren't the same but if you think psychiatry is pseudoscience because mental disorders are not real, but do not think that psychology is pseudoscience, well, we're getting back to the part where I think you have no idea what you're talking about.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Psychiatry is a medical discipline that attempts to treat illness of the mind. Much like scientific medicine which will utilise our findings in biology, it may 'try' to incorporate psychology (but in my view it does not use the latest scientific findings within psychology and has no philisophical interest in the 'mind' itself). In fact the greatest criticism of psychiatry (brain disease) comes from psychologists as well as sociologists - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicalization. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience. The DSM-5 describes misbehaviours (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=106)(http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=19#) as a disease. This is scientific nonsense. As Robert Sapolsky points out our brains process moral disgust and disease disgust in the same manner using the same part of the brain. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWZAL64E0DI&feature=related and his Stanford lectures are a good start). However moral disgust is metaphorical and thus 'mental disease' is also a metaphor and not a literal physical thing. It is an idea. I do not understand why rational people here do not realise this fact and continue to ridicule this idea. --Dirk Steele (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
OK will do. Of course those that know me well realise I am just an old drunk addicted to my whisky and prone to insane profanity in text as much as a tourette suffering in speech. Anyways... I have started to look at the mega study as advised and will start a new discussion on it. A few things jump out immediately. One is the strange fact that immigrants (of all countries) are far more likely to be disagnosed with schizophrenia. In the UK it is african blacks (although the white Irish seem to escape). The actual definition of Schizophrenia has changed over the past 100 years from Kraeplin and Bleuler (when mental hospitals were filled with those suffering from tertiary neurosyphilis), from catatonia to 'split personality - to a disease suffered by housewives in the 1950s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protest_Psychosis:_How_Schizophrenia_Became_a_Black_Disease is a good place to start. Rosenhan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment demonstrated that psychiatrists could not define who was sane or not and even now they are unable to agree whether such characters as Anders Breivik or even the Unabomber are schizophrenic or not. Does this uncertainty exist in scientific medicine to such a level? There have also been thousands of studies to attempt to define the pathology/etiology in biological terms, brain structure, brain chemical/dopamine or even genetic (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gene_Illusion). All of which have failed to pinpoint any particular biological marker. As I have mentioned before even Tom Insel, director of the NIMH has lamented the total failures despite huge research for the last 100 years. ( Read the detail here http://www.schres-journal.com/article/S0920-9964%2808%2900071-6/fulltext. So let us see the conclusion of the metastudy - ' it is almost certain that our construct of schizophrenia encompasses not one but several diseases, precise delineation of the constellation of distinct “individual diseases” that are part of this entity is not possible at present. We utilize the disease model because of the clarity it provides and its heuristic value.'

This is a joke conclusion. The most obvious occam's razor conclusion from all of these papers is that schizophrenia is a cultural construct and not a real 'disease'. Anyway, I will read the papers in detail and start a separate thread. Any thoughts? (apart from the usual fuck off fuckwit - you are a scientology crank and have no professional knowledge of what you are talking about.) (I agree about the fuckwit part though... ) --Dirk Steele (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dirk, I'm not joining in the discussion but here's an interesting podcast for you regarding schizophrenia, by Professor Robin Murray. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks will take a listen. At the mo I am watching evil at work. ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yjo8OkpUIg. Dirk Steele (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Genghis. I have listened to this now and I think I have very little disagreement with Professor Robin Murray's views. Of course he is much less of a twat than I am. Cheers! --Dirk Steele (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Oh.. and a plug for my favourite neuroscientist blogger http://neurocritic.blogspot.co.uk/. (No it is not Steven Novella!).

O, Canada! --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 19:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

'To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men.' To hide by self censorship when you think others may disapprove is so much worse...'. Yes Ralph... you have a pathetic name. Deal with it.--Dirk Steele (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You either have the courage of your convictions or else you are a little timid pussy. From your grubby origins you may yet grow up to be a beautiful butterfly... but I doubt it.. Dirk Steele (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


What needs to be understood is that 'science' itself is subject to ideological/belief systems of the prevailing authority. Bruno/Copernicus for example were persecuted. So the scientific endeavour that is approved is subject to and constrained by the culture/society/institutions that want to maintain the status quo. Even to get the money to research is restricted. I am not sure that RationalWiki has taken these views into account but am happy to be corrected. The history of scientific progress shows how 'progress' is inhibited. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Any examination of the last 150 years of psychiatry has shown that it's main concern is with behaviour that is 'anti' the cultural 'norms' of the time. Draptomania, Masturbatory insanity, Hysteria, Homosexuality are all examples of this. Today, the concerns are for ADHD schoolchildren, those that are criminal and violent, who have 'delusions' like atheists or who question authority, Oppositional Defiance Disorder. Or those who take drugs, who eat too much or too little, or who want sex too much or too little etc. The DSM 5 which defines 'mental illness' is a list of disapproved behaviour. That is all. What was once in the religious age defined as a sin is now defined, in the therapeutic state, as a brain disease. This is pure pseudoscience. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you still talking to this idiot?

Why are you still talking to this idiot? Until he agrees with us that "I have a desire for a cup of coke" is well-formed and meaningful, there's no point in discussing anything with him, ever. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

So I would use this video to validate my points about the new inquisition. Skeptic forum 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-YvrHZVvk

It seems to me that the skeptic movement has become a secular religious activity. There are certain topics - called by skeptics as denialism and any argument against the prevailing viewpoint is dismissed without mercy. If you view the video (not many can be bothered) you can see the evangelical art at work. The 'sinner' confesses sins in order to validate in-group comfort. (And also invalidate out-group ideas). The use of tearful emotional pleas help strengthen the group solidarity. The use of the word 'denialism' is as profound as the historical use of the word 'heretic'. And it is used against particular topics.. mental illness denial and the 'environment' are two such issues. So i do see this Rationalwiki as a religious movement. Any outsider is immediately castigated and banned. Groupthink must endure. Science is replaced by metaphorical belief. Dirk Steele (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

FINALLY, this thread is done. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Ha! How about http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Groupthink. Or is this shit too? Dirk Steele (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok but finally to answer where I go wrong - as specified above that mental disease is really brain disease. Neurology is the medical speciality dealing with brain injury or disease. The first thing that they do is to actually LOOK at the brain via scans etc. In the same way other scientific medical disciplines also take tests, x-rays, scans et all. Psychiatry may claim that mental illness is a brain disease but the fact is the one thing they never do is look at or examine the brain!! This is preposterous. Psychiatry is akin to astrology whereby my stubborn behaviour means I must be Taurus. At least astrology uses one fact, namely date of birth, which is one more than psychiatry uses. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience, an ideology, a secular religion and a belief system. The fact that this view is promoted by Rationalwiki who see anyone as 'anti-psychiatry' as a heretical 'denier' means it too has an unscientific ideological bent. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness/2012/05/11/why-are-there-no-biological-tests-in-psychiatry/ Also the cultural differences in mental 'disease' can be examined here https://theconversation.edu.au/strange-or-just-plain-weird-cultural-variation-in-mental-illness-9679 to demonstrate the unscientific nature of psychiatry. But ok. No debate possible here. Thread closed (but please read it anyway!). To be honest I never expected any other outcome but for the vast majority here to ridicule me. Dirk Steele (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

1 in 4 in the USA have a mental illness now. The claim is that most are undiagnosed. Everyone now has this disease? Pseudoscience rules. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have been blocked again. Thankfully for only 30 minutes. But let me explain my little secret. On my medical records I am described as a schizophrenic. That I have an 'obsession' with quantum physics ( I read a lot of the ideas of Richard Feynman, Hugh Everett, Alan Turin, Ed Fredkin, David Deutch et all). Also I have an 'obsession' with evolutionary psychology.. W.D Hamilton, E O Wilson, Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett etc. Of course my schizophrenia extends to my obsession with music ( I make my living from composing) ... yet I suffer from a brain disease? How many of you believe in my medical diagnosis ? Can you start a poll? I feel like an atheist on a creationist forum. ..... RationalWiki is irrational. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Forum Thread Never Happened (?)

Is one supposed to enter text before here:..

..or after?

I Created a Thread in one Browser Tab.. ..before Logging In.

...and then went to another Tab and Logged In

...and then went back to the first Tab.. ..saw that it was as it was before I left it (as expected)

...Refreshed.. ..& saw that it now knew that I was Logged In.

I then completed it & submitted it.. ..but it is nowhere to be found.

Anyone know why? (better: how to retrieve it?)— Unsigned, by: Ryan Dyne / talk / contribs

You shouldn't have refreshed the page. If you find yourself in a similar situation in the future, use the "Show preview" button (next to "Save page").
It's possible that your text is still somewhere in the dark and arcane corners of your browser cache. Even if it is, I don't know how to extract it.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Guidlines? Is there a "seven pillars of RationalWiki"?

I was just wondering if there was a set of guidelines for this Wiki along the lines of those for Wikipedia. As to whether sources need to be verifiable, rules on point of view, etc. I'm particularly interested in the latter - clearly there wouldn't be a true NPOV here, because this wiki takes a rationalist POV. But in areas where there is disagreement among rationalists, would a neutral stance be called for, or is there a particular editorial line here?

I'm looking specifically at the Atheism Plus article, which has a number of statements that in a Wikipedia context would be considered highly biased, even soapboxey. For example:

Atheism Plus' genesis is specifically focused on feminist issues because that's where the source of the current problem is — angry mostly-white, mostly-male geeks who consider themselves skeptics yet reject social justice issues out of hand because they either don't experience them (and therefore assume they don't exist) or because they treat society as a zero-sum game, in which letting women have an equal voice in something traditionally gendered as "male" means losing access to that item. (Racial matters haven't reared their heads quite yet, but no doubt there are some Bell Curvers out there waiting to inject some "race realism" into the matter.)

Does this reflect the view of RationalWiki? Does it comply with RW policy? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Community Standards, Newcomers Guide should probably answer most of your questions if you don't mind doing to much reading.--Mikal Harass Follow 04:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And if someone is wondering where iamcuriousblue is coming from, here's some enlightenment.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also new, but I wouldn't be against fixing that up to actually be more factually accurate. Perhaps one might make a case that a lot of the content on FTB about A+ is about feminism, if only because that seems to be the biggest current problem in the atheist community right now. However, I think it also factually wrong to say A+ is first and foremost a feminist movement. It is not. It's concerned about all social justice issues (and atheism). Feminism is just one of those. I would fix that up myself right now, but I don't know enough about the issues, and I don't feel like researching it. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

SPOV and RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? probably cover this issue. The fact is that RW articles are not Wikipedia articles. There would be no point because with the size and userbase of Wikipedia it's impossible to compete. Besides, WP articles are dry as fuck and no one enjoys writing like that! Therefore comment, and essay-like statements, even inflammatory opinion, is perfectly acceptable in articles. If someone disagrees with it, it can be discussed on the talk page (preferably in a mature/productive way, not the "but this is supposed to be RATIONAL Wiki!!!" crap we put up with all the time). This isn't allowed on WP, where discussion pages are restricted to purely article-relevant changes, you don't debate an issue or discuss opinions at all. Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator 03:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

User boxes not columning

I can't seem to get my user boxes to column on the right like other users', mine just seem to scatter all over the page, halp please. Omni314 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

See RationalWiki:Userboxes. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like there is an extra {{userboxbottom}} near the top of the list. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you both. Omni314 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

'No-Go' images?

While floating through RW I ended up in the 'Unremitting Horror' category (via Michele Bachmann). And what should I find at the bottom but this NSFW atrocity.

So, I'd like to ask, is this image a 'seriously don't touch this' thing? I mean...it's shocking, it's upsetting, it makes me border on physically ill, but that's exactly the point. Emotional appeal it may well be, but I think it's kind of important to get across that this shit is real rather than just a pretty sick joke on the gang page.

I do wonder why this isn't on homophobia and especially Fred Fucking Phelps please someone kill it with fire. Not embedding it, I can understand becaause to have that pop up halfway down a page can be "upsetting" to say the least (see the talk page on Phelps for something in the similar vein, going back and forth between whether or not to link his foul, putrid site), but it just seems bizarre why this is more or less off the beaten track rather than right next to its horrid, hate-fuelled source.

I'd add it myself but I need to know if others would consider this a 'no-go' image, alongside any others that might fall into that category. --Polite Timesplitter talk to me sugar, but best keep it on thedown-low 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The NSFW thing that prevents an image from being embedded in a page was meant for NSFW images (thank you, Captain Obvious). I don't know why this image was put there, it's not really NSFW, at least not in the same sense as File:Frot.jpg. -- Nx / talk 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider it NSFW, unless we really want to dilute the term down a bit (on par with labelling H2O as "Hazard Code 2"), I've pulled the tag for now. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 18:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Steaming Turds

I recently deleted "Topic Header 4 Steaming turds Rational response" on the page Essay:On Logical Absolutes and it was undone by Psygremlin, unable to get a response from them I am posting here to find out why this is. Thanks

It is Eira's essay to edit, steaming turd. Tmtoulouse, and nobody else 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Productive voting construction


Setting up a vote, with revised list of prospective questions. I am not including the above proposals where there are an indefinite amount of mods, which will fall into the "get rid of the whole system" plan. In two months, the major system vote will include that as a sort of blend of the crat and mod system, as well as "retain the current mod system," "restore the system of anarchic crats," and "no system." Proposed questions and the choices: How many mods?

  • "7"
  • "10"
  • "20"
  • "Roughly the number of eligible voters, divided by ten."

How should they be elected?

  • "Current system: STV"
  • "Simple voting: each voter may cast seven equally weighted votes for seven candidates."

How should techs be selected?

  • "A majority of mods can appoint or remove a tech."
  • "Community votes may appoint or remove any mod."
  • "Techs should be merged into mods."
  • "The Foundation should select them and remove them."
  • "Maintain the status quo, ad-hoc system."

Who is eligible to vote?or

  • "The current system: any editor whose account has existed for more than three months and who has more than 75 edits."
  • "Only those editors who have made at least 75 edits within the last three months."

Please avoid the temptation to vent your frustration here with squeals about how terrible everything is or how much you hate someone. If you disagree with someone's suggestions and then follow them around just to disagree with them, it makes you look petty and destroys your ability to appear like an intelligent commentator. Also remember that we want to distill this vote down to choices that represent the broadest range of options, but once we get much beyond four or five different choices, it reduces the mandate behind any eventual decision: voters get dispersed among slightly varied options, and extreme and non-representative results become increasingly more likely.--ADtalkModerator 08:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Point of order, Mr. Chairman - questions with several choices can easily be dealt with by using instant runoff voting as we did for the voting standards votes. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 08:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Point taken! Alas, I am not so smart!--ADtalkModerator 08:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC×2) Can we have this on a new page? This is getting kinda long, and if we can put it on a project page we could do a bit better when it comes to separating the arguing from the serious proposals.
As for techs, how's an "anyone with the powers can add them if they are prepared to take responsibility for that action, and removing tech rights is treated identically to sysop rights" option? Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 08:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, shifting to a new page.--ADtalkModerator 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Peter, that seems like it is what we have now. But that is a good basis for the summary of the status quo, when the vote is made.--ADtalkModerator 08:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(PC -port conflict) There is a substantial difference between the appointment of a position and its forced removal. For example, anyone can make a sysop, but it requires a community vote to rescind those rights. Moderators are elected by STV, but removed by community vote. Therefore I think there should be an option in which techs are appointed by a concurrence of moderators but removed by community vote. I acknowledge that this is a slight change of my position and takes power away from mods, and that I may be the only one who favors this option. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 08:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
We don't really have a status quo, that's the problem. We had neither rules nor custom to deal with the edit-filter business of the other week, for example. @blue takes power away from mods - I think people will be more likely to say that that still adds to their 'power.' Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 08:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? The ad-hoc system where mods appoint techs was what Trent originally prescribed. Forcing them to agree amongst themselves in a majority decreases this ambiguous power Trent granted them. It also decreases their power compared to my previous position. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 08:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I was more meaning the mods collectively rather than individually. Realise both that techs can currently also appoint other techs (eg RNS demoting Tyrannis) and that there was at least the one person in the previous thread who wanted the ability to appoint techs to rest with the board (for some reason). I'm not saying that that's what I think, just that that is more the direction you will find yourself attacked from. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 08:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the outlined vote will be productive or conclusive since its options limit choices so narrowly & assume rather a lot of what it's supposed to be determining. "I am not including the above proposals where there are an indefinite amount of mods, which will fall into the "get rid of the whole system" plan." That's a hell of a false dichotomy. What about adapting the existing system but without such a strict limit on mod numbers? This is what I am in favour of. "In two months, the major system vote will include that as a sort of blend of the crat and mod system, as well as "retain the current mod system," "restore the system of anarchic crats," and "no system." I don't know what are you talking about here; please explain.

As far as I'm concerned, the first issue to be decided is whether there should be a limit on the number of mods or not. I don't think I've seen an adequate explanation of why there should be a fixed number. Anyhoo, depending on what the community decides about that, we can then discuss what the number should be (if there is a limit) and how they should be elected/selected. We can't decide the two issues together since a voting system for a fixed number of positions won't be fit for selecting an uncapped number, or vice versa. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The chance for favors for an appointed tech to the mod that appointed them is always there. Separate the two, I say. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seemed to me that switching to a system of accumulating moderators, rather than a fixed number, is a dramatic change that will essentially be a return to the most salient aspects of the 'crat system. The most-liked users will be voted in, and will not have any particular moral authority - it's going from a system where a representative group is entrusted with extra powers to an "upper echelon" system like when we had crats, the members of which have no ongoing moral authority and where the bar was inevitably lowered as scarcity diminished. There is a self-corrective aspect to regular elections of a limited group, because this group is continually refined in accordance with actions and perceived effectiveness. As this system continues, it only grows stronger.
So because this shift would be so dramatic, it would seem wise to include it in a larger and later vote over the whole system itself. Those were some imagined options: do we keep the mod system? Do we return to the crat system? Do we adopt some combination, with crats held to defined standards and duties? These major questions all seem important to settle decisively, but as I said elsewhere, now doesn't seem like the time. The recent conclusion of an election and extended concerns over voting method and these other things would all be prejudicial: "This all sucks and it used to be better, somehow, back in the day." Plus, to try to answer all of these things at once would be a ridiculous horror-show of endless options and parsing questions. It doesn't seem wise or practical.
If we decide to uncap the number of mods, I believe this would be a much bigger deal than you really might realize, as I say above, and most everything will need to be revamped - which is why it is not a suitable question for now.
It's possible we could have this vote series: capped or uncapped? Then, how do we elect them, how many (if applicable still), etc. Then, do we keep the mod system at all?
Is that what you would prefer? I'd still argue that it would strongly tilt the balance, coming in the wake of an election and wrangling about rules ("Damn it, I lost, well what the hell let's change it." ... "Everyone making laws, this is bullshit, why can't we go back to screaming matches?").--ADtalkModerator 13:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The issue is that for a lot of the options in different points they become contradictory or moot depending on choices for the other. This really needs to be done some what piece meal and the first step is putting up competing ideas on mod numbers and structures. I think focusing the discussion needs to happen, I don't want to have to parse random asides arguing about the edit filter when trying to discuss number of mods. My proposal would be to just pull out the first issue of how many mods should we have, and set up a specific commentary period to allow people to make proposals and defend them. Then take those proposals that are actually specific enough to vote on (ala "go back to the way things were!!!!!!" is not a specific counter proposal), and vote on them. If there really is a specific and workable alternative to the mod system that people favor then its better to hear about it now. The other issues can then be tackled once we know what we are working with. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Trent on this. The "how many?" question should be explored first rather than making a bunch of changes and maybe having to unmake them later. AD, you're still presenting false dichotomy. An uncapped number of mods does not automatically mean an "all comers welcome" attitude to the role. There are also some significant differences from the bureaucrat role. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the most familiar day-to-day role of crats, and one of the reasons so many users wanted to become crats, was promoting/demoting editors to sysop (and initially to bureaucrat, before we started voting on those). Now sysops make other sysops, and I haven't seen any complaints about this or suggestions that they shouldn't do so any more. I don't think we'll see everyone volunteering for mod duty, but as long as there are users who are happy to take on the role & have the qualities required, I don't see why they should be turned down on grounds of an arbitrarily fixed capacity. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It would probably be useful to create a list of the unique abilities of the moderator and tech groups. I'll go do that. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 17:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Bunp. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, we should set up some kind of vote to address those other things then, if not my suggestions. Something, anyway.--ADtalkModerator 10:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The next step would be to synthesize a series of votes, starting with "Tier I" issues which need to be decided before moving onward, like "do we keep the mod system or not"; then move to "Tier II", which would get into specifics, and then perhaps another tier, which would depend on the outcome of the previous tier.
Alternatively we could just do everything at once, which would be chaotic and probably less decisive. I think we can't avoid the big question of "keep the system or not" at this point. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 4: Unique abilities of mod and tech usergroups

Right Moderators Techs
Block a user from sending e-mail
Create usergroups like "sysoprevoke" Tmtoulouse, and nobody else
Delete pages with large histories
Edit all user rights
Edit interwiki data
Edit moderator-protected pages
Edit the user interface (MW namespace)
Edit other users' CSS and JavaScript files
Import pages from a file upload and another wiki
Modify edit filters; revert filters; view private filters
Rename users
Review and restore revisions hidden from administrators
Send messages to the sitewide-urgent intercom group
Server access Tmtoulouse, and nobody else
View private suppression logs

Courtesy of Picon small.pngAcer Blue 18:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is useful. There's nothing here that a mod needs, so I see no reason for techs and mods to overlap. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Sterile. Mods have enough power in this table to carry out the role (I don't like the suppress email function though) so there is no need to have further rights granted. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It isn't that a mod would use a right granted to techs for moderating purposes necessarily, they may actually want to do useful site-related work. For example, maintaining gadgets. It's also interesting to note that bureaucrats had all of the combined powers of moderators and techs. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 22:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I support this plan of action. Tmtoulouse, and nobody else 10:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I support this plan too. I don't need server access or the ability to create groups. (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft of the next step

Based upon over a month of discussion petering in and petering out about our moderation system, electoral reform and techs, we are moving forward with a series of decisions on a number of questions that remain unresolved since the system's inception over one year ago. For the discussions leading up to this, please see Forum:Moderator elections and sock puppets, Forum:User rights and moderation revisited and Forum:Productive voting construction.

These questions will be decided in a series of very simple votes. The votes will be divided into two or three rounds, or tiers, each lasting one week. All votes containing more than two options will follow instant runoff voting.

Tier I: Which institution?

A. Which of the following best describes your position?
  1. The current system of elected moderators should be retained.
  2. The current system should be thrown out entirely, and we should return to the bureaucrat system of the early days, with no formal election cycle.

Tier II: Structure of the institution

A. Who is elegible to vote in the election of a moderator, tech or bureaucrat?
  1. The current system: any editor whose account has existed for more than three months and who has more than 75 edits.
  2. Only those editors who have made at least 75 edits within the last three months before an election.

These votes follow if the result of vote I-A is option 1

B. How many moderators should be elected?
  1. The current system: 7
  2. 10
  3. 13
  4. 20
  5. Roughly the number of eligible voters, divided by ten (10).
  6. No limit; moderators are elected for life until they resign or are removed.
C. How should moderators be elected?
  1. The current system: STV (single transferable vote).
  2. Approval voting. First-past-the-post.
  3. Simple voting, with each voter casting seven equally weighted positive votes for seven candidates. First-past-the-post.
  4. Simple voting, with each voter casting seven equally weighted votes for seven candidates, but they may use their votes to vote for and against candidates. First-past-the-post, but against votes count negatively toward a candidate's total.
D. How should techs be selected?
  1. A majority of moderators can appoint or remove a tech.
  2. A majority of moderators can appoint a tech, but a community vote must remove a tech.
  3. Community votes may appoint or remove any tech.
  4. The tech position should be abolished, and its powers merged with moderators'.
  5. The Foundation Board should select them and remove techs.
  6. The current system: Any moderator may appoint a tech or remove a tech.

These votes follow if the result of vote I-A is option 2

B. How should bureaucrats be selected?
  1. Any bureaucrat may demote any user to bureaucrat or promote a user from bureaucrat, without restriction.
  2. Any bureaucrat may demote any user to bureaucrat, but only a community vote can remove a bureaucrat.
  3. Any user may be nominated for bureaucrat, and a community vote must elect and remove a bureaucrat.
C. Should there be an upper limit on the number of bureaucrats?
  1. Yes; 7.
  2. Yes; 20.
  3. Yes; 40.
  4. Yes; 20% of the number of active users.
  5. Yes; 50% of the number of active users.
  6. No.

Tier III: Authority and remit of the institution

[This tier would deal with issues discussed in the earlier forum, like when and how moderator powers can and should be exercised, should the community standards be more aspirational or more enforceable, etc.]

Commentary

Please critique, etc. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 05:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested change, so we are specific:A. Which of the following best describes your position?
  1. The current system of elected moderators should be retained.
  2. The current system should be thrown out entirely, and we should return to the bureaucrat system of the early days, with ad hoc votes to promote or demote individual users to 'crat.--ADtalkModerator 05:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Since a few users favor a return to the 'crat system but without any rights votes at all, I'll change it to "... of the early days, with no formal election cycle." Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 18:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Why does it have to be an all or nothing deal? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not; if we "keep the moderator system", that doesn't preclude significant reform. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that a system that has been in place for little more than a year might require "significant reform" should tell you that the system is quite probably flawed at its core and should quite probably be taken out back and shot instead of rehabilitated. I fear that you are putting a lot of effort into a fool's errand, and wasting precious time on the process. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 01:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey look I can make assertions too: The only issue is a vocal minority who seem bent on nay saying without providing alternative ideas, the basic core of is sound with potentially a few modifications. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(EC) I disagree; I think the old system needed significant reform, and now the new system may also need significant reform. It's also worth noting that we've gotten to the point where dismantling the current system would be much more work than reforming it. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
And when I say "work," I mean "endless bickering and arguing". Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
EC "seem bent on nay saying without providing alternative ideas." I have provided an alternative idea--go back to the mobocracy of the 'crat system. It may have been clumsy and ineffective, but at least it was clumsy and ineffective with a minimum amount of effort, as opposed to all this, which looks clumsy and inefficient with the advantages of being both Byzantine and labour-intensive. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 01:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also: "A vocal minority"?? This page looks mostly like a Blue/AD circlejerk. I would have thought that if it was only a few editors who scorned this process, there would at least be enough people committed to shaping it to make up a softball team for my Thursday night league. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I gotta agree with ToP here, almost all recent proposals have been an AD/Blue circle-jerk with Dick Turpis and Weasloid voicing "meh, I guess so" every now and then. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
ToP, there hasn't exactly been a groundswell of support for your proposal either. Most people, as a rule, just don't get particularly interested in following a month-long, heinously long discussion about site policy. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ace, it was just a few weeks ago that you posted a big "The Ace McWicked Plan" thing. I cede that Blue and I may have taken the lead on constructing positive counter-proposals, but I'm not sure what's wrong with that. Things will be presented for a vote, and it's completely open and public.
All due respect to you both, but I think there is a bit of good old daysing going on here. I remember the crat system as a continual fiery clusterfuck, much worse than now.--ADtalkModerator 01:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The McWicked Plan was to simplify voting to avoid greater clusterfucks like what is being proposed here - to strip away the mindless politicing and rule crazy blather into a simple vote. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure. My point is that this is a bit of selective memory: you have also had a big voice in these things. And in fact we're trying to do the same thing here. I don't know if you noticed, but the first vote is a very simple one: mods or crats. Not a lot of "rule crazy blather" at all, really.--ADtalkModerator 03:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There hasn't been a groundswell of support for my proposal exactly because the community as a whole is fed up with proposals, policies, votes, and votes on policy proposals. "Most people, as a rule, just don't get particularly interested in following a month-long, heinously long discussion about site policy." Which is exactly why I am loathe to see an clever person like yourself wasting a fair amount of her time working on something that nobody gives a shit about. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 01:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, fortunately her proposal will help that, then. There will be a vote, people will surge to support the old crat system, and that will be that.--ADtalkModerator 01:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Without intending any facetiousness, since the mod elections have any of the mods done anything "mod-like"? I know I am still effectively a newbie here, but for all the extended discussion about the mod elections and associated procedures, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the mods do (at least in a practical sense, I've read the "theoretical" version at the mod page). VOXHUMANA 01:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
but for all the extended discussion about the mod elections and associated procedures, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the mods do Exactly, this is a massive fuck around for so little. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, ideally mods should not have to do very much. But as one example, recently I intervened to stop the unilateral promotion and blocking of RobS. In the process of talking Psy down from his wheel warring, the vote got going.--ADtalkModerator 03:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Vox, I'll just repeat Pi's immmortal words: "what happens when you set up a moderator system with, no guidlines, no powers to moderate, and the mandate of do as little as possible... You get fuck all from it, because that is what it is." This refers to several users' strong opinions that the moderator guidelines are vastly inadequate (me, for instance, and others), that moderators have no moral authority (WaitingforGodot and others), and that they should not exercise any of their powers (AD and others). Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
EC. The vote. The one that left us pretty much where we started: Rob will come back to troll, Psy and Sophie and me will fuck with him when he goes over the top, and the magic circle of life continues to spin. Look, A, I think you're a smart guy, great editor, funny, wise. I look up to you, even. But that's prolly not the best example to give. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 03:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't make you guys wise or nice. There will always be some strife.--ADtalkModerator 04:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Virtues of the Crat System

There were significant advantages to the old 'crat system:

  • By having crats appoint sysops, it actually meant something to being a sysop, and it didn't require awkward fixes like sysoprevoke to deal with "problems."
  • I would argue that 'crats had more moral authority than the moderators do now. Quite simply, unless you voted for a moderator, people just don't necessarily trust or respect them. 'Crats spread out that authority over a far larger group of people with at least the appearance of being vetted by a larger number of people. (And given than Nx rigged the election, it's not clear that there's any real moral authority....)
  • It's also not clear to some of us what exact things moderators have done that's so great. They dealt with MC somewhat decisively. Nx and SR sorta left of their own. Issues of talk pages and sysoprevoke should have been community discussions, not moderator-based. So it's not clear to me why people think moderators have been so successful. Some non-moderators have been far more effective at talking people out of conflict than moderators have.
  • We just didn't do this "what to do" stuff so much, albeit it's not clear if that's an issue of scale and/or personality.
  • The bigger issue is that so many people who could understand the difference have left.

There are other issues as well:

  • It's also the case that cooping doesn't really accomplish anything, and people just don't have the patience to deal with each other. And someone always engages rather than slow reverting, which is something that will always happen at RW's current scale.
  • There are still issues of what to do with trolls, vandals and people RWians don't like (which are all somewhat separate and somewhat similar issues). While I think some people think these are moderator issues, they are actually more community issues.

Cheerio. ADD: And it's always been the case that whoever yelped the loudest got the most attention at RW. It's never been the case, however, they those people have the best ideas. In fact, they often don't. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 11:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am mistaken. But what I remember from the crat era were the angry demands to know what crats even do, and what being a sysop might mean, and how there's no way to stop trolls, and so on - basically what we have now, only bigger and longer. And beyond that, there were the endless, endless wheel wars that had no clear resolution, revert wars, and so on that would end only with the exhaustion or LANCB of one of the participants (unless they were unpopular enough to just be slapped around). I remember sprawling, shrieking, ceaseless maelstroms of argument and controversy and accusations that would last for four or five days, spreading out from Standards and to talk pages and the Bar and elsewhere. Near the last year of the crat system, it seemed as though these would occur once every month and a half.
I honestly and truly feel that HCMs are shorter and more contained under the mod system than under the crat system. I'm not sure there's any way to quantify that, but it's what it seems like to me. But I'm sure I'm biased. I will definitely be very interested in the outcome of the vote.--ADtalkModerator 12:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, far more people LANCB after the mod system. Lots of people have left. Do you really think conflict is shorter now? Robert's grilling certainly lasted four or five days. There are far, far, far, more cooping than before. And I think "containment" is more a characterization, and more a function of the wiki's structure; give a place for it, and it's "contained" but it's not necessarily less taxing to people. Sorry, but I just don't don't agree. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The 'crat system was a much simpler system, to be sure. The problem, something we seem to have forgotten, is that there were a bunch of bureaucrats who had the title simply to have it and never used any of the powers (quite a few, actually, were inactive). Meanwhile, you had a flood of newer editors who wanted to use some of the 'crat tools but were forbidden to because "We have waaaaaay too many 'crats." Thus that, plus the utter uselessness of the Chicken Coop (if you don't think it's worthless, you are wearing blinders) is what caused the HCM that led to the Moderators in the first place. If we can fix the things that led us here, only then can we discuss a return to the old system. Otherwise, trading one bad system for another is utterly stupid and pointless. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If we can fix the things that led us here... How I wish I knew the answer to that one. How can we persuade the various factions sections of RW to play nice. How do we decide what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't and how do we enforce it - or not? We need to decide on what rules we want or don't want and how we're going to enforce them (or not) before we waste any more time deciding the minutiae of the police force. Bad Faith (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I really do think that HCMs are much shorter now, yes. While the vote on Rob lasted a week, it had almost completely died as a page within four days, and the major discussion and anger took place within a day. And I think there are far fewer coopings than there used to be, not more.--ADtalkModerator 13:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The data most certainly don't support the latter. (And, really, looking at the page, the former as well.) sterilesporadic heavy hitter 14:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If we do go back to the crat system I hope everyone is prepared for RobS, Brx, and Maratrean to be bureaucrats here. DickTurpis (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If we do go back to the crat system I hope everyone is prepared for RobS, Brx, and Maratrean to be bureaucrats here. Why would that be? Sounds like bullshit. Was TK ever a 'crat? Was Robs? Was MC ever a crat? In fact they are more likely to get elected as mods than be 'crats. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, MC was for a crat for a few days. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 22:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's quite likely in a drunken state I'll crat all of them just for fun. It's been years since I've seen a great fireworks show. DickTurpis (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, but they get de'cratted pretty quickly and if nominated mod then nothing can be done. basically Dicks comment is bullshit. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 22:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If they get decratted I can recrat them. Don't think I'll just lie down if someone tries to strip the rights from my new minions. DickTurpis (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You are talking out your ass, Turpis. Ass-tuliping even. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Talking out of my ass, am I? Are you saying I won't crat those three? DickTurpis (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't be an idiot Dick, you are smarter than that. Did you ever 'crat Brx, Maratrean or Robs? Did anyone? Nope. But what is your point? Are you saying no one could ever manipulate the vote to have the three of them elected to mod position? Yah fucking idiot. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(I actually don't think you're an idiot put your position here is pretty silly). AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Just because I didn't crat them before doesn't mean I won't in the future. I might have to now, or people could call me a liar, and I couldn't let that affront to my integrity stand. Besides, there's something of a precedent that we don't remove powers unless they've been abused, so anyone who de-crats Rob would likely be in the wrong. If anyone can crat someone on a whim, what is to stop me or anyone else from cratting unpopular users? DickTurpis (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah you seemed to have a very important point - Are you saying no one could ever manipulate the vote to have the three of them elected to mod position? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
They could, but it wouldn't be easy. Hell, I've been the most vocal editor on the damn site in favor of making elections harder to manipulate, but I've been thwarted at every turn. If we want a system that's nearly impossible to manipulate in that way we should look to RFAs at Wikipedia. DickTurpis (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
So what's the problem? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. Did I have a problem? All I said was if we go back to the crats-on-a-whim system we are likely to have some rather unpopular crats. DickTurpis (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Why do you assume brx would be a 'crat, or Rob, when they weren't before? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably because it never occurred to me how entertaining it would be to crat them until recently. Someone recently complained that the mod system was no fun. Maybe I should prove them right. DickTurpis (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
So basically you are threatening to 'crat Brx, Robs and Maratrean if the 'crat system is re-implemented "for fun"? Good to know where your head is at. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, in all fairness, Ace, you're partially to blame as well. You really backed me into a corner, making me turn a vague musing into a firm statement. Now I can't backpedal or I'll appear weak. Then who would follow me as I head a coup d'etat an seize control of RationalWiki once and for all? Besides, what's the worst that would happen? Frankly I suspect Rob would be less inclined to abuse powers than many of our former crats. DickTurpis (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, then , for old times sake.....AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ace Mcwicked backs DickTurpis into the cornerWarning: NSFW Image!

Actual data

All right, guys, I respect everyone who has participated in this discussion, but it's time to put up or shut up for both sides here. And as we all know, I'm certainly not going to shut up. I've spent several hours combing through a ton of data, trolling several archives, extrapolating from memory, and learning how to use bits of Excel that I didn't know existed. What I produced is the following graph.

Drama data RW.jpg

What you see is a line graph of the number of active users per month, a scatterplot of the major incidents in Admininstrative Abuse and the Chicken Coop, a trendline of the three-month moving average of those incidents, and a big vertical line representing the date of the transition from bureaucrats to moderators and techs.

Note on the data: Active user data from May 2007 to February 2010 were loosely adjusted to fit the average of the later data, which come from LArron and are more accurate. No data were readily available from March 2010 to June 2010. Incidents do not include various "I COOP EVERYONE FOR BEING ASSHOLES" and/or "The RationalWiki Reform Society doth wish to protest the authoritarian actions of the aspie fascists" topics, but rather focus on substantive complaints against a user or multiple users. Topics from RationalWiki:All things in moderation were not included, as such cases are not limited to abuse allegations and I was damn tired of this shit.

Have the moderators "failed"? That seems to depend entirely on your personal definition of failure, because everyone seems to have their own idea of a) what the moderators' purpose is, and b) the relative benefits of the old and new systems.

However, if your reasoning is "people have been driven away": true, but there is zero evidence to suggest that the new system caused any special exodus. As you can see, we've undergone several dropoffs in the volume of active users over the years, and the one from June to December 2011 is not really exceptional in any way.

If your reasoning is "there's more conflict now": you are looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, and the data clearly contradict you. The moderators have probably had no effect on the volume of conflict, and if they did, it was to reduce it.

Do we need reforms? Certainly. Do we need to throw out the system? Certainly not. We keep creating drama by dragging our feet, by endlessly arguing about how bad the new system is, by wailing about problems we've had for years but are somehow blamed on the moderators, despite having a mandate of doing as little as humanly possible and being openly disdained by several high-profile editors (including sitting moderators).

We've been at a stalemate for a while. We need to vote and settle this question. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 17:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A good-faith question How many site-wide votes on policy issues (either crafting or implementation thereof) have we had in the past 24 and 12 months? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 17:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. Personally I don't think votes are a bad thing - I think they're a welcome change from, well, just arguing for a while without any resolution. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Vote are not a bad thing in and of themselves. Voting just for the sake of voting is a waste of time. Discussions and arguments about how to craft policy for a community that is largely indifferent to policy is also a waste of time, I agree. So instead of more votes and wasteful discussions, let's just edit a goofy wiki. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 17:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, oh really? It's pretty clear that several editors have left. Why are we not growing instead of a steady state? If anything your data shows that there is not much difference from May 10 to May 12, indicating there is much similar. (Error in a discrete number in the range of 4 must be gigantic, and a moving average is meaningless. It's also unclear why your data are so different from the RWW page. It's also hard to see how someone with an admitted lust for power can't see her conflict of interest. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 17:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
"Several editors?" I think you mean long-time editors. My data don't get into how long the editors have been here. My data are not different from the RWW page. I used the RWW page as the source of my data. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, the graph is absurd in support of your hypothesis. Looking left and right of the mod system, they graphs look nearly identical. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 17:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Coopings graph.png
And I'm still looking for some premises to support that the moderators are a success. Mind you, that's a tough call of order: what are indicators of success? But I don't see it. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 17:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, isn't active users confined to a certain number of editors? That would just tell you the average volume of a certain number of editors. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 17:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
A bunch of users leaving doesn't tell us anything. Some longstanding editors left in May 2011 (me, Kels, Psy), but we all drifted back. Add to that the flow of good new editors like PerterL and I don't see a big problem. there are always good people leaving. Where are Phantom Hoover or Mei? gone, but we have Mikalos and Copperhead. We got rid of Marcus and we have Brxbrx instead. The wiki is healthy, despite the occasional eruption of civil disorder. SophieWilder 19:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the RWW graph, I'll note, is that this years coopings are trending way below what you would expect. 6 in 7 months, 3 of which were of Rob. Meanwhile the lack of T:ATIM data in blue's graph is problematic. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 22:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There's more conflict now. If anything, your graph shows that the mod system is at least slightly less effective at containing problems. I frankly think it's been the reason for many of our fights in the last year. What your data can't show is the level of vitriol on all fronts (and even from the trolls who show up to stir shit despite having no dog in this fightl) that runs so deeply. Unrelated, it's also interesting to note that your graph puts the lie to the claim that we had so many more new users that we needed stricter regulation. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Graphs like this aren't going to show much along the lines of objective results for a variety of reasons. Nutty's right when he says it can't show the levels of vitriol, but it also doesn't define major incident, nor can it show if stats like an increase in the number of coopings reflect an increase in conflict or an increase in use of the coop to resolve conflict. None of this can be shown to be related to either the mod or crat systems anyway. Whether we have moderators, bureaucrats, the Loya Jirga, the College of Cardinals, the Ministry of Magic, or any system, we're still going to have drama and conflict. As long as Nutty and Blue can't comment on the same page, even when they are in complete agreement, without some stupid personal vendetta playing out, we're not going to see the end of all this shit. Same goes for other editors I could name. DickTurpis (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Well, I have to admit that the graph did shake my confidence in the verity of my own recollections, and now I don't know what to think - I'm sure I have some bias in the matter. It's certainly true that there are some grudges and personal shit going on in a lot of these discussions.
A conundrum!--ADtalkModerator 00:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Give me a fucking break, Dick. Blue and I interact pretty rarely. You're dramatically overstating things if you are seriously suggesting that our enmity has any negative impact on outcomes. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Look at Rob's recent coop. You and Blue voted exactly the same way, apparently for basically the same reasons, showing mutual agreement, but you both still had to carve out a little section for personal drama (well, a few others did just as much). I'm not saying its effecting outcomes in such cases, but this apparent attitude of "hmmmm, someone I don't like just made a comment somewhere, I better stop in and remind them what a fucking idiot they are" is not really leading to a healthy atmosphere here. DickTurpis (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, now that you're shuffling your feet away from what you first tried pinning on us, give me a fucking break. We interact so rarely that it's 'your' perception that it contributes to an unhealthy atmosphere, not something I'd agree with even if I weren't me. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I shouldn't have necessarily singled you out, but I find being specific can help drive the point home, and I sometimes eschew the thinly veiled references to "certain users" (who are all of course theoretical entities who do not reflect any actual users) - let's call a spade a spade. You're not trying to argue that you and Blue aren't infamous for not getting along on this site, are you? You know, I probably could have substituted Human for you, but whatever. Yeah, I tend to think all these back and forth insults over stupid bullshit don't yield a healthy atmosphere. You don't have to agree with me. DickTurpis (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Infamous? I guess. I'm not sure I dislike her as much as I come across, though I definitely don't like her. As for the healthy environment shit, yeah, I disagree. I post infrequently on this site anymore. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that we interact infrequently. I also don't recall even participating in many of these discussions in the first place. Thanks for backing off of "we're not going to see the end of all this shit." It's easier to just admit you were making a shitty point poorly. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The mod system was never about "reducing" conflict. In order to achieve that goal the Mods would have to be empowered to do a hell of a lot more, would need an extremely draconian system. The point of the mods was to provide a system for resolving conflict. Either by intervention early for small issues, or guiding and boot strapping community discussion. And there has been success in this because conflicts have actually been resolved, something the crat system never did. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you even mean? Conflicts start. Conflicts end. On both sides of May 2011. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
In a formal sense, yes. But emotions and frustration linger far longer than they ever did before, I think mostly because of personalities, which isn't necessarily the fault of the system. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Cart before the horse

We can argue all day long about whether 'crats or Moderators or Loya Jirga or the mob is best but, to my mind, this misses the bigger question, the one which is at the root of all this. Well, it's multiple questions but try these two.

  1. Where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and keeping the site how we would like it. Is posting dick pictures a valid expression or an abhorrence? Should we ban or demote those who are simply annoying?
  2. What tools are we going to allow those tasked with controlling the site. Without those tools the mods/crats/whatever are left with responsibility but no power. At the moment the very act of a mod trying to impose some common sense just fans the flames.

Once those are decided - and they're far from easy - then we can start talking about how we decide who gets to police the site. Before then it's meaningless. Bad Faith (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

On a related topic: how much drama is due to disagreements over main space content? Take away Rob's trolling, Brx's trolling, Ace's cock pictures, etc, none of which have to do with actual content or mission, and there's not a lot left that we argue about. Proxie makes a stink about her edits being reversed, but for the most part the fights break out in the Saloon or on users talk pages or at TWIGO CP (EDIT: or in policy discussions like this rapidly-growing clusterfuck) over stuff that has nothing to do with what the site is supposed to be about. Maybe instead of trying to deal with the drama, we need to look at where the drama happens, and get rid of the places where it breeds. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 18:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
ToP, why do you assume they are "Ace's cock pictures"? I gifted them to the community - they are "our" cock pictures. We can all enjoy their magic. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It used be partytime all the time. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif X9000 I've been trying to write an essay about that for months. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 18:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So your proposal is to delete the Saloon Bar and various users' talk pages? There's a lot more to this site than the mainspace. Remember, we're not an encyclopedia, and a good proportion of our articles are just second rate WP entries anyway. As long as people interact with one another there will be conflict and drama. That can't be helped. The only way to get rid of it is to destroy the community, and without that we're nothing. DickTurpis (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
My proposal has been the same since as it always has been. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 22:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I was referring more to ToP's proposal to remove places where drama occurs, which to me sounds like noting that crime often occurs in the streets, so we should get rid of streets. DickTurpis (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not following you. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 00:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to ToP's assertion that we should "get rid of the places where [drama] breeds," i.e. various talk pages and the saloon. His apparent reasoning seems to be something along the lines of "if it isn't the mainspace it isn't important". I'm calling him on that. DickTurpis (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I was being flip about getting rid of the talk pages and the bar. That said, the fact that so much of the drama is linked to stuff that has noting to do with the raison d'etre of the entire project is something I think is worth discussing. Rob doesn't make mainspace edits. Cock pictures aren't a mainspace phenomenon. A lot of the drama is related to stuff that is totally peripheral to the stated goals of the committee--if it's the case that a HUGE amount of effort is being spent to deal with problems that are rooted in things that are secondary to what the project is meant to do, I think that's something worth discussing. Move the Bar to a blog? Just an idea, but at least one that gets at where the problem actually lies. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Split WIGO:CP and it's assorted paraphernalia off to a separate site. Boom. No more Rob. It is also the primary "reason for being" for brx, UHM, and assorted riffraff. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh Ty, I'd still be around, laugh with and about most of you and still think you're a dishonest shit. It's not that black and white as you might think (damn, another Southerner that needed to be told that). --ʤɱ atheist 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
... ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

RW is not a soapbox. You don't necessary have unfiltered freedom of speech. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-productive voting

I don't think the votes proposed on this page are likely to be very productive. For one thing, as I've pointed out, it's limiting people's options in a very restrictive way: either keep some variant of the current set-up or revert wholesale to the old one. What about people like me who think the best system would be somewhere between the two? Then there's the fact that these votes are likely to be completely inconclusive anyway: under voting standards in the CS, policy votes need a two-thirds majority to pass. That makes any votes with four or five options a complete non-starter. Even the two-option mod vs crat vote is likely to end in stalemate. We've really painted ourselves into a corner with this voting crap.

But inevitably it's going to need some amount of voting to sort this out, as we need some kind of system supported by the community. Either we vote slowly & painfully on each separate issue (fixed number or unlimited? do we call them mods or crats? how much authority do they have? etc.), which would theoretically be the fairest route, but unlikely to sustain the community's interest & would therefore end up with a small cadre of enthusiasts drafting policy unilaterally, or else I suppose we draft a few rival propsals, adapt them according to community feedback, and have some kind of simple vote-up between them. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the inherent problems is that there is not much equivalence between mods and crats, as crats were vastly more powerful than mods are. So, in brief, the name is irrelevant; the important thing is the powers with which the position is endowed. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Is that true? You know, I've been both, but never really noticed the powers involved all that much. Wanna add bureaucrats to that side by side checklist of mod and tech powers? DickTurpis (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Crats had all the powers of mods and techs. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 04:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Really? Even the all-powerful edit filter? Well, I assume we won't be going back to that system then. DickTurpis (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The "all powerful edit filter" has been around since at least March 2010. ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 15:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the cat's out of the bag now. And since consensus seem to be veering towards the "too powerful for mortals to wield" end of the spectrum, going back to giving it out like candy on Halloween seems off the table. So no matter what, unless attitudes on this and a few other issues have changed dramatically in the last couple weeks, going back to the system of bureaucrats as it existed a couple years ago isn't going to happen. Those who want to bring back the crats should specify exactly what they mean by that. DickTurpis (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, of course! I for one would love to see the variant you're proposing - maybe it would be the best way forward. What are the details?--ADtalkModerator 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You summarize pretty well what the problem is and why it's nearly insurmountable. No one likes endless voting, but other than voting the only way to change things is unilateral action, which is even less popular. The other option is anarchy, which has never been effective in a community of any size and diversity. As far as I can tell, what's most likely to be successful is to take a few of the most significant issues and work with them. I guess the first would be do we keep the elected mod system in any form? You cite a false dichotomy between mods and crats, but brushing aside the semantics, we either have positions by election or by some slightly less ordered means - calling the former "the mod system" and the latter "the crat system" works well enough for now. Harkening back to crats is particularly problematic as it evolved from a position handed out by a select few people at their discretion to some semi-official mob-approval process, which I do not believe was ever formalized or completely adhered to, so even knowing what support of "the crat system" entails is unclear. I think the Tech issue is something we need to work out soon. For all the controversy surrounding mods, techs have all their powers and more besides, but right now we have no real system for appointing them, the default being at the whim of any mod, which is a shitstorm waiting to happen. DickTurpis (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no inherent need to offer a choice, it could be a simple referendum on the mod system. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Basically, should we use a community wide election to appoint people to oversee conflicts on the site. If that fails then people can try their hand at coming up with ideas rather than just slinging mud. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Appointing anyone is going to be fraught with more problems than we had under the crat system. The problem is that we can't unring these bells. I lament that things are unlikely to get any better by scrapping the moderator system. We'll have the same problems with how to crat; we'll have exactly the same kind of shit that happened last year the first time a crat does something someone doesn't like. What we really need is a much more agile iterative system instead than these endless walls of text that only a few people have the constitution to endure. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds interesting. How would that work? What are the details?--ADtalkModerator 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're talking to me, here's what. You draw up a list of a few discrete problems you want to solve. You prioritize them. You address a few of them by doing the least possible thing you perceive to be necessary to solve. Turn it around quickly, perhaps in days or a week, be responsive to whatever validates or invalidates your theory about the problem, pivot when you learn you need to adapt. Rinse, repeat. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
And details how would you do this in detail? Probably need some space on the wiki to bring them up, people that see a problem bring it up and others discuss if its a priority or even a problem. Then you need to have people that are willing structure some sort of way of creating a solution, maybe a vote, maybe something else, but empower them to boot strap the system and guide discussion and implement the decision......wait....Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Nutty, but maybe I'm just not understanding here. You seem to just be describing in a vague way an idealized version of the present system. Actually, you seem to be describing what has happened on this very page, which contains the most streamlined and simple version of a vote that Blue could devise. There are a couple of problems, though. If you do things very quickly, within a few days, then you exclude a huge amount of people from the discussion. Votes typically last at least a week because a lot of people can't check RW every day. So while that's not a fatal flaw, it does essentially mean that only the most active handful of users will have any input, and that's something to recognize.
But really, you haven't proposed any kind of real plan. You've just said a sort of vague, "We will look hard at the problem, and find exactly what needs fixing. We will be completely correct, but take into account what other people are saying, revising as we go. Then we will have votes that take place within thirty minutes that everyone is happy with."
It's not a plan, it's wishful thinking. I agree with it - don't get me wrong, of course I want to "do the least possible thing" necessary to solve the "prioritized" problems within a couple of "days!" But you might as well just say, "My plan is that we fix everything and then unicorns will pleasure you in the gumdrop mountains."--ADtalkModerator 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an example of why i find these discussions frustrating. There is absolutely nothing streamlined about what Blue is proposing. What I'm talking about bears no resemblance to discussing throwing the whole thing out or going over the whole voting system again. Those are, oh I don't know, pretty big issues to tackle. LIke, they're the whole fucking thing, aren't they? I didn't suggest specific tasks to tackle because we're not past the general issue. But I can think of a few I mentioned below. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I find all these walls of text on policy issues to be offensive for their tendency to be way over broad in addressing problems that either don't exist or that prudence dictates don't require a remedy. That's bad legislative practice. And I sincerely doubt I'm the only person who finds it all so incredibly alienating that I only reluctantly even look at this shit. One benefit of quickly handling discrete tasks in small batches is avoiding this so people don't just tune out with a shrug and a "TL;DR." I think Trent's mostly right here - the only thing I'd stress is being agile - perhaps even Trent might get involved in being the one who guides an iterative approach until things are running smoothly. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Another conundrum: we can't make policy without open discussion, open discussion leads to walls of text. But Nutty's right in that the scope of what's proposed here is too broad. His idea of tackling just the few most important issues now is the way to go, and basically what I proposed as well. Deciding if we grant our special powers by election or by some other means (i.e. mod vs. crat) seems to be the most pressing issue for most people right now. DickTurpis (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like literally almost exactly what Blue has proposed to do, above (albeit with slightly different wording). Do you have a suggested different wording for the initial vote (what she calls "Tier One?")--ADtalkModerator 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Mindless pile of bureaucratic nonsense - Level one: Irritating? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? There's a big difference between what I'm talking about and ... throwing the whole thing out. What are some discrete problems to solve? I think two of them relate to userrights at least 2 moderators have abused. What do you think, AD? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Dick is - I think - proposing an initial big vote, like what Blue has above, over whether or not to keep the current system or throw it out.
Discrete problems are probably what are outlined above. Who can vote, for example, is one immediate problem with a clear proposed solution.--ADtalkModerator 02:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. That's not what I'm talking about at all. No specific problems are proposed to get addressed up there until after pointlessly overbroad and divisive votes. Ass backwards. Enough is enough. We'll imperiously bootstrap outselves into recognizing the reality that we're never going to get back to crats as they were and simply get down to brass tacks on the stuff that has people fighting like cats and dogs over what moderators even do. I would never have taken the position that Trent's mandate was poorly enough defined that we needed to waste much time refining it, but we've got an obvious problem now. Because of divisions over several of you abusing your rights and treating moderators as superusers. Because there's enough disrespect for some of your approaches that moderators lack moral authority on both sides. Because there are even sides in the first place. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
If no specific problems are being addressed that can be remedied by addressing specific problems. I sort of thought that's what we're doing here, but I admit we do seem pretty short on specifics. The Big Issue seems to be that there is a vocal group of editors here who think the mod system isn't working, and would like to see it replaced. On one hand, it makes sense to wait for an alternative proposal to get hammered out before we make any decisions (for reasons I've stated elsewhere simply reverting back to the bureaucrat system of 2010 is not feasible), but if we simply have a referendum on whether the moderator system overall is sound (and just needs some alternations and adjustments) we might save ourselves several walls of texts if the referendum passes. Just to be clear, when I say "moderator system" I mean granting our special powers by election, rather than some other system. It would indeed be helpful if everyone was a little more specific when talking about problems and/or solutions. You yourself mention abuse of rights and "superusers." Could you be more specific about what you're referring to? DickTurpis (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Blue, AD, and Nx. I don't remember specifically beyond Blue using the tech bit to single Ace out, Nx doing something similar, and several of them using the sysoprevoke bit without cause. Ace and others remember better and I have no idea where the discussion of this stuff is anymore. Re specific problems. How are you missing that a referendum on whether to throw the whole thing out doesn't address anything meaningful? It's typically overblown wankery. If anything I'd turn this fakakta list upside down. Most people don't even know what moderators are supposed to do. There's sharp disagreement among others. It all centers around what powers moderators have. Get that nailed down and you can have a meaningful look at other questions, like how many mods we need. How do you judge this shitheap's failure except with regard to the specific ways in which it's failed? If you really want to avoid a shitstorm you'll rethink whether there's likely to be any peace at all around such a referendum. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
If you can't remember what the incidents were it seems to indicate they weren't particularly significant. I'd say Blue's use of the edit filter on Ace ranks about a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10 in powers abuse, and was an abuse of tech powers, not mod ones, if I recall correctly. I hardly think these few cases of past abuse are the pressing issues of the hour. Besides, with clear definitions of what the mods can and can't do it's hard to pin down an objective definition of abusive behavior. I agree that the moderator position has never been terribly well defined. I said as much when the concept was proposed, but went along with it thinking we could sort of figure out the details as we go. I guess we're still doing that. You said above "It all centers around what powers moderators have. Get that nailed down and you can have a meaningful look at other questions." Well, what powers they have is about the only thing well defined about them. We have a checklist. When they should use those powers is a less settled issue, but in general they should use them only when other avenues have failed. This can be open to interpretation, but it's a decent start, I guess. For those who insist that the moderator system is a failure, what specifically has failed? It seems to me criticism of the position reminds me of right-wing criticism of the UN: they're simultaneously a powerless collection of self centered idiots who couldn't get a damn thing done if their life depended on it, and also a conniving group of power-hungry autocrats within a hair's breadth of world domination. Which is it? If the problem is that the mods' mandate isn't well defined, how will going back to the crats, who never had a defined mandate in the slightest, fix that? I don't think we can find a solution until we've defined the problem, and so far I haven't been able to pin down exactly what the problem is. DickTurpis (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
There were several incidents of Nx mod locking pages, blocking people like me and ToP several hours after incidents had long since settled down and removing rights and implementing sysoprevoke unilaterally. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 21:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, but Nx hasn't been a mod in quite some time. Is that a problem with the moderators as a whole or a problem with Nx? I believe mods can be recalled by a simple majority vote, so should such shenanigans happen in the future we know how to deal with them. I don't see how that is a failure of the mod system, nor how it would be any better when we had crats. DickTurpis (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You'd see bedlam if anyone tried recalling a moderator in the climate. Considering we need to figure out what mods can even do, your idea is unhelpful and unresponsive. And we're not talking about the failure of the system in general but the very specific things you asked me to give examples of. You're like a moving target. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I quite agree with you on several of these things. Clearly people don't mind Blue's exceedingly minor abuses in the face of her useful work, because she keeps getting elected by huge margins. Nx, on the other hand, is no longer a mod. And it also seems like you accused me of abuses? That's honestly a surprise, but if it's the case, I like to think they are also small sins.
One of the virtues of the mod system is that it means that a recall isn't the only avenue to get rid of a mod. With the crat system, once a person was well-liked, the only way they ever lost their powers was flagrant abuse - and often not even then! At least with the mod system, mods only retain their power through the regular choice of the other users.
And why would it be "bedlam" to recall a mod - except inasmuch as all votes involve a bit of bedlam? It would just be a simple vote like any other, if prompted by sufficient outrage, and backed by specific evidence.
As to the voting here, you seem to be proposing that we solve the small items first, and then address the question of whether to keep the system at all. That seems peculiar... if the final vote decided to return to the crat system, then we would have been pretty silly wasting everyone's time with a vote on how many mods there should be.--ADtalkModerator 22:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel like I've already said I don't think we can throw the whole thing out. Did I say that anywhere? I don't have the will to perpetuate the rest of this discussion. Have fun with yourselves. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
[EC - I guess I'm a bit late here] We're talking about a lot of things, actually. I'm merely trying to figure out what The Big ProblemTM is. Some people are quite unhappy with how this whole moderator business is working out, and I'd like specifics as to why. Clearly it isn't perfect, but we'll have to settle far short of perfection no matter what we do. You mentioned some examples of abuse, and that's a good start, but "When Nx was a mod he was a dick" does not equal "moderators are an utter failure". I'm not convinced that the few examples of past abuse are terribly relevant to the question of the effectiveness of the mod system. Sure, we need to better define what a mod does. Apparently one of their jobs is "to help boot-strap certain policies or procedures that we struggle with." That's a pretty vague and broad mandate, and could be interpreted in a way to give mods a great deal of authority. Trying to define that better is not necessarily a gross expansion of mod powers. The main job of a moderator is to moderate disputes. In truth, any of us can do that, but mods I guess have more of an obligation to do so, and a bit more legitimacy in doing so than some bunchanumbers.
As for your assertion that trying to recall an abusive mod would be Bedlam, I think you're being a bit melodramatic. If a mod genuinely abuses his powers I think getting a majority vote would be pretty easy, and while there'd undoubtedly be some bellyaching from his supporters (assuming he has some) I don't predict chaos. People aren't terribly tolerate of real abuse. Nx was widely lambasted for his voter fraud recently. Part of the problem again is defining abuse when exactly how mods are allowed to use their powers is so ill-defined. Of course, such honing necessitates moar rulez and walls of text. DickTurpis (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The majority of RW discussion is now concerned with rule-making, hand-wringing, voting standards, bullshit, bullshit....all of it totally grandiose in consideration of the size of RW. A waste of time. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger
All right, I'm calling you on that, Ace. For all this talk of rules, rules, rules, I can't find a whole bunch of these new rules on this site for the life of me. Can you point them out? If trying to define the moderators role, so we can have a clear definition of when a mod is abusing their powers, is your idea of unnecessary rule making then we'll have to disagree on what's unnecessary. I'd like the limits of mod power (and tech power, which is significantly greater) well defined so we don't have any of the Nx "I didn't do anything wrong" bullshit. As for voting standards, we had one forum on that last year. Unfortunately it was necessary, but it's done. DickTurpis (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to reread what I wrote, DT. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I read it fine. I guess your beef is that RW is full of policy discussions these days. That much is true. Unfortunately it's necessary. When a sizable number of people complain that the current system needs to be fixed or thrown out because of some issues with it, a policy discussion ensues. There's basically no way around it without dismissing everyone's grievances outright. If nothing else, Nx gave us quite the object lesson in how subject our secret ballot voting is to abuse. Not to toot my own horn here too much but I called it from the get go. If nothing else, we should fix that. That involves "rule-making." That involves textwalls. Sorry, I wish it were easier, but unless Trent wants to hand down a decision from on high this is how we do it. Cue Montell Jordan. DickTurpis (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A group is its own worst enemy

I didn't read all of this section yet, but to quote Shirky's "A Group is its Own Worse Enemy":

The second thing you have to accept: Members are different than users. A pattern will arise in which there is some group of users that cares more than average about the integrity and success of the group as a whole. And that becomes your core group, Art Kleiner's phrase for "the group within the group that matters most."

The core group on Communitree was undifferentiated from the group of random users that came in. They were separate in their own minds, because they knew what they wanted to do, but they couldn't defend themselves against the other users. But in all successful online communities that I've looked at, a core group arises that cares about and gardens effectively. Gardens the environment, to keep it growing, to keep it healthy.

...

The third thing you need to accept: The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations. This pulls against the libertarian view that's quite common on the network, and it absolutely pulls against the one person/one vote notion. But you can see examples of how bad an idea voting is when citizenship is the same as ability to log in.

(Emphasis added.) RW has gutted its core group in favor of a faux democracy, and that's part of the problem. (Read the damn essay.) There is a core group here, but it's divided, and it creates a horrible distraction, especially when everyone wants things to be "fair." sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I urge anyone who is interested in the future of RW to read this essay - it has a great deal to say about why we are where we are and what we may need to do about it.
Firstly, according to Shirky, in our current state, we are doomed to go through this cycle forever unless we make some very radical changes about "the way things are done around here".
Notably, and I think this is a bone of contention from "The Old Guard", shirky talks about levels of membership, each of which needs to be earned. As an example he talks about Slashdot's karma system. Look now at RW. When Mara swept in and started telling us how we ought to run the wiki it wasn't just giant bats that put peoples' backs up, there was also a sense of "who the fuck are you to tell us what to do?" OK, being a member of "The Old Guard" doesn't mean that you're necessarily right but that level of involvement and commitment to RW has to count for something. Simply by sticking around you have demnonstrated a commitment to the longevity of RW. We sort of buy into this with the "must be a member of three months standing with 75 edits" when voting but that is there to stop sock/anonymous voting, not to grant those who have invested with a return on that investment.
Moreover, I feel that if we don't change we will be stuck here forever for, what we have now, is close on stagnation. There has been precious little new in main space in ages - and, yes, I'm as guilty of that as any. What there has been has tended to be axe grinding, not serious refutation. If we're to be more than poo flinging monkeys then there has to be a change in the sense of membership, the sense of commitment, the sense of belonging, the sense that making main space contributions means something.
As for how to do this - I wish I knew, I really wish I knew, but, quite frankly, discussions over how many mods to elect is not addressing the core needs. We need to start with what our constitution needs to be and how we reward commitment. Bad Faith (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, that very question was what I considered the most important of all (until everything went to shit and I got bogged down in administrative policy and politics). Ways to reward commitment. One idea that has kind of dropped off was the Pat on the back society. We have had several brainstar award templates for years that have gone mostly unused. On WP, they have all these award templates that users brag about on their user pages. I don't think we have much of that - sure, some users list the articles they've written, but that's not the same.
What we did have to "reward" people (as sysops were given out to anyone with a pulse) was the 'crat bit. Some were given out for friendship - okay, most were - and others were given out for technical expertise and dedication. The frustration became, "Well, I'm really active, I've done so much for this site, and we have five people equal to me in user rights who haven't edited in a year" - so we actually removed several inactive 'crats. Then the frustration became, "I'm really active, I've done so much for this site, and my opinions are subordinated to people who've done next to nothing but have been here longer." So the 'crat bit became a highly imperfect reward. It became a "you get what you want, but not what you need" thing, because what you needed was to be recognized for your hard work, but instead you got the same thing as was handed out to a user who just told a lot of jokes, or makes one edit to WIGO:CP every month.
"Younger" 'crats like me tended to think of their bit that way, that getting the 'crat bit meant you were important and valued and others thought so too. But the older folks always slightly paradoxically insisted that since RW was a mobocracy, the bit meant nothing. What it sounded like was, "That trophy we just gave you to reward you for your dedication and contributions? It's really meaningless." User rights are an impractical and imperfect reward system. Like you, I don't know what is, but maybe the Pat on the Back Society and the brainstars are a place to start. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The mod system, of course, rewards nothing but popularity and Nx's socks. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(EC)I would like to point out that of all the ex-crats arguing here, only two were elected to the position. And while I cannot speak for AD, I viewed cratship as "making it". It was pretty much the sign that you were "one of the guys". We have barnstars and such but I recall them being mentioned as "masturbation". As to bragging about your contributions... ТyAsk me about frog-backed securities 18:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see it as "making it" per se. 'Cratship provided little for someone who just wanted to edit and trusted the others to appoint sysops and change names. In my eyes at least, the hyperobsession over user rights just didn't exist until maybe 2 years ago. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It was nice to be elected. I'm not sure I did anything with it.--ADtalkModerator 02:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The third thing you need to accept: The core group has rights that trump individual rights in some situations. This pulls against the libertarian view that's quite common on the network, and it absolutely pulls against the one person/one vote notion. But you can see examples of how bad an idea voting is when citizenship is the same as ability to log in. Yes, that's true. The problem with RW is that everyone has their goddamned sacred individual rights that trump everything, that one individual can decide that they don't like the consensus, and can ignore it and do what they want. -- Nx / talk 06:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Or rig an election. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Without some objective way of defining "the core group" this is all meaningless anyway. DickTurpis (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Goat

I just had a vegan friend over for dinner and I made chickpea burgers. Was better than I expected. VOXHUMANA 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If I had a vegan friend I'll feed them ground beef and haggis, all mixed together in a paste which I'd call "lentil stew". AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to tell the almighty goat about that when the Baaah-pture happens. You will thus be destined to burn in hell (or as we call it, "Suburban Melbourne") VOXHUMANA 03:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to be in Melbourne next month. I'll hunt you down. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Look for me in Heidelberg West. I'm not there, but the very thought of you (all hellbent on vengeance) wandering endlessly through that cultural wasteland amuses me greatly. VOXHUMANA 03:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The only places I'll be are the city and possibly near Richmond. if you want my fury you'll find me there. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger
I actually live in Sydney, so unlikely. (Unless you want to be in the Sydney suburb of Richmond... and um, you really don't.) Have fun in Melbourne though. VOXHUMANA 13:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Somebody please tell me

Exactly which passages of the word-salad above I should read that will help me to understand how any of this will help make us more productive in terms of creating mainspace articles that will draw in more readers/create a quality product/advance the goals of the website and of the foundation. The rest of it, I presume, has to do with policy discussions that will only effect 1. votes for the sake of voting; and 2. attempts to police the behavior of people posting in TWIGO pages and the Saloon. What specifically will all/any of this do to advance the project of promoting rational/critical thought in terms of science, religion and politics? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 00:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a big question.
Yes, it would be ideal if all discussions of policy were strictly related to advancing the project's mission. But because RationalWiki is written by people, there are frequent disagreements. Some people really strongly disagree, and some people are only here to amuse themselves by causing trouble. Because of this, we have to work out ways to manage our interpersonal relations - when two people disagree, how do we solve it? When someone does something wrong, how do we punish them to deter future behavior, or reduce their ability to cause damage?
I'm sorry if this seems condescending, but really you asked a great question: shouldn't we be thinking towards our real goal, here? So I'm thinking out loud a bit, here.
So we have to work out ways to manage conflict. And because we want those ways to be fair, without allowing any person or persons to control the system, we vote. And because we vote, we need rules on how to vote.
This stuff is tedious, sure. But there is a very real point. It doesn't deserve your contempt. We're trying to cook up some insightful and truthful articles on pseudoscience and all the crap of the world, and so we should justly be focusing on the sumptuous banquet that is our end goal - but that doesn't mean we should scorn the humble spoon that helps us make it, right? The little things matter, too - they just matter a little, not a lot.--ADtalkModerator 02:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Not just condescending but pompous and arrogant. I have noticed your recent tendency to address people who don't quite agree or understand what you are trying to achieve with an manner not to dissimilar to the way I assume you address a student you have decided isn't particularly bright. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
So, AD, now that you've upset your buddies, are you going to backtrack and apologize, reversing your stance and removing any remnants of your spine?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You're an idiot. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That was an extremely on-point, relevant and helpful comment, Brxbrx. Thank you for contributing to advancing this conversation. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 02:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if my tone was pompous. It truly was not my intention, and I really was thinking aloud. I think ToP was, as I said, right to point out that we should be thinking about our end goals a little more. But I also think that this stuff does still matter.--ADtalkModerator 02:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
EC "So we have to work out ways to manage conflict. .... The little things matter, too - they just matter a little, not a lot." The overwhelming majority of that conflict happens in places that are peripheral to the project. I am going to keep hammering at that point until someone besides Ty, Goat love him, starts to understand how messed up it is that we are spending so much time dealing with issues that have nothing to do with what we are supposed to be working towards/have donated our money to assist/have gained a formal, tax-exempt corporate identity to do. And while these things "don't matter a lot," they take up a huge chunk of our electronic and emotional space--way out of all proportion to their marginal importance. How many of these conversations have we had in two years? How can we go from a 'crat system to a Loya Jirga to Mods all in the space of, what, two years? That's more than one system of rule a year. It's like living in Ghana in the 1960s--who's the president today? What kind of constitution do we have this week? — Unsigned, by: TheoryOfPractice / talk / contribs 2012-08-03T02:37:00‎
I'm happy with the mod system. I think it needs minor tweaks. You'll get no argument from me on the point that a vote to return to the crat system is a waste of time. But there are a very vocal group of people who would not accept that, I think.--ADtalkModerator 02:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think returning to the 'crat system would be possible. I have been trying to use it as something to contrast this current crap against. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If I had my way, we'd have a vote on how many mods and what the franchise is, and that would be it. Simple and it would solve our immediate problems.--ADtalkModerator 02:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I think I'd just start a vote on those three questions above (how many mods, what voting system, how to pick techs) plus franchise. If I didn't think it would get me lynched, I'd start that vote right now.--ADtalkModerator 02:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If I had my way there'd be no Brx, May 2011 never took place and RW would still be growing in a organic/chaotic fashion. It'd be a libertarian dream site. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
How can it be a libertarian dream site if you get to boot people you don't like? And RW is growing in a quite organic and definitely very chaotic fashion. -- Nx / talk 06:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
How about fuck off Nx? Jesus, you're as worthless as the scum that leaks out of my pores when I lay down at 6am after a night on MDMA. A weird unctuous film that coats the body that you just want to get rid of but no matter how many showers you have it stays and reminds you of how awful shit can get when you ain't paying attention. So yeah, get fucked girly boy. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 05:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You won all the arguments at that school for "special" children, right? --84.158.60.231 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
EC Didn't we have that vote last year? (EDit: the how many mods/franchise ones, not the techs one) Is there any real reason to change that? Would more mods keep Ace from putting up cock pictures? Would fewer mods stop Rob's trolling? Would the same number of mods keep Proxie and Godot from coming to blows? Besides the peripheral issue of sock voting, is there any good reason to revisit the franchise? What positive or negative effect would changing the franchise have? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 03:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
One person wouldn't get six votes if we changed the franchise slightly. It can easily be made much harder for socks to vote without burdening any real voters. Nx has admitted he had his socks vote. As for how many mods, I don't care, but a lot of other people seem to.--ADtalkModerator 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
For all the furor over my sock voting, you guys are still missing the point. I did not have enough socks to get anyone elected, and in fact my sock votes barely changed the outcome (only one alternate was different, if I remember correctly). I did it to force the issue, because last time it was completely ignored, with Nutty even scoffing at the idea of thinking about maybe fixing the problem before it occurs. And now he wants to hang, draw and quarter me. -- Nx / talk 06:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Eh I don't recall expressing that sentiment so openly. I would have been happier assuming good faith regarding something that hard to police. We already knew it was possible and that changing a rule wouldn't stop someone from polluting the vote. The only real solution to the issue you think you forced is server side. Congratulations on bringing trolling to a whole new level. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

User rights and moderation revisited

A number of questions have been raised about the moderation system, whether it's effective and how mods are selected. Here is a space to discuss these issues (constructively, please) and try to work out some solutions. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you. This was exactly the right move, and helped focus this into the immensely productive and calm discussion below. No one feels the need to assert themselves by being just big-sloppy-silly, and it's still casual and pleasant.--ADtalkModerator 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A significantly more straightforward method to select mods next time

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Results.

I'm thinking of a number... LowKey (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mud wrestling? Scarlet A.pngsshole 10:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Does Scotland have all these problems? DickTurpis (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Bad Faith (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No, but they don't use STV. rpeh •TCE 12:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Above the line voting. - π 12:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear this STV system isn't fit for purpose, when the results vary so much depending on the number of seats. But there's also the question of whether the whole system of seven elected mods is fit for purpose or should be adapted for more mods or scrapped altogether. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

ScienceTM may tell us STV is the best system, but experience on this site doesn't seem to support this notion. I'd like to see something else next time. Not sure what though. DickTurpis (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Our problem is that we don't have enough votes for the number of available positions. STV is a good system but we're trying to do something with it that it's not really suitable for. To be honest, this whole debacle is a fitting end to a bloody stupid idea anyway. Let's just put the whole moderator system down as a well-meaning idea that failed and move on. rpeh •TCE 13:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants to be mod, they could just ask and the mob debates it as we used to for crat elections. What was wrong with that? It beats the incomprehensible mess of our current voting system. Sophiebecause liberals 13:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You're using the bureaucrat formula, the biggest case of HCM this site has ever seen, as a model for mods? The whole reason we have the mod system is because the bureaucrat system (which didn't even really exist) became as fiasco. The most useful thing the mods have done is replace the completely arbitrary demotion/promotion, promotion/demotion with a semblance of order (and apparently little more than a semblance, if this clusterfuck is any indication). You mention "crat elections", was there ever such a beast? I don't remember seeing one, and I never stood for one when I became a crat. DickTurpis (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The last... five or so 'crat demotions were done using a vote. There'll be something in the Barchives somewhere. rpeh •TCE 13:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I seem to remember one or two, but I thought those were the result of particular controversy, not a general method for dealing with the issue. Compare that handful to the number of crats and how they got demoted and you'll see it was an inconsequential proportion. DickTurpis (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it was a good system. I was just responding to your "I don't remember seeing one" line. Frankly, though, that system generated a lot less HCM than this one. rpeh •TCE 14:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree, to an extent. This election saw a lot of confusion, controversy, and argument, but no real HCM. The matter of who won is now settled following a significant amount of discussion, but no real chaos. This is preferable to the wheel warring over user rights the last days of the bureaucracy brought us. DickTurpis (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's just pick 9 or 7+2, folks, and finish this whole thing. I know that some folks want to take this opportunity to relitigate the entire system, again, but there isn't going to be any perfect system or perfect voting scheme. This is how things get nasty and actually turn into HCMs: self-contained small problems are spun out into big sprawling debates. If it wouldn't appear blatantly self-serving (since presumably I have an interest in maintaining my immense sweeping powers) I'd just lock this page and set up a vote on the matter elsewhere, since this is the very examplar of something that could easily turn into a vicious cycle, as norms are discarded and chickens beheaded.
Now, it's possible we have a couple of our stats-oriented folks working on a grand post to spell out the perfect voting scheme, but I doubt it. No scheme is going to be perfect. And since no one has any concrete suggestions for a better voting scheme, let's solve the immediate problem. Then if someone wants to propose elsewhere (i.e. Community Standards) some big change like elimination of the moderator system, fine.--ADtalkModerator 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It is finished. We have our 7 mods: you, Ace, Blue, Armondikov, Weaseloid, Waiting for Godot, and Genghis. It appears the matter is settled for the next 6 months. How the next mod elections are done, as well as Board elections, is all that needs to be discussed now, or whether we even want to keep the mod system. No need to lock any pages. DickTurpis (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
All right. Well, as I said, I don't think this is a smart time or place to discuss keeping the mod system. That would be better addressed as the separate issue that it is. The reason that things get out of hand is that such arguments eventually accumulate such length that only a handful of very dedicated people read through the whole thing. To most people it starts looking like an unmanageable mess, with all sorts of suggestions, half-arguments, and resolved issues. Yet to the dedicated people, their effort and the narrative they've invested themselves in makes them start to lose a little perspective.
I won't do anything, of course - that brute force nonsense is notoriously ineffective, and I think I've only locked one page since we first started moderating, and that only for an hour. And of course I am a mod, so it'd be silly for me to shut down debate on whether mods should be retained. But I urge someone to take the initiative and start up a new discussion, focused on the voting method to use next time, and with an aim towards actual resolution.--ADtalkModerator 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that this maybe isn't the right place to discuss new voting or moderation proposals and the discussion should be taken up elsewhere, I disagree that it isn't the right time. Right now when we're looking at everything that's been messy about this election is the best time to start thinking about what we can do about it. Around the December election there was talk about setting up moderation guidelines, restricting the nomination criteria to eliminate joke candidates and trying to eliminate sock voting problems, and there was a lot of "well, we'd better sort something out before the next election". Then fuck-all happened, and here we are again. If we're going to look at improving or replacing this system, now is the time to follow through with it. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Having re-read your post, I see you actually suggested the same thing. I'm happy to take the initiative on this if somebody else hasn't already. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Weaseloid, way back in November, I penned Essay:Moderation, in which I outlined a fairly comprehensive set of policies by which the institution of moderators should operate. It received some preliminary endorsements by characters like Ace and Ty, but never generated much discussion (probably having to do with policy fatigue from the lengthy voting standards adoption process).
There are several updates I would make to that essay, now that we've had several more months of moderators and related controversies, but I stand by the gist of it. If we ever actually want to set up a more specific moderation policy than the few sentences Trent wrote last June, I think that essay is a good starting point.
The way I see it, there are three big pillars of the debate that we should probably resolve sometime over the next few months.
  1. Should we keep the institution as it is now, with seven moderators and two alternates elected biannually? Should we alter it, or scrap it entirely and move to a new system?
  2. If we keep the institution mostly the same, how should we go about electing our moderators?
  3. If we keep the institution mostly the same, should we institute more specific guidelines to give a better idea of how it ought to function?
It would certainly avoid a great deal of argument to skip the first item, but since a vocal number are opposed to the current system, we probably won't be able to. The debate on the second and third will probably be simpler and more civil. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
In my own mind, board elections need to be brought up on a thread of their own, and discussed outside of and independent of "mod" elections, or any other wiki specific elections. There are a host of issues that impact Board elections that do not matter to the wiki, and vice versa - the most important of which is that the Board represents the foundation as a whole, which has control of several projects not just this particular wiki. Green mowse.pngGodotStop the damn screeds! 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that essay. Personally, I'm on board with the "individual action" bit, but not so keen the "group action" angle as I still think these kinds of decisions should be made by the wider community rather than an elected body. However, first off there's question 1 above, viz the whole moderator scenario & whether it actually solves the problems it was created to sort out. The more I think about the fuss surrounding this election, the more I feel like the game isn't worth the candle.
In practice mods don't actually do much, and the general feeling is that most of the time they actually shouldn't do much. It's basically a hall monitor role. Yet because there are such a small number of places, and because it's basically all we've got in terms of what could be considered "hierarchy", it becomes this hotly contested position with much much more time & energy going into filling the role than goes into doing the job. This is what I find most damaging about the situation: site politics tends to bring out the worst in us, and we've landed up with a system that actually creates more politicking rather than effectively moderating it.
Opening up the system to a greater number of mods might help. I see no reason why there shouldn't be twenty or more. If people are happy to do the job, know the site & community well, & are largely trusted, I see no reason for them not to serve. This would cut down on the competitive nature of the selection & the inevitable disappointments & resentments. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
(PC - port conflict) Yes, actually most of the revisions I would make to the essay involve allowing more community input. It was written at a time when our confidence in the ability of the community to solve any problems was not high, but this discussion (excepting the few minor nasty bits) has demonstrated that we can actually act together when we don't launch into personal attacks at every opportunity.
20 mods is a bit too high in my opinion, because then we're opening ourselves up to most of the drama that went with the 'crat system and also making elections far less relevant. More mods could very well be better, though, and I'd be fine with a 10 or 11 at the most. I haven't seen a very much disappointment and resentment - in fact the two "incorrect" winners very graciously stood down without a fuss.
We should probably port this discussion to a forum or a project page... Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
... which happened as I was writing that post. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand all this hating on the crat system. When dramas occurred, it was usually because somebody acted unilaterally or assumed more authority than was their due (which has also happened under the moderator system) rather than because of any inherent structural flaw. And I have seen a fair amount of resentment levelled at the mod system, much more than I remember there being about crats at the time. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, to the last point, I don't think we can reasonably compare the criticism of the two systems because before we had mods, we only knew one system and it was the devil we knew.

The problem with the mod system is that it concentrates power in too few people without any real guidelines on how to use it or how to deal with abuses of it. The problem with the 'crat system was that it spread power among too many people without any real guidelines on how to use it or how to deal with abuses of it. It seems to me that part of the solution must be to come up with real guidelines on how bureaucrat and/or moderator and/or tech powers should be used and efficient, fair processes on how to deal with abuses of those powers.

I have never said that the moderator system is intrinsically better at this moment than the 'crat system. I've been here a very long time and I think the 'crat system was fundamentally good, but as the wiki grew larger and as people grew more distant from the 2007/2008-era traditions, the lack of enforceable guidelines and due process was a ticking time bomb that ultimately blew up in our faces last year. To an extent, the moderator system has the same potential to cause another May 2011 as the 'crat system did.

There may yet be an objective angle to take on whether or not we ought to return to the 'crat system. I think either system is workable given the necessary reforms. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We had far fewer problems with the crat system, and it's likely that the transition drove lots of people away. You can't take away the Porsche and expect people to be pissed. And, in reality, the crat guidelines were always better defined than the moderator position, which has always been hobbled together. Look at sysoprevoke--it really is a "tech fix" which is ironic, because people now are saying things against tech fixes--and rightfully so. (Adding and removing sysop right was a primary crat function, arguably the only function. But people don't trust only seven people to have that, which is how we've ended up with sysoprevoke.) The crat system was also far more flexible. Yes, there were problems last year, but it's unclear that purging the whole system has improved anything; there is far more bitching and moaning now that there ever was. On the other hand, that may be because of who remains after people started leaving, and/or it may be because of how people perceive their power on the wiki. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ace's idea

First past the post system. 7 mods + 2 alternates.

  • no rankings
  • electorate gets 7 mod votes and 2 alternate mods
  • most votes win.

Piece of cake. I haven't really thought this through - straight from my head so please tell me where I am wrong. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It would have to be 9 votes, not devided, or you risk one person being elected both mod and alternate. Green mowse.pngGodotStop the damn screeds! 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright then. If we did that it could work, there be little to dispute and we could get on to debunking anti-science? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC)Actually, you could just leave 7 votes and not bother with "alternate" votes. The first seven vote-getters then become mods, while the eighth and ninth become alternates.
This is the same system we used to elect the Loya Jirga, with the alternate feature added. Objectively, it's less fair than STV, but I think we can all agree that STV may be too complex to be used on a site of this size (I'm not saying it necessarily is, just that it probably is, judging from all of the post-election debate we've seen). This proposal would bring hundreds of project-space votes to Recent Changes, though Trent could easily hide the voting page to avoid the clusterfuck like he did with the CP forum. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea. Simple and effective. Picon small.pngAcer Blue
They can filter it. Тytalk 02:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
We should have just done this in the first place. it is so simple and fits perfectly with the size of our site. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think Trent did what he did with the best of intentions. I do agree with you, though, Ace. (See! It's possible!) Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
With RW the size as it is the STV process seems unnecessarily complicated. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Now what? Тytalk 03:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Which is exactly what I said. Now, two questions remain: 1) Should we change the franchise requirements? 2) Should we have public voting, or should we ask Nx and/or Trent to rewrite the (private) voting extension? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Nx is part of the problem, fuck 'im. No point in pushing trent now - he seems to have had enough. Accpet the mods as they are now and do it next time. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I'm talking about next time. I meant, should we ask Trent ever to rewrite the extension, or just do the voting publicly like the Loya Jirga elections? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Extension. Secret ballot and all that. Тytalk 03:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In that event, it's probably best if we raised the requirements for voting to avoid so many sock votes. Disenfranchising bots is a first step. People have suggested making a minimum number of edits made in the few months leading up to the vote as another qualification. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the 7 votes, top 7 vote getters win (I do better in this system, so I'm biased in any case). Making more stringent voting requirements is fine, but if people want voting socks they'll just make sure their socks meet those requirements no matter how high we set them, so it basically only kicks the can down the road. Is everyone completely opposed to open voting? I'm on the fence, but think it's getting dismissed too readily. I asked this elsewhere, and the response I got was actually somewhat favorable (or at least not entirely dismissive) of the idea, and it is probably the most effective way to mitigate the sockpuppet issue. DickTurpis (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't express my view on the matter, which is pretty much yours (viz. on the fence). There's the potential for people to not feel free to express their preferences, especially if we allow the common practice of making comments in one's vote. But it would definitely weed out known socks voting. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I would vastly prefer a secret ballot. Тytalk 03:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Throwing my two cents into the ring: I completely support this. STV is unnecessary for a site of our size. First past the post is just fine for a community that gets, what, 50-60 ballots per election? Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with ace.gif Also, a secret ballot is even more crucial in this system. Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 03:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple voting by a Nominee for him/herself through socks should be declared a Conflict of Interest and Abuse. Now, how can allegations of such be established? nobsCorporations are people, too 12:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
With secret ballot, they can't. DickTurpis (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Franchise

Say, oh 100 edits in the past 2 months? Thoughts? Тytalk 03:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a lot - if I was away on holiday I wouldn't be allowed to vote (my holidays are typically a month long and am usually very busy weeks either side). AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there an issue with the franchise as it is? (Keeping in mind that a sock abuse will be possible regardless of what system we use.) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 03:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The make X edits in the last Y period of time would probably make it just a tad bit harder. Тytalk 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
75 edits in mainspace over the past three months seems like it requires a reasonable level of activity to exclude a bot, without being such a high bar that only superusers would surmount it. But maybe we should get some actual numbers in here - who would get to vote? Is there an easy way to view a list of who has made 75 edits in mainspace over the past three months?--ADtalkModerator 04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Active users is available, though it isn't just those who fit the standard. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
75 mainspace edits seems high, considering a number of people here (me included, I'll admit) don't edit the mainspace much and use RW much more as a forum for discussion and social interactions. That being said, it would hinder socks who make 75 edits to their user and talk pages in a few days and are forever enfranchised. DickTurpis (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It shouldn't be mainspace specific. I've never felt that mainspace is the heart of the site. The current franchise requirement is 75+ edits, and at least 3 months at RW. If we change it to at least 3 months at RW, and 75+ edits within the past three months (& no bots), this would eliminate sleeper socks, and also eliminate people who leave or pretend to leave the site from continuing to exert influence at elections, which I think is fair. Administrators should elected by the active onsite community. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Okaydokey. Just 75 edits in the past three months works, then.--ADtalkModerator 21:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Computer sim

Playing the nerd card sadly. I just ran a computer simulation of Ace's idea (using 75 voters, 20 candidates, 9 seats) and deduced there's a hefty chance (>20%) that the votes will be tied across the "Mod/Alt" boundary or the "alt/not elected" boundary. It's highly likely because there is a large pool of candidates compared to a small electorate. (I also ran the sim for larger groups of voters and it looks like you need to get to about 500 voters before the risk of a tie becomes < 2%).

Ace's idea has an elegant simplicity which I hate to disrupt, but tied votes would probably necessitate either a by-election (with optional full HCM) or some arbitrary tie-breaking method (with probable full HCM).

Keeping the basic idea but altering it to a straight preference vote drastically reduces the risk of ties. Franchised voters still cast nine votes in order, with vote 1 being worth 9 points, vote 2 worth 8, etc. Not as tasteful, but much less likely to produce ties. VOXHUMANA 03:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it too hard to declare that both get in as mod if there are ties there, decide by runoff if we turn out to need an alternate position where there is a double up? Also, if we are ranking in this way do we really need to specify the number of alts? Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 03:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously some tweaking is required but like Vox says, there is a simplicity which is needed for a site this size. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
How did you do this sim, btw? Is it available for public fiddling? Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 04:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ties would only matter if there is a tie for 7th and 8th place, right (or 9th and 10th, I guess)? We could have something in place for that eventuality, such as an additional mod, even. DickTurpis (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ties matter from the last mod place down. Even a tie for first alternate will cause a choice to be made should we find ourselves needing one. But that wont be hard - I propose extra mods for the case of last mod place, and short votes for alternates if needed. Candidates can, of course, decline to take the mod position and save us the trouble if they want to. Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Extra mods in the case of a tie for 7th would be fine. I remember when there was a tie for the LJ election, one of them voluntarily conceded, so that could always happen too. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah but you might get some dick, like myself, kicking up a fuss....AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Peter, sorry, not public. My sim was somewhat subsidized by the NSW Government. I wrote it in Cognos Data Manager writing to a SQL Server database. VOXHUMANA 04:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Pity. Ah, well, I suppose I'll just have to interrogate you instead: what were you inputing, exactly, and what kind of percentages were you getting out? Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 04:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Then we will have to vote (once the dust from the HCM that caused the situation has settled) between the tied candidates. Or if we already had 8 mods we don't appoint an alternate to the position at all. Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 04:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Or we could just decide beforehand that if two people tie for 7th then both get in. I suppose if more than 2 people tie for 7th place we can have a runoff vote. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I meant only for alternates, using 'everyone gets in' for 7th place ties thus meaning that there could potentially be 8 mods (who's counting?). Vox: what are the odds of 3+ way ties? Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 04:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
A tie for second alternate is probably inconsequential, as the chances of the second alternate being promoted is damn slim. A tie for first alternate could be broken in some random fashion. I imagine the parties will be fine with it if it's decided upon beforehand. Another possibility could be no elected alternates, instead having the mods decide among themselves. Whoever 4 of them can agree to gets in or something. DickTurpis (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't think that getting mods to pick would work very well. But how to do it randomly? Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 04:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, if the first task of newly elected mods would be to have to mutually pick an alternate they can basically agree on, that could be a good exercise in working together and compromising. I'd actually genuinely like to see how it would go. Of course, it could be a fiasco as well, in which case it might prepare us for what's coming. As for the random bit, I hadn't given it much thought, but there was some random element in the last election. Specifically which zero vote getter was eliminated first, I think. DickTurpis (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Any random picker would need to be public, done only once, and not able to be faked. For example, creating a new page by substing in a chooser function almost works ([1]), it just fails by being fakeable. But if we did it beforehand we wouldn't have to worry about that. Peter "a sarcastic remark between every mouthful" 04:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This proposal assumes that there's nothing wrong with the number of moderators & alternates, as is. I'd like to see more discussion on whether this is the case before we get too far into talking about how they're actually selected. See above. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the moderator system, non-election-related

Now is as good a time as any to start work on creating a mod policy that goes into more detail than the sentences Trent wrote last June, if such a policy is wanted (though it appears to be, very much so). There are a number of things that a mod can do that have absolutely no guidelines or regulations and usually cause HCM whenever they're used. If I can sum up my proposal from last November and some key revisions I would make today:

In all cases except emergencies, moderators must first directly engage users involved in a dispute before taking individual action.
Acting as individuals, moderators can act voluntarily in the following situations:
All individual action must be temporary - any provisions should not exceed about three hours in length - and must take place during the development of the situation, not afterward.
Moderators may use the following tools in individual action:
  • Page protection
  • Revokation of sysop rights (sysoprevoke)
  • Blocks
If individual moderator action lasts beyond an acceptable duration, affected users may ask other moderators to restore the status quo ante.
Techs:
Moderators have the power to appoint techs. This should only be done following the concurrence of at least three moderators, and applicants to the tech position are encouraged to detail exactly how they will make use of its powers.
The edit filter, if used beyond the purpose of preventing vandalism, should only be modified at the behest of the community at large. Given this, there is nothing to suggest that a moderator should not also possess tech capabilities.
Redress:
No user should ever be mod-blocked with the "cannot edit own talk page" option checked, unless they are posting spam. This allows moderated users to register a protest.
Moderators who have clearly violated policy may be taken to the coop and recalled from the position. Forced removal of moderator rights can only be done by a community vote, and follows the established procedure for rights removal voting.
Techs who have abused their powers or their mandate may be summarily promoted by a moderator. They can then appeal this decision to the full body of moderators, or the community if they allege abuse by the promoting moderator.
Maintenance:
Moderators may resign at any time. A by-election will only be called if the number of mods falls below 5.
Any moderator account which remains inactive for two months will be summarily promoted, provided that the user is warned beforehand.
Responsibilities:
  • Moderators have a duty to enforce the will of the community. They cannot go against community decisions by unblocking properly banned users, etc.
  • Should the community be in sufficient turmoil, the moderators may be directed to decide a dispute as a cohesive body rather than as individuals. This was the purpose of the Loya Jirga.
  • Moderators have an obligation to alert their peers if a situation that needs moderating arises.
  • Post hoc, moderators have an obligation to answer questions from the community about their actions or lack thereof, on a designated page.

Cue the accusations of aspie fascist rules-mongering paper-pushing tinpot dictatorship. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Glancing over it quickly it seems mostly reasonable, and in some cases stating more explicitly what is already true in practice. However, especially for the first group of situations, saying mods can do this should not necessarily imply that other users can't. DickTurpis (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Definitely. And the benefit of codifying practices already in use is that someone like me can't allege that a violation is no grounds for protest because there was no "actual" policy. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You sure seem to enjoy the characterization and no, now is not as good a time as any to monkey with something that ain't broke. I don't see this addressing a single meaningful problem; it's just poor legislative drafting and an unacceptable expansion of moderator power beyond that Trent granted. I've got to go to New York for business and won't be back until Sunday night. Unlike you, I don't have time for this shit. I work for a living and occasionally like to go outside. As I'm apparently one of the few from my side of the aisle willing to stand over your shoulder and look at this kind of unnecessary wankery, I not-so-respectfully request that you all don't do something cute like set this for a vote before we've had a chance for Trent to weigh in and for me and whoever else is inclined to review it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What Nutty said. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 06:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
My dear Nutty, I am, unfortunately, tired of acquiescing to your "not-so-respectful requests" at this point, especially as they are so predictably unhelpful. Unless you're attempting to use your status as a member of the Board of Trustees to shape site policy discussions, there is no reason why I or anyone else would be compelled to continue to pay lip service to your frustratingly repetitive and contrarian analyses. Don't you think it's a little bit of a turn-off from compromise that nearly all of the ad hominems in these arguments come from your "side of the aisle" and when I'm involved? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 09:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Well of course I have no respect for you. Who do you think actually does? And why would you even bring the board up? Seriously. I require a justification for that. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 11:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You know, guys, instead of this constant "blah blah blah authoritarian blah blah blah legislation blah blah blah wankery..." why don't you let us know specifically what's wrong with things? That might actually be, you know, helpful. Considering the vast majority of what is proposed is basically either specifying what mods already do (or are supposed to) or limiting what they can do, I, at least don't see this as some huge power grab. If I'm missing something (which I might be) let me know what it is, specifically. DickTurpis (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest the following things be removed; one is unhelpfully ironclad and the other is unnecessary expansion:
  • - any provisions should not exceed about three hours in length -
  • Should the community be in sufficient turmoil, the moderators may be directed to decide a dispute as a cohesive body rather than as individuals. This was the purpose of the Loya Jirga.
I do think it's good that mods be required to notify others about when something has arisen, and that some things we'd established be laid down firmly, like the fact that anything permanent requires a vote. I'm not so sure about the tech thing, but it's a good idea. We do need some procedure for techs, but more input is required.
I do note that the biggest job of a mod does not appear here. I think that while the initial list of problems a mod should intervene in is good, it should be replaced with the following paragraph:
A moderator's job is to spot a variety of problems and act to prevent them or end them. Because ordinary sysops can handle almost all instances of vandalism or general asshattery on the wiki, a moderator should only feel it necessary to intercede when it appears that serious wheel wars over user rights, edit wars, extraordinarily abusive posting (such as spamming), repeated abuse of blocking privileges, or repeated abuse of RevisionDelete are threatened or occurring. Moderators are not special users or better users, they are just a small set of users entrusted with a few extra tools. Those tools should always and only be used to stop nasty conflagrations, making way for the community to make the actual decisions. Moderators should never try to simply enforce their will. RationalWiki cannot be tamed.
You will note a shift in emphasis, and narrowing of moderator purview.--ADtalkModerator 06:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I will note several proposed expansions of power in the guise of perpetuating custom and practice. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not "in the guise," which implies that I am trying to sneak something in. Try to rein back some of that infamous prickliness.
Yes, some things the moderators have done based on interpretation of Trent's very loose plan have here been set down more firmly. That's the intent here. That's why it's being discussed, so if you think that the moderators shouldn't have such-and-such responsibility, then you can say so.
Side note: we should define what I call "extraordinarily abusive posting," since I don't think mods should be trying to just stop "trolling," and that's a slippery slope.--ADtalkModerator 07:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
In principle I support most aspects of Blue's & Ad's proposals above, and will comment further on some of the specifics later, as I'm currently on my lunch break at work & don't have time to go over it in detail. As I've said further up, I think more moderators than seven would be preferable, and could cut down somewhat on the "position of power" reputation the role is getting, but I guess the number of mods should probably discussed in a separate section. Re techs, I feel that there should be community input in who should or shouldn't get appointed rather than appointments made by mods alone. There should also be some guidelines on the tech remit, most importantly that tech abilities should only be used for fixing technical problems, or for making changes wanted by the community. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

edit button#1

This needs a hell of a lot more of discussion. Sysoprevoke has never been even discussed, let alone sanctioned by the community. There also is no implication that editors can actually use their brains and hash things out of there own; this is essentially CP's block-first policy. This is not managing HCM; this is more micro-use of powers. The understanding is that the edit filter should be used for vandalism only; there is no discussion of power beyond that. And I think adiscussion of what a troll is is appropriate as well. The powers of the tech need to be defined, and it should be clear that use of tech powers to moderate is an abuse of power. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This does need more discussion, and I don't think anyone's rushing to act here, so I think we're fine. But let's continue.
  • Sysoprevoke has been discussed, at least a bit, but to me it seems pretty important that the mods have the ability to change user rights in a way that cannot be undone by just anyone, especially here, where literally almost everyone has the power to promote and demote. If the community decides to remove an abusive user's rights, it's the sort of thing that shouldn't be undone by a single editor who doesn't agree. So far it's hardly been used at all, that I now of, so I don't think it's been abused.
  • I don't see an implication that users can't hash things out on their own, but if they can I have yet to observe it. OK, seriously, though, the moderator position has always been for cases where conflict has gotten out of hand. No one's suggesting every time two editors have any sort of disagreement mods are to rush in blowing whistles and tossing everyone into the paddywaggon. I don't know of that ever happening, either.
  • Discussion of what a troll is will probably go on forever without any real agreement; I don't think it necessarily behooves us to get into such a basically semantic argument right now. Some say Brx is a troll, others say he's just an irritating guy with a lack of social skills. Probably best to err on the side of caution. Then there's the guys with user names like "Why do liberals worship Hitler and want to kill everyone who disagrees with them".
  • The discussion on techs is long overdue. It's been my opinion from the beginning that they're too ill-defined and arbitrarily created. That they generally haven't proved as controversial as I imagined they would has led me to not worry about them for the time being, but this is a good time to figure out what the fuck a tech is, exactly. I never liked the idea of a single mod being able to grant anyone that power on a whim. Blue's suggestion that 3 mods should agree is a step in the right direction, but input from the wider community would be a good idea too. DickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I adopt what Sterile says and would add to it while I have a moment. Sysoprevoke has never been used of necessity as far as I'm aware and it's far from clear it was ever intended to be set by moderators. Nx and AD have both abused it to prevent wheel wars that never started and weren't even hinted at. Tech is likewise not a role that moderators ever had the authority to assign. This concept seems foreign to several of you: just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it's permitted or a good idea. That ambiguity (if that's even the appropriate word) led to a power grab, pure and simple. And, while I'm sure the tech role has been used for good, it has also been misused on multiple occasions by people with bad judgment and didn't adequately think things through. Since we're collectively absolutely awful at drafting rules, it makes sense to take issues one by one as they arise and ask ourselves what problem we intend to solve before we propose a change calculated to address it. Consider it like the Lean Startup where you create the minimum viable product, a deliverable that addresses a specific problem based on whatever assumptions, you observe it in the wild, and you tune it up as necessary. Pivot to something else if it fails to adequately address a problem. Or consider it like Toyota's "just in time" management philosophy where the manufacturing process and very small parts inventories are intimately related. No warehouses full of shit that may sit there unused for who knows how long that materially represent a waste of effort and resources that could have been spent on actually making and servicing cars according to present needs. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Asking ourselves what the problems are with the current user rights system & how we can solve them is what we're doing here. Taking issues one by one is all very well, but the fact is that problems already have occurred multiple times under the current system, some of which you mention, so now is as good a time as any to go through them one by one & look at how we can change things. It's not going to be simple, & will no doubt require some ongoing tweaks rather than any kind of easy fix, but this discussion is a step in the right direction. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Uh, the solution is simple. Mods don't get to set sysoprevoke or tech. Boom. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That would still leave them with several other abilities, and as you said yourself there is an ambiguity between what they're able to do and what is permitted or a good idea. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Mods never had the authority to appoint techs, Nutty? Trent disagrees: "... tech users will need to request this user right from mods ..." (from the original forum where he laid out the new system, I'm on my phone) Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 18:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we are discussing what is to be, not what is or was originally intended. Really, the tech role is to be useful for doing tech-things. The moderators, a role of governance and order, may or may not be the best people for apportioning that; it may be better in Trent's hands, if he's willing. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree; Nutty, however, was talking about original intent, as he frequently does. Anyway, I think we might be giving Trent too much to do here, what with rewriting the voting extension and such. It doesn't seem like he has a lot of time to invest in the day-to-day operations of the site. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I was only referring to tech approval. There aren't that many, nor requests for them. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 20:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The law of unintended consequences will come in to play...any technical changes will necessarily have an impact of the social aspect of the site. Just fair warning. 21:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
I know of the essay of which you speak (and has been ignored lots over the years...). sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The current ATIM page lists sysoprevoke as a community action. Blue, are you suggestion that this be changed to at the discretion of the moderator? sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by a few things Nutty says. He says of sysoprevoke: "it's far from clear it was ever intended to be set by moderators." I'm not sure what is meant by "set". It was created as a power which I believe only mods have, so it was clearly meant to be a "weapon in their arsenal". Like everything a mod does, it's not meant to be tossed about haphazardly, and used only when deemed absolutely necessary. If the community decides to strip an abusive user of his sysop privileges, that is a good way to make sure he doesn't get them back from a random user who doesn't like the outcome, or innocently by a party unaware of the reason they were revoked. It should not be used unilaterally unless it is absolutely necessary to bring an active HCM under control, and then it should be very temporary, which is basically the main mandate of the mods. Even in such cases, a regular promotion should be used first, and sysoprevoke only if a user rights wheel war is ongoing. I don't recall the instances mentioned about abuse by Nx and AD, so when I say it hasn't been abused, I could be mistaken. That being said, I'm not sure I understand how the power works. If I'm reading the log correctly, it was used on Nutty during his brief time-out a few weeks back after his Brx bans - put in place by Blue, a mod, but modified later by either PeterL or Tyannis, neither of whom are mods, and shouldn't be able to change that. Am I missing something?
As for techs, there is very little policy on them at all, but RationalWiki:Techs, in its whopping 3 sentences, says "Techs on RationalWiki are appointed by the moderators to do (as the title suggests) technical work." So this idea that moderators don't have the authority to appoint them is contradicted by that, anyway. Whether "by the moderators" means them as a whole or any individual mod is subject to interpretation I suppose, but to be honest I don't recall seeing mods work together on anything, except maybe a few minor things early on. DickTurpis (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As currently written, ATIM requires a community vote for sysoprevoke, which implies it's not a usual "weapon in their arsenal." I, for one, am not in favor of that puts it as per the discretion of the moderator soley. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That clause is curiously absent from Rationalwiki:Moderators; these things really should be standardized. That being said, I can see hypothetical cases in which a mod would be justified in using it for a very limited duration, for instance if a mod temporarily removes the rights of two warring users, but they are restored repeatedly by other parties. Again, that would be under the 3 hour threshold (or whatever length is decided), and the hypothetical situation is probably far fetched enough that we'd never actually see it used this way. But yes, ideally it would only be used after a community vote, and certainly only by vote if in place for any meaningful length of time. That being said, does it even work? Were PeterL and Tyrannis able to undo it, as it appears to me they were? DickTurpis (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. We should strike that from our amended guidelines here, then. I don't think it's necessary.
Incidentally, I am surprised to hear Nutty thinks I abused it. I can't recall any such instances, although doubtless that's because I wouldn't have done it if I thought it was abusive.--ADtalkModerator 23:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Sysoprevoke is too easily abused. What does removing sysop rights actually accomplish for warring editors? How does removing their rights prevent edit warring? I can't see how. It's also a fairly nuclear option. We give sysop rights to people who have been here for like two days. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It should probably only be used for enforcement of community decision. Like when Nutty was promoted for a week. Mods shouldn't have discretion to use it at all.--ADtalkModerator 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The only way to 100% prevent mods abusing it is to remove it from their rights, which seems overkill; it exists for a reason. If mods are mandated not to use it wen regular promotion will suffice, and even then never for more than, say, an hour, that seems enough to prevent abuse. It's not like losing one's adminship is a huge inconvenience, in general. Many of us could be stripped of our powers and it would likely take us weeks to notice (depending on how much we like using the block log to communicate with each other). Sure, it won't do anything about edit wars, but we're not Wikipedia, edit warring is the least of our problems. Our wars are more often personal - removing another's adminship and handing out long blocks. I think this is a very minor point, as the chances of sysoprevoke being necessary in a dispute are very low, and regular temporary promotion should suffice in 99% of cases, and even those should be rare. But should it be necessary, should a mod temporarily promote a disruptive user and see it repeatedly undone, I wouldn't want to see the mod punished because they technically broke the rules by using it. I think the standards should say something like "Sysoprevoke is a substantial power of the mods, and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Long term use will only be implemented following community decision. Any use by a moderator in settling an ongoing dispute must only take place when it has been established normal removal of sysop rights is not effective, and in such cases sysoprevoke should not be in place for more than an hour." That should prevent haphazard usage. DickTurpis (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
"Removal of sysop rights is not effective" is sort of absurd. Since essentially anyone can resysop and it happens to readily, removal of sysop rights is de facto ineffective. An hour time out doesn't seem to accomplish anything either given the tenacity of our editors. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 13:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think we're missing each other's point here. I'd rather not go into this too much because it seems a minor issue unlikely to ever be necessary, but I'll give a hypothetical example of what I'm talking about anyway:

  • UserX gets in a row with UserY and repeatedly promotes him to regular user and blocks him for a month.
  • ModA notices this and temporarily promotes UserX to stop the abuse while he tries to moderate the dispute and get people to stop being dicks.
  • UserQ and UserZ, friends with UserX, side with him and reinstate his sysopship every time it is removed by ModA. The promotion and blocking continues.
  • ModA, realizing this promotion isn't taking, uses sysoprevoke to remove UserX's sysopship for an hour, in a way that can't be undone by UsersQ and Z (or anyone who's not a mod)
  • ModA gets back to moderating. The dispute is settled or not, maybe goes to the Coop, whatever.
  • Within the hour UserX is again a sysop, and hopefully has cooled down at least, and doesn't go back to his promoting and blocking (if he does we're back to square 1, I guess. That's a separate issue).

That, I wouldn't see as abuse, and I think our standards should allow. DickTurpis (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sterile, nobody is proposing that mods be given the authority to use sysoprevoke willy-nilly whenever they want, just as nobody is proposing that mods be given any unlimited discretionary power (to the extent that such a thing is even possible on a wiki, where most anything can be undone by at least one other person). The proposal involves giving mods discretionary authority to use sysoprevoke provided that a controversy is developing and even then they are limited to a three-hour application of it. If mods have no discretionary authority in the short term to use their "extra set of tools" to try to nip destructive controversy in the bud, then what is the purpose of having them? Platitudes notwithstanding. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think sysoprevoke is really necessary. To be frank, past and recent abuses of "tech fixes", which sysoprevoke was, are quite disturbing to me. Indeed, while Dick's scenario has actually happened, it's such a small and confined example, it's not clear that sysoprevoke was ever necessary before a community decision. And the wording makes it sound like "just one of the tools," not an extreme response. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 14:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Some feedback & suggestions

  • Acting as individuals, moderators can act voluntarily in the following situations. Let's not tie ourselves down to just these situations. The tighter these rules/guidelines are, the more we paint ourselves into a corner & create scope for wikilawyering. These are examples of situations where moderator intervention might be required, but the mods should have discretion to act similarly in any situation where they feel it appropriate. Also, add Headless Chicken Mode to the list. We don't need to get into defining what trolling is; disruptive behaviour or conflicts may call for mod intervention, regardless of whether we specifically identify somebody as a "troll" (which often exacerbate the situation).
  • any provisions should not exceed about three hours in length. But prefereably less in most cases. A five-minute cool-down block, or locking a page just long enough to force warring editors to open up a dialogue is often all that's needed.
  • and must take place during the development of the situation, not afterward. Yes, mod actions are to stop a situation escalating, not to dole out punishment. This should be emphasised in the guidelines.
  • Moderators may use the following tools in individual action. Add RevisionDelete. There may be other things I can't think of now.
  • Moderators have the power to appoint techs. The power! Mods have the ability to add users to the tech group, as with all user rights changes. Do they have the authority to appoint them? I think it should be a community issue, since tech abilities/access have been (mis)used unilaterally on several occasions, both under the current system and previously, which causes a certain amount of needless drama. Any sitewide changes techs make (not just the edit filter) should be things that have had some degree of prior discussion & community imput, unless they're fixes to a purely technical problem or responses an emergency situation like a severe vandal/DOS attack. Also, I think it would be useful to have more information about what abilities techs actually have. As for how they're selected, I think requests/nominations for tech right should be posted somewhere where users can have a chance to comment before they're approved. Somewhat like the early system for bureaucrat selection.
  • No user should ever be mod-blocked with the "cannot edit own talk page" option checked, unless they are posting spam. Or unvolunteered personal information. Or extremes of racial abuse, obscenity, libel, harrassment, etc. In fact, lose the "not ever" angle. Yes, ideally users should still be able to edit talk while under mod-block, but there should be some room for mods to use discretion on this (bearing in mind it's a temporary block anyway). Our blocking policy badly needs updating anyway, but that can be sorted out seperately.
  • Moderators who have clearly violated policy may be taken to the coop and recalled from the position. Good.
  • Techs who have abused their powers or their mandate may be summarily promoted by a moderator. They can then appeal this decision to the full body of moderators, or the community if they allege abuse by the promoting moderator. As with how they're appointed, I think how techs are recalled should be a community decision, not a mod decision.
  • the moderators may be directed to decide a dispute as a cohesive body rather than as individuals. I'm not keen on this. The LJ never did anything that couldn't have been settled by the wider community. There's also the question of who has the right to declare a state of emergency in which the mods settle a dispute. I think this could worsen tensions rather than relieve them.

WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Add that there should be something in the guidelines covering the mod role at the Chicken Coop & in "bootstrapping" policy discussions - essentially to open discussions, keep them focused, relevant & constructive, & enact community decisions. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • These are examples of situations where moderator intervention might be required, but the mods should have discretion to act similarly in any situation where they feel it appropriate. I agree. Perhaps we can list "suggested" situations where moderators should act, but leave it open to more as you described?
  • But prefereably less in most cases. Yes, that would be good to add.
  • Do they have the authority to appoint them? I think it should be a community issue... This may be appropriate, but we really need a hard-and-fast rule that the community must be consulted.
  • Any sitewide changes techs make (not just the edit filter) should be things that have had some degree of prior discussion & community imput, unless they're fixes to a purely technical problem or responses an emergency situation like a severe vandal/DOS attack. I agree. Good thing to add.
  • I think it would be useful to have more information about what abilities techs actually have. See Special:UserGroupRights
  • somewhat like the early system for bureaucrat selection. Eh? That wasn't the "early" system, hence the drama over unilateral demotions last year.
  • there should be some room for mods to use discretion on this (bearing in mind it's a temporary block anyway) You're probably right.
  • There's also the question of who has the right to declare a state of emergency in which the mods settle a dispute. That was the problem with the LJ, I suppose. We could have avoided the May/June disaster if they were still around, I think. This is the problem with my suggestion, but I still think that having the mods as a final stopgap in the event HCM Level Zero is a good thing.
  • Add that there should be something in the guidelines covering the mod role at the Chicken Coop & in "bootstrapping" policy discussions - essentially to open discussions, keep them focused, relevant & constructive, & enact community decisions Also very good to add. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis of this forum

We have before us several issues for which most commentators have expressed a desire to set a policy. They are, namely: restrictions on moderator powers and clarifications on moderator guidelines; use of sysoprevoke; use of the edit filter; responsibilities of moderators; the manner of election and rescinding of techs; and electoral reform for the moderator elections, including the voting method and the franchise. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this work and parsing out the discussion.--ADtalkModerator 04:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
And what about the original issue, that of socks? Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Nvm, I see. But we do seem to have lost focus a little. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 04:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Moderator authority

AD suggested the following summary of what exactly mods should do:

A moderator's job is to spot a variety of problems and act to prevent them or end them. Because ordinary sysops can handle almost all instances of vandalism or general asshattery on the wiki, a moderator should only feel it necessary to intercede when it appears that serious wheel wars over user rights, edit wars, extraordinarily abusive posting (such as spamming), repeated abuse of blocking privileges, or repeated abuse of RevisionDelete are threatened or occurring. Moderators are not special users or better users, they are just a small set of users entrusted with a few extra tools. Those tools should always and only be used to stop nasty conflagrations, making way for the community to make the actual decisions. Moderators should never try to simply enforce their will. RationalWiki cannot be tamed.

The following stipulation was also present in my proposal:

All individual action must be temporary and must take place during the development of the situation, not afterward.

With some helpful revisions suggested by Weaseloid, there were no objections expressed to these proposals (except one ambiguous and unelaborated reaction). Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sysoprevoke

Several users, myself included, argued that sysoprevoke should be available as a discretionary power to moderators to use in the short run (three hours under my stipulation above) to stop wheel wars. In the long run, sysoprevoke should only be used after a community vote.

Other users suggested that sysoprevoke be rescinded as a tool entirely. It was unclear whether the community would still be able to command its use under this proposal. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be very happy to be rid of it.--ADtalkModerator 04:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it should be used in the short term. People can always be persuaded if nothing else to stop blocking and start arguing instead. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
As I've stated elsewhere, I think this should only be used in the short term if it's been proven that a regular block isn't doing the trick. I'd like to think this wouldn't happen, but you never know. Other than that, yes, by community decision only. DickTurpis (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what purpose is served by this power in the short term. Someone is abusing their powers and refuses to stop, you promote them temporarily. If someone else decides to overrule you and demotes them again, then it's possible that this will be the end of it - satisfied with a petty "victory," many users will stop their previous behavior, and others can decide if it's worth the trouble of a cooping. If the abuse continues, promote again, and it might be necessary to promote the enabler, as well. But of course this is a last resort - things should not go so far, and usually calm and pleasant intercession suffices.--ADtalkModerator 12:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Promoting the enabler is something I considered, and would probably work. However, it does have the disadvantage of expanding the scope of the situation, which it seems a moderator should try not to do. Also, if you have several editors already involved all demoting each other (for some reason I'm drawn to worst case scenarios) it could be a real hassle. Yeah, it probably won't happen, so I guess there's no use in making a fuss. DickTurpis (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
See above. It seems like a big hammer with no clear restrictions in the guidelines. This is a change from ATIM, which states it is to be used with community consent only, which is the minimum restriction that I would support. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 14:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The whole point of this discussion is to decide upon restrictions. If you think anyone is arguing for allowing unrestricted use of sysoprevoe you haven't been reading the comments. DickTurpis (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
How does discretionary by a mod different from lack of restriction? I suppose "one hour" is a restriction, but what's to prevent a mod to keep doing it hour after hour, or if they forget to turn it off. I suppose there's some check on Mod power mostly by social control, but some of us don't see it that way. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 16:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
No one's saying it can be used at any mod's discretion. I'm just saying there may be rare instances in which simple promotion won't suffice. I don't know what wiki you're living on in which mods are some evil villains who will use every technicality to do whatever they can to disrupt and oppress editors here ("What's that? I can only block someone for an hour? Then I'll block them every hour on the hour FOREVER!!! And no one can stop me! BWAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA.") Hell, if you're that worried then what's to stop a mod from making every other mod, tech, admin, and everyone on the site a simple editor with no additional rights? Obviously no one's going to let a rogue mod get away with abusing sysoprevoke. Mods aren't supposed to use any of their powers unless absolutely necessary, and sysoprevoke is certainly not something they are going to have a green light to use whenever they want. The only time it could be viewed as a necessity is if a justified block is repeatedly undone by other admins. I really don't think this is going to be a problem, so I'm not going to make big deal about it. But if it does happen I, at least, will defend the mod in question. DickTurpis (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of sysoprevoke was to deal with situations where people in this community would bring it upon themselves to randomly sysop people who the rest of the community decided should not have it. This used to be a frequent problem, but hasn't been as late. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit filters

All seem to agree that the edit filter should be used to prevent vandalism and spam. However, opinions differed on whether or not it could be used for other purposes, at the behest of the community or not. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Another thing that seems unnecessary beyond its agreed-upon purpose, and I would be happy to see it explicitly stated that it should only be used to prevent vandalism and spam.--ADtalkModerator 04:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a very dangerous and powerful tool. It can be used to rangeblock, disable all TOR editing, disable all editing in a particular namespace (CP would be the most likely candidate for that particular abuse) etc. etc.
My envisioned use would be to enforce "sensitive" blocks. For instance, if a user was repeatedly edit warring over, say, Arab Spring, the community (or a panel of mods or what have you) might decide that we want to keep them around, but to ban them from editing Arab Spring and related articles. Or if a user was repeatedly harassing another user's talk page, they could be banned from editing just that talk page. Or if a userpage kept being vandalized, rather than create drama at the Chicken Coop, a mod might use the filter to ban editing of the just the userpage except its owner, as Nx did for Maratrean. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
One thing I'd like is for techs to not make filters private unless absolutley nessasary - spammers even are unlikely to look, we should only be worrying about vandals for that really. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 04:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Very much against what Blue has just suggested. That's what a short bock is for as per the mods ability. The edit filter is not needed. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that goes without saying. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The edit filter is not needed for these purposes. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that I'm not precluding the idea that the community could be the sole meters of "sensitive" blocks, even if we remove the authority from mods. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 05:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand that its a seductive idea, but no. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The edit filter is not needed for these purposes AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to see the edit filter used like that. These kinds of problems can be handled with warnings & community action (e.g. a few days block) against users if they continue not to heed warnings. All in the open. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I get that the filter is powerful and therefore dangerous, but it'can be "used "in the open," by community sanction, and to efficient ends. Quite honestly to rule it out completely is cutting the community off from a very useful tool. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 06:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If an editor has misbehaved enough to warrant a ban on editing a specific page, they have misbehaved enough to warrant a general block. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What LX said. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If the community wants to use that tool, then they can use it. Mods shouldn't.--ADtalkModerator 06:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

3 times now Blue: The edit filter is not needed for these purposes. There are several other tools we already have without having to layer yet another tool or function on top of it. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 07:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Besides the problem that the edit filter is, by its very nature, not subject to the same kind of community oversight as blocks, if we start using it to proscribe behavior that does not warrant a general block, we will be wading into troubled waters.
For example, two years ago, I had the rather unenviable task of defending our page on Asatru against the antics of a pair of editors who more or less openly stated that they were editing the page primarily in order to attack me. Bystanders responded by suggesting that I be banned from editing the page. Had the edit filters been available at that time, I probably would have been. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If an editor has misbehaved enough to warrant a ban on editing a specific page, they have misbehaved enough to warrant a general block. That's nice in theory, but in practice, what happens if the misbehaving editor is the popular cool guy? Especially if they're, for example, vandalizing the user page of a less popular editor. -- Nx / talk 09:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The edit filter is completely superfluous. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 09:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you've already asserted that a couple times. Now, if you've got nothing more to say, go do something more productive and stop spamming this discussion. -- Nx / talk 09:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
That's nice in theory, but in practice, what happens if the misbehaving editor is the popular cool guy? Yes what does the edit filter achieve in this instance? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 09:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
His misbehavior can be prevented without blocking. -- Nx / talk 09:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
By why do that when the page can be mod locked instead? Isn't that what they are for? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 09:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Then the user whose page it is can't edit it. -- Nx / talk 09:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC×~10)That would probably work no worse than this proposed system, probably a lot better. If a moderator is going to act, why should that act be the physical prevention of the 'offence' in this manner, rather than, I don't know, moderating? Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 09:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Then the user whose page it is can't edit it Then block the offending user for 5 minutes with the cavet that the next block will be for 30 mins - you know, moderating. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 09:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
So, now blocking users is moderating? When I did it, people were complaining that that isn't moderating. -- Nx / talk 09:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Because you blocked people in an assbackwards as fuck manner. The edit filter is completely superfluous. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 09:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Blocking is not going to work, because the popular user will be unblocked by his friends and then will cry abuse, and then it'll be taken to the chicken coop, where eventually people will vote against blocking because a) the community doesn't like to give out punishments, prefering to give people 'one more chance', b) the user is popular.
Aside from that, using the edit filter to block a user from editing only one page is less drastic than blocking them completely. Would you prefer to be blocked or just prevented from editing one page? -- Nx / talk 09:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The edit filter is completely superfluous. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 09:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? -- Nx / talk 10:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
There are several other tools we already have without having to layer yet another tool or function on top of it. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Not on top of it, whatever 'it' is. The edit filter is an alternative. -- Nx / talk 10:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
While I think you have a valid point, I honestly don't think the edit filter is a necessary tool for mods to have. There are probably some circumstances where it might be useful, but I don't think the hassle or risk of abuse is worth it. There are some possible benefits, but they don't outweigh the negatives.--ADtalkModerator 11:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm on the fence on this one, probably because I'm not sure I was aware edit filters even existed until a couple days ago, and I'm not entirely sure how they work. Nx has a point, though, preventing a user from editing a single page they are consistently vandalizing is considerably less heavy handed than blocking the user entirely. DickTurpis (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────While the tool allows for very subtle interventions, that is precisely what makes it so powerful and so suspiciously circumspect. Mods have the same interest in protecting our home as everyone else, and so they get the same loud and broad shotgun as everyone. We keep the silenced precision sniper rifle in a cabinet, and only get it out if we all agree.--ADtalkModerator 12:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about power grab. The edit filter should be for vandalism only. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 14:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, let's stop beating around the fucking bush here. Scenario: Ace McWicked repeatedly puts and cartoon of two naked men fondling each other on RobS's userpage. What happens? We can do nothing, we can block Ace, we can protect Rob's page so even he can't edit it, or we can make it so only Ace can't edit that one page. I like the last option. It seems to me this would fall under vandalism and therefore be allowed. Or are we talking about getting rid of editfilter altogether? DickTurpis (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In that scenario, a vote goes up on the coop. It might be to block Ace or to promote him and then protect the page, or it might be for an editfilter. The latter seems silly to me, but clearly we're not getting rid of the extension altogether (since it is, to my knowledge, very effective at keeping us free from those name-vandals for example). Whoever edits the filter in such an instance should only be allowed to do so because of the vote.--ADtalkModerator 14:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
But the Coop takes forever. The point of mods' immediate powers is to be able to stop these sorts of things as they are ongoing. If mod sees this currently happening (in this scenario Ace is especially tenacious (sorry Ace, I'm making you a bigger asshole than usual here, perhaps I should go back to "an editor")) what does he do as a quick fix while moderation occurs? Protecting the page might be a good option, as Rob can probably stand not to edit his user page for an hour or so, but what if it's a talk page which has other discussions going on? He can block Ace, sure, but if a mod's purview is to use the lightest touch necessary, then making a single editor not able to edit a single page for a short length of time fits the bill better than locking an entire page or blocking a user, doesn't it? DickTurpis (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Delete the image. I guess I assume good faith in most people and that given enough time it will work out, whether formally or informally. If you want to explore every scenario, then just install CheckUser and be done with it. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Then there'll be outrage because you deleted an image without discussion. -- Nx / talk 16:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
23 of the last 500 entries in the deletion log are files, of which there has been no protest. Inquiring minds want to know: did your socks change the course of the election? sterilesporadic heavy hitter 18:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Were any of those used to vandalize someone's userpage? -- Nx / talk 19:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It hardly matters; you can vandalize a page without using images. ASCII art, blanking, offensive comments, etc. The point is "delete the image" isn't going to work in every situation. If a user, any user, is repeatedly vandalizing a page, isn't limiting their ability to do so to that page a better solution than a block, which prevents them from editing any page? It sure seems less heavy handed to me. DickTurpis (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It is an infinitely better solution, and it could even be called the perfect embodiment of the "lightest touch" that mods are infamous for not following. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 19:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
And to clarify, like all similar mod actions, it would be temporary. No more than a few hours or whatever, preferably less. DickTurpis (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the edit filter something that non-techy mods can easily learn to use? We shouldn't have abilities that are only available to the minority of mods who are also techs, or that require a mod commandeering the services of a tech. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point. It's very simple and I could easily write up a guide on how to write elementary filters. I'd suggest that if mods want to learn to use it they can easily make themselves techs (and/or they can follow the community input/mod approval proposed procedure(s) below). Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me point out again the edit filter is not necessary for this purpose and secondly my concern that it is being promoted by the very two people who have abused tech rights in the past. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 20:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, so glad that mods are now an elitist group with special training for powerz. Open it to everyone to the least. You'd be suprised how many people know how to use regex. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
And the lightest touch has always been the slow revert. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, a slow revert wouldn't work in this case. The hypothetical was Ace persecuting someone with an image, and as we saw, slow reverts were not effective (nothing was, really, as long as Ace wanted to amuse himself). It has to be admitted that the edit filter would probably be the more effective and subtle tool, because it could selectively prevent a few very specific kinds of behavior.
But it is just too much power, flat-out. It can do too many things, and do them too quietly. Neither mods nor techs should have that level of power as their personal prerogative. There is a trade-off here, of course. But I think it's the sensible choice to make.--ADtalkModerator 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Or users could, you kn w, just ignore stuff that bothers them and focus on the parts of the wiki they enjoy editing, and thus decrease the overall drama level and the need for more rules and weapons. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 23:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
"Why won't people chill out" is probably about as effective as "why won't people get along." There will continue to be conflict.--ADtalkModerator 00:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Admittedly I'm coming at this from the angle of someone who doesn't know exactly what the edit filter is, so that might be part of the problem. As I said, being able to block a user form one page seems preferable from blocking him from the entire site. Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, and maybe a full synopsis of what it is and how it works is in order. The concept of it doing things quietly, which I asume means without a log in recent changes, is certainly worrisome. Is there a way to institute an "edit filter lite" or something, which could do some of the more minor things, but not be too far-reaching? Now, AD, you seem to argue that the edit filter is too powerful a weapon for any mere mortal, but I believe you also said it was necessary to prevent some of our user name vandals. Who are those two points reconciled? Also, are some people arguing that mods shouldn't have the ability but Techs should? Are we talking about the same group of Techs who, at this juncture, there is no policy for appointing, and therefore could be anybody, really? DickTurpis (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that mods or techs should have the tool, but that their use should be strictly limited to its agreed-on purpose, or specifically directed by a vote. Merely possessing the ability to edit the editfilter will not be dangerous, I don't think, if it is understood with ironclad strength that only the community can direct its use. And since I think we will and should continue to use it to stop the Springlyn vandals and the like, someone will have to possess the power to edit it. The parameters for that should just be strictly defined, and it should be understood that any violation is a flagrant abuse of power. --ADtalkModerator 00:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just let NX do whatever the hell he wants to with the edit filter behind the community's back. It's what's bound to happen anyway. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 21:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nx and Blue. They should be in charge and we can be the peons. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 21:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, why not two moderators and use socks to rig the election. That's it. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Guys, is it really so hard to believe that I am not trying to grab needless power so I can rule the wiki with an iron fist? That I might have, you know, something other than self-interest in mind when I make these suggestions? I'd thought we could make it past accusations of authoritarianism at every turn. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 23:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit filters edit break

WTF? Edit filters? I'm gone for like a year, and you all suggest taking the biggest dump of all time on RW and its heritage and tradition? FUCK THAT NOISE. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been there since 2010. Тypassive-aggressive sigs are the best sigs 21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Ty. But back the fuck and realise that Puellanivis is referring to it's use in moderation. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 22:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Ace. But my scheme is even more sinister. After I use the filter to moderate my way to dictatorship, I'll use it to implement Night Mode. The plan revealed! Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 22:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Blue - with you introduction here with that comment in response to my explanation as to what Eira was referring you have lost all authority to ever complain I am pushing grudges. Why, you can't help yourself it would seem in returning to arguments of the past. Well done, Blue. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 22:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Uh, this debate is less than two weeks old. Your grudge is over events that transpired well over a year ago. That makes you wronger than wrong. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 22:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, well done. And why do I have to repeat - I hold no grudges against you, I wasn't even around during that event. Thinking you're bitch and unctuous cunt does not require on to hold a grudge. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 22:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's review the situation. Eira made a comment decrying the suggestion - my suggestion - of using edit filters as something like the end of RW. I responded snarkily. It didn't matter what silly thing you'd said in the interim, because I was replying to the substance of Eira's comment. I was not injecting commentary into a topic that had nothing to do with me or my actions, nor was I doing so while attacking you. For you to accuse me of "pushing grudges" against you is not only ludicrous, but plainly dishonest. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 22:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It didn't matter what silly thing you'd said in the interim, because I was replying to the substance of Eira's comment. Hmmmmmmmm, I could have sworn your comment started - Yes, Ace... AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, crazy bitch. I don't care whose idea it is, it's a horrible one that will only bring down RW. Doesn't matter who says a bad idea, it's still a bad idea. (antithesis of ad hominem here?) I don't think it's part of anyone's plan to become dictator of the wiki, or anything like that, but rather that it just attacks the core traditions and heritage of this site. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
RW's heritage is embracing spammers and abusive usernames? That explains a lot. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 23:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Shall we demand that you change your username then? I mean "Stabby the Misanthrope"? ... that's obviously abusive... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Moderator responsibilities

My proposal to codify these responsibilities for moderators were generally well-received:

  • Moderators have a duty to enforce the will of the community. They cannot go against community decisions by unblocking properly banned users, etc.
  • Moderators have an obligation to alert their peers if a situation that needs moderating arises.
  • Post hoc, moderators have an obligation to answer questions from the community about their actions or lack thereof, on a designated page.

The following proposals concerning the maintenance of the institution caused no objections:

  • Moderators may resign at any time. A by-election will only be called if the number of mods falls below 5.
  • Any moderator account which remains inactive for two months will be summarily promoted, provided that the user is warned beforehand. [...]
  • Moderators who have clearly violated policy may be taken to the coop and recalled from the position. Forced removal of moderator rights can only be done by a community vote, and follows the established procedure for rights removal voting.

  Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You lost me at "banned users". Utterly. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Techs

There seemed to be the most disagreement about the tech position. The following options were presented and argued for regarding the election of techs:

  1. The ability to add the tech group should be rescinded from the moderators and allowed only to Trent
  2. Moderators should only appoint techs after community approval
  3. "Moderators have the power to appoint techs. This should only be done following the concurrence of at least three moderators, and applicants to the tech position are encouraged to detail exactly how they will make use of its powers." (My proposal)

And regarding the removal of tech rights:

  1. "Techs who have abused their powers or their mandate may be summarily promoted by a moderator. They can then appeal this decision to the full body of moderators, or the community if they allege abuse by the promoting moderator." (My proposal)
  2. "[H]ow techs are recalled should be a community decision, not a mod decision." (Weaseloid)

All seemed to agree that techs should not make sitewide changes without community input (except presumably in anti-vandalism/spam stuff). Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with weasel here - not really a mod issue. Techs can make more techs, btw. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
While this isn't entirely a mod issue, it is related, as regardless of how it's decided, it seems it will have to be the mods who actually create a Tech (or I guess another Tech can). This certainly needs to be decided, as it appears Techs have quite a number of powers that are open to abuse, and we have no system for appointing them. This is an HCM waiting to happen (OK, I've been crying wolf about them since they were created, and nothing much has happened yet, but just you wait). I think the "Trent only" option is a non-starter. Trent has been wanting to step away from his position of running Bartertown for a while. The "3 Mod" option isn't bad, as it prevents a mod from acting unilaterally, but still can be done without a huge hassle. I like the idea of community input, but I'm not sure how it would work. Do we want a weeklong vote for each one, or do we want to streamline the process. If we do have a vote, do we need to basically open up the mod election process each time, or do we have an open vote as we do in the Coop? A lot of people seem strongly opposed to anything but secret ballot for mods; would it be different for Techs? Should we have a forum in which the community can present support or opposition, but isn't entirely a vote, and the mods get to decide based on this input? There seem to be quite a few options here, but the mod creating one on a whim (which seems to be the current de facto method, if not the de jure one) should go. Also, should Techs have the ability and/or right to create other Techs? DickTurpis (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Why should moderators, who are for preventing and working on order, have anything to do with techs, who deal with site functioning? The only overlap is for vandalism. Trent ultimate is in charge of site functioning from a technical perspective. I'm also not sure that all of are mods are capable of assessing if some is capable of being a Tech, while Trent is. We also aren't exactly expanding our Tech pool in droves anyway; I think Trent can handle it. Given previous confusion of at least one of our moderators on the different roles, I think some separation is in order. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 14:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone has to have the actually physical ability to make someone a Tech. We could limit that to Trent only, but I don't know if Trent even wants this. Hell, Trent could get hit by a truck tomorrow. It seems then that mods will likely have to at least have this ability, the question being when they can use it. At their own discretion seems to be how its working now, and no one likes that, least of all me. It is true that the Tech job is one in which actual computer skills are needed, so a general popularity contest (i.e. election) might not be the best method either. I'd say if someone wants to be a Tech they write a brief proposal on why they should be and what skills they have. The community then has input, coming out as either for or against, or just making general comments and asking questions. Somehow out of that jumble we reach a conclusion, a process the mods (for lack of anyone else, and assuming we aren't handing Trent sole authority on this) may have a hand in. In the end, the box is clicked by a mod, because someone has to do that. Or we could leave it 100% up to Trent. DickTurpis (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Requiring community input is a terrific idea, but the community really shouldn't have to have a drawn-out vote on appointing techs. How about this as a synthesis: someone writes a proposal for why they should be a tech, the community comments, and based on that commentary, if three mods agree, they can make the decision. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 19:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Dick, it's "Trent gets hit by a bus", get with the program, that's the line I've used for years. Well, not here, but with him. Blue, isn't three mods an "undermajority"? And what do you mean by "vote"? As far as I have seen, the Tech position has been abused more than used. I say kill it. Let the Board, who own this place, appoint people who can edit the software that runs it. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Techs can't edit the software, as they have no server access. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I fucked up which vehicle eventually kills Trent; I wasn't aware there was an official meme, but of there's a pool, I'm calling drone strike. But sure, if we go with Blue's proposal, 4 mods makes more sense than 3, in a way. Though there have seen some somewhat absentee mods in the past, and the idea of there being 7 active mods might not reflect reality too well. Considering the number of mods we have is still being debated, setting a number here might be premature. DickTurpis (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
How many of our mods really have the ability, for example, to assess if someone has the ability to use the edit filter? Why would we presume that they would? sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Moderator elections

The Ace McWicked Plan

Several commentators expressed support for an election method under which each voter would get seven votes and would deliver all or none of them to one or more candidates. As to what would occur in the event of a tie for 7th place or alternate, a few solutions were proposed:

  1. Letting all tied users become mods, regardless of how many mods created
  2. Letting both tied users become mods in the event of a two-way tie, but have a run-off vote in the event of a three- or more-way tie
  3. Randomly select a winner

Voxhumana ran several simulations and argued that the chance of ties would greatly decrease if each voter received seven differently-weighted votes.

In any event, to preserve the secret ballot, Trent would need to be asked to write a new voting extension. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't reinvent the wheel as far as voting goes, there are many people with far more understanding of the system that have proposed multiple voting methods. Don't like STV, propose a better alternative that has actually been parsed. There are so many things that can go wrong with a voting system. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I understand STV as well as most others, and I think that in an optimal scenario we would stick with it. Others seem continually baffled by it and object to the seemingly fickle nature of delivering different results depending on the number of seats used (7 vs 9 in this case). Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest a complete and comprehensive explanation of how the STV werks, perhaps on the polling page itself in a collapse, so as not to be obtrusive for those well aware of how it works, but there, nonetheless, for the terminally clueless, such as myself, who're likely to have forgotten how the damn thing goes since they haven't used it for six months.--05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
While I understand STV, I'm still not a huge fan of it being used in this situation. It is confusing. Even most of us who understand it still need a computer program to give us the results. In the last two elections we haven't had the rundown of how the votes are eventually allocated, as we're supposed to. (We did initially for this election, but not for the amended results with 7 seats instead of 9.) The threshold for election is small, meaning even one or two socks can swing an election. I think the other way is worth a try. DickTurpis (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think what has to be emphasized with STV is that it's likely that only your first or second vote that will count, and that the effectiveness of your vote decreases almost exponentially as you go down the list. (I was naive to this until recently.) In many ways, it feels like the most fair system, although I don't know what the alternatives are. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there now a formal Candidate Questions Forum where the electorate is invited to pose questions to mod candidates, such as disclosure of the names and number of sockpuppets a candidate has? The candidate then goes on record as responding, lying, or ignoring the voters concerns. nobsCorporations are people, too

There is neither such a forum nor a requirement that candidates or mods answer any questions. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
So lets make one! Start a new thread! We must have one but lets vote on it first. How many questions to people get though? We need some rules first, but we need to vote on those too...and so forth... AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I was just answering Rob's question, Ace. Remember what I told you about injecting your grudge into unrelated discussion? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I hold no grudges, Blue. What makes you think my fairly accurate description of RW's current incarnation has anything to do with you? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone wants to ask questions of the candidates they are of course free to. The campaigning page might be the best spot to do that for now. DickTurpis (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There should be a Rationalwiki:Moderator elections/Candidate questions forum established as part of the process. Participation could be voluntary for a candidate, and let voters decide on a candidates willingness to participate in an established process. Likewise the truthfulness and candor of a candidate can be vetted by voters. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That is dumb. People can already ask all kinds of questions as they please, and it's all on record because this is a wiki. We don't need formal protocols for their own sake.--ADtalkModerator 11:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
UNLESS we want them! C®ackeЯ
Right. A candidate could avoid questions from the public unless there is a way to allow for public input and voluntary participation from candidates. The Candidate statement page could have a Q & A section where the public is invited to ask questions of individual candidates. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants to do that, they already can! We don't need a rule!--ADtalkModerator 21:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Franchise!

A change to the franchise requiring not only 75 lifetime edits, but 75 edits within the three months before the election was widely supported to reduce socks voting. Disenfranchising bots was a definite reform. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No one appears seriously opposed to this, which is good.--ADtalkModerator 11:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
While not opposed, per se, I'd draw your attention to my post in the "How Many Mods?" section below about the number of electors compared to the number of mods. Restricting the franchise will make the voters per moderator level even more ridiculous than it currently is. rpeh •TCE 11:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a ridiculous ratio is fine if it eliminates a few sockpuppets. Disenfranchising bots should be uncontroversial and done as soon as we can. Again, the only issue there is that someone could "un-bot" their bots for 2 minutes, vote, and the re-bot them, perhaps without notice. And even if noticed, if they say "but they didn't vote while they weren't bots!" how can we prove them wrong? DickTurpis (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it seemed like social pressure would have been enough, but Nx proved that wrong.--ADtalkModerator 13:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This will help but not fix the problem, but have no idea for a better solution. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 16:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing

This is a minor thing, but I'd like it if we could list candidates in the dropdown in reverse-alphabetical every other election, or something similar like that (whatever's easiest). I think that being near the front of the alphabetized list has probably unfairly helped me a lot, so it makes sense to eliminate that factor if it's reasonably simple to do so.--ADtalkModerator 13:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think we're smart and rational enough that we're not falling into that trap. Just to be sure, I'd like to change my handle to AArdvark during election season. DickTurpis (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In marginal cases, alphabetical bias has been shown to be a factor in election outcomes. Here is a paper. But maybe I am being silly, I don't know. Thought it was worth a mention in case it was just really easy to do.--ADtalkModerator 13:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the success of WaitingforGodot and Weaseloid I'm not entirely sure this is a problem. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think your reasoning is very good here. Just because several people far down on the ballot were elected does not meant that their position didn't hurt them.--ADtalkModerator 23:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet is there a way to fairly resolve this? Even if we randomized the order, and provided that you're correct, there would still be bias toward the top of the list. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 23:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Right now I don't think there's any evidence that listing order has made any difference on this site. AD, you do well because you're a stand up guy who has an iota of sense and seems to take the job seriously without taking it too seriously. Ace does well because he's a fun guy we all like and has that "bad boy" edge without being actually dangerous (good looking guy too; that can't hurt). Tell you what, we'll run this guy next time around and see how well he does. If he's a mod in 6th months, I will issue you a formal apology for doubting your analysis. DickTurpis (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
We can take an easy step to just minimize this bias. I'm not saying people like myself, Ace, and Blue wouldn't have won otherwise. But it might well have been a factor for a lower-information vote who started with #1 and went on down, picking the first name he saw that he recognized and liked. A slight bias does not mean the voters are stupid or that the mods are illegitimate or anything else like that, it's just a slight bias that seems like it could be easily reduced by swapping back and forth between alphabetical and reverse alphabetical. Yes, it won't be eliminated and will never be decisive, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't want to make a big deal out of this, though, because if I'm the only one this bothers, then I'm probably blowing it out of proportion. :)--ADtalkModerator 00:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
You know, now that I think about it as applied to STV, you may have a point. People who think "I'm going to vote for Dick Turpis, because he's totally awesome and I want to have his babies, but also AD, Ace, Blue, and that punk guy from Minnesota!" might see you and Ace ahead of me and make you guys #1 and #2, relegating me to something like #4, which is basically a wasted vote, even though I am clearly their #1 choice. This seems to be very obviously what happened numerous times. Misunderstanding how STV works can only compound this. Another reason to go to "The Ace System" (which, less face it, was proposed by numerous people before Ace stuck his name on it). DickTurpis (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How many mods?

There seems to be a widespread assumption that seven is the correct or most desirable number of moderators, but there has never had an adequate explanation why. I don't think is enough. For one thing, there should be at least one mod around at any time, in case some sort of shit kicks off. Ideally there should be more than one, so that when a mod steps in, others can see what's going on & comment if they thinbk the other mod is acting unfairly. I also think the small number of mods gives the role an undue weight. The community grows & changes, but the same few longstanding editors continue to be either elected or close runners-up, leaving smaller chances for anyone new emerging. This can lead to the perceptions of an oligarchy or cabal. The elections are unnecessarily competitive, since candidates have to convince the community not only that they're competent for the job, but that they're better than those other guys. I would favour about twice as many moderators, maybe more. The best solution would be some kind of election system where the number of mods appointed would be roughly proportionate to the size of the electorate. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In the election we just had there were 21 candidates and 74 non ballots. Remove the known socks and you end up with ~65-67 votes. I dare say there are some unknown socks that would reduce the ballot pool further. That means we're already electing fully a third of the candidates who stand (not even including alternates), and over 1 in 10 of the franchise. Personally I think those figures are already absurdly high. LowKey might have been trolling as usual when he suggested "This result shows that there are too many mod positions", and I certainly don't agree with his line of reasoning but I think he has a point.
Seven seems to me to be the upper limit for the number of moderators given the number of active users. There are already enough mod-level arguments going on without adding two more people and increasing the potential for strife by 9!-7! rpeh •TCE 07:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think seven is a decent number, as well. But anything between five or ten is also acceptable. There shouldn't be any philosophical problem, with that, after all - the only reason I disliked the old 'crat "demote everyone" system was just because it seemed to be really obviously not working as it failed in spectacular fashion every two months. Clearly we don't dislike numerous mods/crats on principle. Remember, mods aren't leaders or superusers except in the most informal sense - they are elected only because indiscriminate gifting of their very mildly increased power was causing trouble.
Plus, there are easily two dozen people that I'd happily trust as mods. So even as many as ten would seem perfectly acceptable to me.--ADtalkModerator 12:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to justify a certain number, unless check of one mod by others. Certainly some minimum and some maximum are reasonable. One thought would be a percentage of active users at the time before the election, which would level some swings in site activity. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 16:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Plus, there are easily two dozen people that I'd happily trust as mods. So even as many as ten would seem perfectly acceptable to me. I don't see the logic here. If you trust two dozen or more people, why should less than half of them get the job? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the thing with this proposal. Not everyone agrees that particular editors are trustworthy. There are some particularly controversial editors who might well be elected with a lower threshold. A number like 7 - which still means that over 10% of our voters are mods - means that people need a great deal of approbation from all or most corners to be elected. The bureaucrat system served us well when the weather was fair, but keep in mind that a 'cratship was essentially a friendship bracelet. A very notable editor was/is of the strong opinion that if he had a button that said he could exercise a power, then he had the right to exercise that power because RW "has no rules." That was the 'crat system embodied - everyone had the rights, so in theory, nobody did. Didn't work out so great in practice.
The point of my ramble is to say that I am strongly opposed to expanding the number of mods beyond 7, and have been since before the system's inception when I proposed to limit the number of bureaucrats to 7. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Not everyone thinks the mods are trustworthy, and I still don't see what's the magic of 7. Who says it didn't work out in practice? There was far, far, far less conflict than there is now. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Why 7? Why not 10? Why not go back to having 'crats again? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 21:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Again why seven? What's so magical about this number in particular? All I can find to back this up is - from the original proposal - "a set number of individuals . . . Let’s say 7 people". That and presumably the legacy of the useless Loya Jirga. Blue, your argument jumps back & forth between issues about the number of mods/crat & what;'s expected of them. You suggest that the problem with the bureaucrat system was the lack of any firm criteria or standards on how crats were selected or should behave, therefore there shouldn't be more than seven mods? If the problem was lack of guidelines, we introduce some, like we're already doing here. That doesn't prove that seven is a more sensible number than any other. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Sterile, I disagree that the 'crat system produced less conflict (maybe comparing '07 with '12, but that's not a lot) or is inherently better than the mod system. Keep in mind that I would fully support returning to the 'crat system provided that we actually make an attempt to introduce reforms that would prevent another May/June-type conflagration. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 23:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
introduce reforms that would prevent another May/June-type conflagration Make sure Blue isn't a 'crat. Problem solved. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What problem would that solve, Aceykins? Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It would have stopped you wheel warring over Human's 'crating of sterile. And it just sounds sensible. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Why are you trying to restart the battles last summer, Ace? Good gods, it's been over a year. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 00:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
You asked what problem it would solve and I told you. Don't ask if you don't want an answer. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I was talking about a future problem. We can't fix problems that occurred in the past. That's how we understand spacetime now, at least. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 00:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Future problems like the May 2011 can be avoided by making sure Blue is not a 'crat. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize how stupid that sounds or are you under the influence? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What's stupid about it? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
You might have very well said "future problems like the May 2011 can be avoided by making sure Human is not a 'crat" (unilateral demotions), or Armondikov (mass de-crattings), Nx (mass de-sysoppings), or SuspectedReplicant (starting the Trial of Human), and it would be equally valid. Nobody wants to re-fight those battles. Except you and Nutty and Human and assorted grudge-holders. Can we just, at long last, put this to rest? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Blue, you utter liar! YOU started the "trial of Human". My contempt for you has reached a new level. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
My involvement (as SR) in the trial of Human came before I realised what the motives of certain people were. If I could take that all back, I would. rpeh •TCE 05:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, could have said those things but I am talking to you specifically and you were the one warring with Human over something that technically wasn't against community standards at the time (if I remember right). AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Now you're arguing that you can do anything that's not explicitly against the standards, regardless of precedent broken or asshattery involved? Anything to defend you and your friends, Ace, even a complete reversal of personal opinion over the course of two days, right? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Not what I am arguing at all but your reaction to it was ridiculous. Defend my friends? What rubbish, I have been harshly critical of Human in the past (and he was pretty damned cross about it too). Which personal opinion was reversed? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Scenario A: Human unilaterally demotes an editor. I reverse it, assuming that precedent is on my side and unilateral demotions are not on. You and Human argue that since it wasn't against the standards, Human was within his rights to do it.
Scenario B: Blue unilaterally put an edit filter in place. Ace reverses it, assuming that Blue doesn't have the authority. Blue argues that since there is no official policy, she was within her rights to do it.
Is there a substantive difference here? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The scenarios are not equivalent. Do you realise I was made a 'crat by fiat? The others has been also without such hoo-ha and bellyaching? There was precedent here. The edit filter in the manner you used it had none and, as I said, not equivalent considering the people involved, the functions used and the rules of the day. Not even closely equivalent. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I was made a 'crat by fiat too (several users' fiat, actually). But none of the recent 'crats leading up to May had been by fiat. That practice had largely died off by the time Human realized he had a button and was feeling generous toward Sterile. But honestly, who still cares about this? It was a big argument on a website that happened over a year ago. Even I put aside most of my grudges a few months out. If you want to debate the merits of the 'crat system please do, but don't inject your grudge against me into that discussion. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Once again, Blue lies through its teeth. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't trying to open said grudge - we got here quite organically. Hell, I wasn't even around during that disaster - I was in Thailand. But your position on this is bullshit, and that goes for your fucking stupid edit filter idea which is largely opposed. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"...are you under the influence? " I'll assume that question is rhetorical. DickTurpis (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The 'crat system worked when the wiki was smaller, less diverse, and contained about 90% bitching, moaning, and drama. It largely revolved around who Human liked and how drunk Trent was at any given time. Not a sustainable system. DickTurpis (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Not a sustainable system." No less so than what we have here, and it involved a lot less work. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 00:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No reason this isn't sustainable; though we do need to work out the specifics. It did hit the retail market in an unfinished state, I'll admit (and said at the time) but we're working on that now. The Old Boys Network of the past really has been outgrown. But if anyone wants to get back to the subject of this section, I see no reason for to restrict us to 7 mods, though I do think there needs to be a reasonable limit. The more we have, the greater the chances for serious conflict within the mods themselves, which woud just be more headache for everyone. DickTurpis (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"though we do need to work out the specifics..." We've had the mods for more than a year. If the specifics haven't been worked out by now, maybe that's because nobody cares enough about the institution to put the effort in. How many editors do we have? How many votes were cast in the last election minus Nx's socks? Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 02:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit a ragtag gang of atheists tends not to be the most organized bunch. Some people care, others don't. In general people tend not to care as long as things are going their way, but do a pretty quick about-face when they don't. If we're going to have mods (and it appears for the time being, we are) it's best to decide what exactly that means. If we're not, and we go back to the old anything goes model, we need to prepare for "I can do whatever I want!" - "I can too!" - and when they contradict one another, it's a mobius strip of fuckery. DickTurpis (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit a ragtag gang of atheists tends not to be the most organized bunch We are also quarrelsome and socially challenged. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Goddamnit! I hate it when I prove Kenny right! DickTurpis (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Dick, look at this page. Look at Blue's talk page. It's a moebius strip of old grudges, insults, beefs and fuckery now. Nothing is getting done. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 02:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's your standard portion of bitching pissants. It isn't HCM though. People arguing is fine. Healthy even. I don't see any wheel warring going on. DickTurpis (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's what we need

We need an old fashioned Skype chat for everyone. Call the old cabal, and the newer cabal as well. Call the roller of big cigars! Let's get everyone to talk face to face (or at least voice to voice) just this once. Everyone's less of a shithouse bastard when you actually need to converse. It's been far too long. More than a year, I'm sure. We all have Skype accounts, don't we? If you don't, get one, they're free. The usernames are there, you just need to ask what they are. I've got a few beers in me, and some wines as well. Even Human acts human when you're talking directly (though not less drunk, but that's a good thing!). Which of you motherfuckers is with me here? DickTurpis (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the "like" button on this damn website? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm at work trying very hard to figure a PR strategy for an upcoming conference. If I don't get the numbers they need then on my head it'll be...otherwise I'd be keen AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, Ace, in what sort of Third World pseudo-English is that even a coherent sentence? DickTurpis (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I work, need PR strategy, must make people attend conference, if no attend I trouble. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd be keen but I don't have any of the necessary equipment for Skype. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Like a computer connected to the internet? You're such a dumbass. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
more than that. Sophiebecause liberals 17:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No face? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
With multi-person Skype even a face is superfluous. A computer is essential, but I'd hazard a guess we all have access to those. DickTurpis (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Any microphone I try to use bursts into flames upon hearing the guttural, deathly tongue of Mordor in which I frequently mutter to myself. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
And now you are just full of shit. Bring it on. I can easily host a 20-person Skype chat. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry Human, do you mean to imply that Blue was not 100% honest when she said microphones burst into flames when she speaks into them? I think you owe someone an apology. DickTurpis (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I do. Human, I'm sorry, I lied about my microphone problem; it's just my face is so ugly that cameras that record my horrible visage always shatter into a thousand screaming pieces. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. DickTurpis (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Gu kibum kelkum-ishi, burzum-ishi. Akha-gum-ishi ashi gurum. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I may have to admit defeat in a a geek-off here. Thankfully, that may be a win/win situation. (Though googling that phrase does at least let me know what I'm dealing with). DickTurpis (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
you people sicken me. I am going to have a beer I think. Stimulate my PR creativity. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I drank all my beer a while ago. I'm on wine now. Whisky or rum is fast approaching. DickTurpis (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
My receptionist wants to go out and buy champagne for everyone but I just want beer and to ponder. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Champagne is shit. One of my best friend's favorite drinks is sparkling rosé. I have to suppress the urge to kick him in the nuts every time we drink together. DickTurpis (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Wait, what? Him? Nuts? Fuck him up, he sounds like a queer. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
In that sense he does. However, he is the only one of that close circle of friends who has produced solid evidence that he has fucked a woman, in the form of a tiny human female. The rest of us just have our old hearsay society. (Yeah, I cannot conclusively prove the offspring is his, but he's my friend and I have to give him benefit of the doubt.) DickTurpis (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Wait, he had a child or fucked a woman who was tiny and human? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Very possibly both, but certainly the former. DickTurpis (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If I can get my copy of Skype to work for over ten minutes, I can do text-based chat. I suppose that doesn't really help toward what Dick was proposing. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I want you to wear headphones when I yell at you. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
(: Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Text based chat? Aren't we doing that right now? Jesus, what sort of computer do you use, an Apple 2E? DickTurpis (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Exploration of the edit filter

There's been quite a lot of talk about the edit filter on this page, but it has occurred to me that I, and I assume many others, dont really have a clear idea of what the damn thing is. So far I've learned it can do the following:

  • Prevent a user from being able to edit a certain page.
    • This seems potentially useful, as it is less heavy handed than a full block, if someone is just being troublesome in one particular place.
  • Make a user see a warning before editing a certain page.
    • Seems pretty minor, as far as powers go, but of questionable usefulness.
  • Prevent certain usernames from being created
    • It's been pointed out that this is pretty useful, and has stopped a lot of accounts from being created whose sole purpose is to troll specific users or praise Hitler
  • Level a small city [citation needed]

It seems it has other far-reaching powers, though what they are doesn't appear to have been made terribly clear. RationalWiki:Edit filter is rather vague on what it does and how. It's being discussed like the One Ring; it clearly has great power, but it's never explained exactly what that power is. It's also been said that it does things "quietly", which I guess means without leaving an obvious log, which is certainly a significant issue. Is there someone in the know who can explain factually and neutrally what it can do, how it works, and where its greatest potential for abuse lies? A discussion as to whether mods, techs, neither, both, or whatever should have this power isn't going to be terribly useful until those participating know what's being discussed. DickTurpis (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The abuse filter works by looking at all the information about the action being taken, such as the username (or part of it), the user rights of the user, the page name, the namespace, any text added etc, and matching it to a set of conditions. The full list of potential outcomes is here, but they include the prevention of the action, the displaying of a warning, the blocking of the user attempting to do so, promotion of the user, and even apparently rangeblocking the user. It's an extremely powerful tool. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 00:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
So yes, it can really do anything you want (perhaps more useful would be a list of what it can't do). It does things quietly in that other users are unlikely to know what's going on unless they check the applicable log. Changes to the filter appear in RC, but as almost all are private you can't actually tell what's been changed. The power to do that kind of thing corrupts, so the one ring comparison is apt. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 00:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Give it to us, Deagol. It's my birthday and I wants it! DickTurpis (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh. Was that in any of the books or just the movie? I can't remember. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Books. I'm sure it's not an exact quote, though, just what I can do from memory. DickTurpis (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The applicable log is Special:AbuseLog. It's only secretive in the sense that it doesn't appear on RC. The reason it's been called "quiet" is because it is much less likely to cause a wheel-war over blocks and page protections, which are indiscriminate. The filter is "quiet" because it can be used so far fewer users or pages are affected. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Blue, give it up. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Give it up, liberals! Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, am I right in thinking this awesome power, this trifle Sauron fancies, is in the hands of a handful of Techs at the moment? How is that not a problem? DickTurpis (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion is surrounding its broader application as a moderating tool. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and the discussion seems to be going in the direction of not giving mods this tool at all, which isn't a terrible decision. In the meantime we have a group of people with little oversight, who apparently can be appointed at the whim of any mod, able to destroy any trace that Ace McWicked ever existed (OK, maybe I'm overstating its power at this point). I mean, who the hell is AltezaAzul? DickTurpis (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the name means "Other Blue."--ADtalkModerator 01:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The userpage claims otherwise. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 02:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess I could have answered my own question by clicking the page, but anyway, so it seems Blue had her Tech rights taken away but her sock didn't? Why did her sock need these powers anyway? I guess the specific answers aren't as important as the fact that the Tech system is, well, not even coherent enough to be described as a system. What are we going to do about this? DickTurpis (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
How was Ace to know? Blue would probably have made her sock a tech to test something, as you do. Yes, the tech system needs codifying in some way. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The tech system needs codifying? Sounds to me like MOOAARRR RRRUUUULLLLLEEZZZZZZZ!!!!!111!!1!!!1!!! DickTurpis (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the edit filters in place none of them need to be private so made them public, at least the ones actually enabled. The only time you need to "private" them is in cases like the goatse vandal where seeing what we put in would negate its effect. And those can be used on a temporary basis. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

10 and 11 should also be private. -- Nx / talk 06:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I highly doubt spammers are checking our edit filter configuration to see what urls they can post or not. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What now?

As this is in danger of stagnating with nothing being achieved, I suggest we move forward with drafting some moderator guidelines based on what we can agree on. We can then either carry on squabbling about the other issues, or put them to one side for now.

There are various pieces of drafted wording further up this page which can be gathered together with the original moderator outline (see RationalWiki:Moderators and Forum:Moderators) to be worked into guidelines. There seems to be broad agreement that the roles of moderators should be to moderate conflicts, take action to prevent or limit HCM, oversee or bootstrap policy & coop discussions, and enact community decisions. Actions taken by mods on their own initiative (blocking, locking, desysoping etc.) should be temporary measures, to deal with a situation which could get ugly, and should be no more restrictive than necessary (i.e. no longer than necessary, warnings first, blocked users can still edit their talk page if appropriate). Decisions to block or remove user rights for longer should be taken by community rather than mods.

Re the aspects of the role we're still not agreed on, the following proposals can be filed under "controversial".

  • Use of sysoprevoke
  • Use of edit filters for warnings and restrictions
  • Moderators making group decisions on behalf of the community, in the event of turmoil

A few of us have suggested that these things would be useful, although I haven't seen anyone claim they're essential, and so far at least as many editors have opposed them as supported them. So I suggest shelving them for now. If we come up against a situation later where we think "wow, that thing could have really helped us out here", maybe we can revisit the issue then.

That leaves the following issues undecided, which we should try to settle before the next election, if not sooner.

  • How many moderators are appropriate?
  • How should they be elected?
  • How should techs be selected?

ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I want not approve on it, I think polite post.
But in all seriousness, great work. "Bootstrapping" discussions like this is tiresome stuff, as I know firsthand. I agree that sysoprevoke, edit filters and the Loya Jirga powers can be filed away for discussion at a later date, but we should still set a temporary policy for the first two, so people at least have an inkling of when to (not) use them.
As for "how many mods," I still favor seven. If we put in place enforceable policies on the manner of election and removal of moderators, I would be open to having lots more.
Other electoral systems would be easier for everyone to understand, true, but STV is the fairest system. Trent is also unlikely to want to reinvent the wheel for the voting extension, for good reason.
Either tech appointment should be subject to the agreement of multiple mods (3 or 4), or the community at large in a system like our bureaucrat elections or Wikipedia's RfAs. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Stop fucking pushing your edit-filter orgasm. The vast majority don't want it used as a moderation tool - policy complete. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Stop attempting to silence dissent with various argumenti ad populum. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't play cute - read the fucking page. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that there's no measurable consensus on this issue. Your assertions that "the vast majority don't want it" are backed by comments by several people on this page, but not an actual poll. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So, based upon what we know the edit-filter isn't wanted as a mod tool. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you put five minutes' effort in and provide some evidence for that blanket assertion? I'm sure you can find it. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't play cute - read the fucking page. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the link. Since you have overwhelming support, why don't you go ahead and add a prohibition against moderating with the filter? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What part of don't play cute did you not understand? The edit filter is not required nor wanted as a mod tool based upon the views expressed on this page. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What's stopping you from adding the prohibition to the Standards, then? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Because it isn't part of the mod tool-box. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
As mods can easily make themselves techs, it can easily be added to the toolbox. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The edit-filter is not required nor wanted for a moderating tool. I don't need to add it to the community standards because if you use it as such I'll take the ability away from you. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Taking away tech powers is not required nor wanted for a moderating tool. If you use it as such I'll take the ability away from you. (See how easy it is to make these kinds of assertions?) Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The edit-filter is not required nor wanted for a moderating tool. I don't need to add it to the community standards because if you use it as such I'll take the ability away from you. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you a child? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Nearly 32. I have had a good run too. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
And you never learned that simply repeating the same comment verbatim doesn't further your argument? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Repetition works. I see below you have conceded that the edit-filter shouldn't be used as a mod tool. Thanks. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the summary, Wealoid! I agree that we should shelve those three controversial issues for now, and we should hold some votes on the other issues. Let's agree on some options for the votes.
How many mods? Seems like good options would be 7, 10, and 20? That seems to generally represent a reasonable range of views. There still exist a few people who want to just dump the whole system, too, but I'll get to that in a moment.
How should they be elected? Not sure, but I suppose "Current system" will be one of the options, as well as whatever a brief summary of the other plan listed above.
How should techs be selected? "A majority of mods can appoint or remove a tech" might be one option (yikes), "The Foundation should select them and remove them" is another (my preference), and a third "Maintain the status quo and ad-hoc system".
Finally, there's the issue of keeping the mod system. Sterile, Ace, and Human have been arguing that we should just dump the whole thing as a failure, and that things have been worse with it than before. I think that it's true that things were golden under the old crat system a long while ago, but they kept getting worse and didn't seem likely to improve. Still, this is largely perceptual, since it's impossible to measure (even a collation of each system's HCMs would be beside the point, since it would miss a lot of low-level cronyism and abuse). But I do think that the community should hold one final, big vote on this thing. I just don't think it should be right now or bundled up in this, since the hassle of settling issues and the recent election and kvetching will be prejudicial - "Remember the good old days when we didn't have to deal with this?" So I would suggest holding a vote on the three issues above now, quietly and calmly, and then in two or three months holding one big solid vote on the mod system as a whole: keep or trash? It will yield better conclusions all-around, and we can settle it.
Thoughts?--ADtalkModerator 02:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well done, AD. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ace, I said about the same things as him, but you had to inject grudge material about the edit filter into your response to my original comment. See the pattern?
AD - For selection of techs, why did you neglect to mention community approval (like our 'crat elections or WP's RfAs)? Also, a vote would be my preference, but there is a sizable faction vehemently opposed to voting on anything nowadays. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Because AD doesn't want to use the edit-filter. Why do you mention grudges? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
AD: I agree that we should shelve those three controversial issues for now
Blue: I agree that sysoprevoke, edit filters and the Loya Jirga powers can be filed away for discussion at a later date
Where in my post was I "fucking pushing [my] edit-filter orgasm"? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see you have realised the edit-filter is not wanted nor required as a mod tool. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a productive discussion.--ADtalkModerator 02:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't, and I'm sorry I let myself take Ace's bait and go down to his level for a bit there. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Blue, that's a good idea. I'll add that to my list of options.
How many mods?
  • 7
  • 10
  • 20
How should they be elected?
  • Current system: STV via Swedish-Benzelkruger system (not actually a thing)
  • ?
How should techs be selected?
  • "A majority of mods can appoint or remove a tech"
  • "Community vote."
  • "The Foundation should select them and remove them"
  • "Maintain the status quo and ad-hoc system"
More thoughts?.--ADtalkModerator 02:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
For number of mods percentage of active users/voters? Or maybe no limit (ala elect new ones old ones stay on till they retire/removed)? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Should mods also be techs AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
For vote options the only real alternative I have seen is approval voting, but we also have the issue of voting eligibility, voter registration, sock puppets, etc. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Edited:In the spirit of our own standards, which read, in part:RationalWiki is a mobocracy. Some would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the way things are done around here"). But the most helpful description is that, in the course of numerous talk page discussions and edits to articles, a rough consensus emerges. Hence the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies. Please keep in mind that the standards below are only an approximation of the site's working practices.: "How many mods"? As many as we had crats--in other words, no determined number, let it evolve organically. "How should they be elected"? They shouldn't. If a mod sees a potential mod comin' through the rye, they should be ambushed and modded and let the mobocracy sort out any disagreements. "How should techs be selected?" This one is a little dicey, given what comes wiith those powers.. Someone should show cause that they have need for tech rights, and the Board should do what it thinks is right to ensure that there are enough techs going around. Beyond that, I'm open to suggestions.Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 03:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Good plan. I like the ToP doctrine. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If a mod sees a potential mod comin' through the rye, they should be ambushed and modded and let the mobocracy sort out any disagreements. Extremely regressive policy here. One of the reforms we got out of last May (before the arrival of the mods and techs) was a requirement that the community at least appear to be consulted before a demotion was made to 'crat. This system of approval before demotion was actually in place for a while before the big kerfuffle, but it was uncodified.
the Board should do what it thinks is right to ensure that there are enough techs going around If a moderator truly intended to hurt the site, they could accomplish it rather quickly because we have complete control over user rights. In order to prevent this possibility, the power to appoint techs would have to be rescinded from mods; Trent would have to make techs server-side at the behest of the Board (who don't meet that often anyway). If a tech account then went haywire, nobody would be able to stop it except Trent, who is not always watching 24/7. I think your idea is good in theory, ToP, but in practice it could be needlessly complicated and possibly dangerous. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
well, we'd better vote on setting the parameters to convene a committee to discus potential procedures for a consideration of a revision of the community standards, because there is obviously a growing gap between those theories and their practice. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 03:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where I offended you, but it wasn't my intent. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ergo This system of approval before demotion was actually in place for a while before the big kerfuffle, but it was uncodified. I was wrong to kick of last May in wheel warring with Human.
If a moderator truly intended to hurt the site, they could accomplish it rather quickly because we have complete control over user rights ADK and Nx actively hurt that site. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You do remember how after Armondikov mass de-cratted everyone, I was the one who fucking restored everyone's cratships? Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I remember being on a beach in Thailand at the time. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't excuse selectively remembering only the parts which cast me in a negative light. And how was Thailand, I hear it's very nice over there. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC)Ergo, How should voter eligibility be determined?
  • All accounts with 75 lifetime edits and 3 months since registration [status quo]
  • All accounts with 75 edits in the 3 months before the election
For sock puppets, there's this question too: How should the "eligible" usergroup work?
  • All eligible accounts are implicit members and can vote [status quo]
  • Accounts that aren't [known] sock puppets must be manually added to this usergroup in some way
  • [Known] sock puppet accounts should be added to a usergroup which prevents voting, i.e. like "voterevoke"
Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
All this eligibility bullshit makes RW sound like the UN. Jesus, this is a small website not a fucking new democracy. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Tmtoulouse raised the issue and I responded. Ace, everyone knows you don't care for these discussions, so I'm not sure why you continue to actively participate in them. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit button #17

"...standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 03:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an issue that some of these things are contradictory or moot depending on what other options are choosen. If we move to have no limit on mods, appointed randomly then voting methods and eligibility are pointless. We need to figure out how many mods first, limited or unlimited, how limited, etc. Then voting methods, then eligibility makes sense to talk about. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hyperbole aside, I suggest the most practical next step is to setup a vote for how the mod system should look. Status quo, permanent appointments, voting but fewer/more mods, percentage based, etc. etc. Once that is settled the other questions of voting methods, eligibility, and rights narrow in scope. — Unsigned, by: Tmtoulouse / talk / contribs 04:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally I favour an open-ended number of mods. I don't think a small fixed number is in the spirit of mobocracy, & in fact most sites don't limit their number of mods or admins, so that the number can increase with the community. & I think that some sort of approval voting system would be fairer than any competitive vote in which there are only a small number of winners. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that further discussion is not going to be very helpful right now. It is time for a vote. Or a vote about a vote. Or something, anyway. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 07:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion is the most important part of the process. When people start saying "no more talking, just vote", we end up with messy inconclusive results. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I should have stressed the "or something" part more. Point was that the discussion, on this page at least, was then going nowhere but turdblossomland. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth

The entire situation we are in now was predicated on some really bad decisions by a handful of users. Now, I wasn’t on site at the time and wasn’t around for the fallout either but in the simplest terms we are now debating about systems that were forced on the site by people misusing the rights they had. This, in my opinion, means the Moderator system has no legitimacy whatsoever. All these discussions about ‘eligibility’, ‘how many moderators’ and the like are hollow, empty and worthless. Nx and ADK should have been strung up. It’s fucking embarrassing watching this formally grand place get overrun by boring rule makers desperate to feel good about mindless bureaucracy because their own miserable lives are so bereft of real interactions with people that they need to express their neurotic leanings here. It’s a god damned fucking tragedy and since the last attempt managed to bring us this far I am itching closer and closer to doing myself and just to end this horrible experiment. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nx and ADK were not the ones that imposed this "hollow, empty and worthless" system. It was my proposal, based on a month+ of community feedback after watching the existing system fail repeatedly after a change in the number and relationships of users. I think the view that the old system was fine till that one event is selective memory and people seem to have very rose tinted glasses on viewing the past. The supposed rule making has been pretty damn limited too. There is very little substantial differences between the way things are run now and in 2007, feel free to offer actual specific examples to contradict what I say. 99 percent of the "meta" discussion I have seen is nothing but unsupported conjecture from all sides. Sometimes you need rules, for example, eligibility. If your voting for people to do things you have to discuss voter eligibility. Even if its "no standards" (which is ridiculous, shall any spam bot that makes 1 edit be allowed to vote for board members?). Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It was still predicated on a particular event which, had it not happened I don't believe we'd be here. And this system sucks. You accuse me of rose tinted glasses? The site is in as bad shape now than it has been at other times. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Just for kicks I went to the very first archive in the community standards discussion, and the meta discussion about policy is pretty damn similar to what we have here (minus the sniping between a few users, and a smaller number of people). Also the policy proposals were far more cumbersome and complicated then anything proposed here. See the Fibonacci blocking scheme discussion. Again I restate my thesis, there is substantially little change in how things are done now and in the first weeks of the site. The biggest being the issues we face are much more clear and distilled with much more specific and practical suggestions. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. This is fucking hopeless. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to offer evidence or specifics at any time, as I have noted in more than one place, taking random pot shots at people trying to be proactive is both rhetorically and practically limited. Try making some counter proposals too, might find some traction then. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Like I have said in more than one place also - this is fucking hopeless. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In the mean time though

How exactly would a non-fixed number of mods work? Are we talking 'everyone who gets more than n votes' here? Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 07:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Some possibilities: each election sets x% of active users elected mods, each election we increase the number of moss by x, and don't get rid of previously elected mods (not sure this is feasible), turn the mod position into a less-powerful bureaucrat in three old style of unilateral and random demotions or use community approval voting, etc. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 08:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Back from work

Setting up a vote, with revised list of prospective questions. I am not including the above proposals where there are an indefinite amount of mods, which will fall into the "get rid of the whole system" plan. In two months, the major system vote will include that as a sort of blend of the crat and mod system, as well as "retain the current mod system," "restore the system of anarchic crats," and "no system." Proposed questions and the choices: How many mods?

  • "7"
  • "10"
  • "20"
  • "Roughly the number of eligible voters, divided by ten."

How should they be elected?

  • "Current system: STV"
  • "Simple voting: each voter may cast seven equally weighted votes for seven candidates."

How should techs be selected?

  • "A majority of mods can appoint or remove a tech."
  • "Community votes may appoint or remove any mod."
  • "Techs should be merged into mods."
  • "The Foundation should select them and remove them."
  • "Maintain the status quo, ad-hoc system."

Who is eligible to vote?

  • "The current system: any editor whose account has existed for more than three months and who has more than 75 edits."
  • "Only those editors who have made at least 75 edits within the last three months."

Please avoid the temptation to vent your frustration here with squeals about how terrible everything is or how much you hate someone. If you disagree with someone's suggestions and then follow them around just to disagree with them, it makes you look petty and destroys your ability to appear like an intelligent commentator. Also remember that we want to distill this vote down to choices that represent the broadest range of options, but once we get much beyond four or five different choices, it reduces the mandate behind any eventual decision: voters get dispersed among slightly varied options, and extreme and non-representative results become increasingly more likely.--ADtalkModerator 08:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Point of order, Mr. Chairman - questions with several choices can easily be dealt with by using instant runoff voting as we did for the voting standards votes. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 08:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Point taken! Alas, I am not so smart!--ADtalkModerator 08:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC×2) Can we have this on a new page? This is getting kinda long, and if we can put it on a project page we could do a bit better when it comes to separating the arguing from the serious proposals.
As for techs, how's an "anyone with the powers can add them if they are prepared to take responsibility for that action, and removing tech rights is treated identically to sysop rights" option? Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 08:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, shifting to a new page.--ADtalkModerator 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Forum:Productive_voting_construction--ADtalkModerator 08:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Captcha? WTF? for registered users?

WTF is wrong with this place. I know I called it a cesspool when I left, but no one has particularly done anything to make anything better in any way shape or form... it's like all the shit was just left to rot... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How bout taking it down a bit? There is no captcha for registered users after 2 or 3 days, or a particular number of edits. And it's not many. and most people will change a new user's rights instantly if they ask. --Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 22:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
In order of most to least probability:
  1. Your ‎Puellanivis account still wasn't autoconfirmed, and so was still running up against capatcha
  2. The upgrade has borked capatcha
  3. Fascist authoritarian plan to stop you editing.
Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A quick look at teh logs suggests that "puellanivis" has never edited here. You have to at least edit, to remove the captcha. It's a simple way to keep advertisement trolls from running amock.--Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This is why we can't have nice things. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I was editing with the wrong account. My bad. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Moderator elections and sock puppets

Preliminary results for the moderator election will be announced shortly. But there is another issue we need to have a discussion about. I noticed a strange pattern in the votes that had me double check who actually voted. I can not tell who voted for who so no privacy was violated there but the list of voters included well known sock puppets from multiple different users. I estimate that 10 percent or so of the vote is from obvious sock puppets, less obvious who knows.

We do not have a specific rule against using sock puppets to vote, but it was not known whether it would actually be an issue or not. So we, as a community, need to have a rational discussion addressing this. Here is what I think we need to discuss:

  1. Do we care about sock puppets voting?
  2. Does the sock puppet votes in anyway invalidate this election round?
  3. If we do decide sock puppets are an issue how best to address it for this election, how best to address it in future elections?

This is the internet so sock puppets will always be a problem in some form or another. But there are ways we might limit it to some degree. One suggestion I have is to not use a criterion like number of edits/age of account, but rather have a public vote registration role that can allow people to parse for obvious sock puppets. We could also implement more stringent requirements in IP checks, but that likely won't help much. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. Yes. It's a source of illegitimacy.
  2. That depends on how much data is released. Probably shouldn't comment considering the circumstance.
  3. IP checks wouldn't help, what with proxies and all. I very much like the public registration idea. It's been floated a few times but dismissed as too cumbersome. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought about this too. 10% seems like a lot. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 02:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
What about using the facebook page (not the group) to vote. Each person is presumed to only have 1 FB account, as sockpuppeteering there is somewhat difficult, and check their friends, activity, for legitimacy?64.180.243.100 (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC)Not everyone has a facebook. Тytalk 02:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Has to be done on-wiki, not everyone is a member of the group and probably not everyone on the group is an editor here. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I can hardly say I'm terribly surprised. I've been in favor of releasing the list of voting accounts for some time now, but people erroneously seemed to think it violated the concept of secret ballot. It wouldn't end the problem, but it would likely minimize it, at least a little. If there is no rule against socks voting then it seems it was an oversight when drafting the policy. I do believe our regular recently drafted voting standards prohibit it, but I guess those don't apply to mod elections. DickTurpis (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The voting standards prohibit sock voting, but they don't apply to board and moderator elections because of the secret ballot. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Lol, you really think? Gawd you are a power hungry idiot. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as the "10 percent" I am looking at what I think are 6 or 7 votes of "established" users and "sock puppets" combined so maybe half again as many actual sock puppets. Just for clarification. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you say whether or not the sock puppet votes had a noticeable impact? If you were to remove those votes, what would the results be? When I say remove the votes, I don't mean officially, just to see.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no way to tell because I don't know how people voted, only who voted. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Also. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL @ Brxbrx Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As someone who has no socks, this saddens me. Is my input worth less than the input of someone who stuffs the ballot box? ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 03:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I also have no socks. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh noes! I forgot to vote! Kendoll (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We can go down two paths. One is to declare the election invalid, institute public registration or even public voting, and re-hold the election in some way, dragging on the process for weeks. The other is to recognize that there's always been sock voting, the difference now is that it appears to have come from a few more users than usual, and try to fix the issue over the next six months before the next election. The second approach would be easier, to be sure, but legitimacy is an important thing too. Since the current results have me winning, I won't opine on which we should do. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Or we could not take so goddamned seriously because the mods barely do anything anyway. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. I was one for a term and all I got was a hate mail from Blue. The mods do nothing, so who cares? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see us throwing out these results either way. Especially if sock voting isn't specifically prohibited. I do think we can learn from this and go into the next election with slightly more evidence that this method of voting is not without its problems. We have 6 months to collectively decide if we want to use a different system in the future. In the meantime we have what appears to be a pretty decent group of supreme overlords, by and large. I guess if a bunch of obvious joke candidates had won I might be singing a different tune, but we don't need to explore counterfactuals now. DickTurpis (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Тytalk 03:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I like dick's idea too. And Ace's. Peter HFB2 03:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Just trying to be neutral here. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah right. You just want power, which RW is antithetically opposed to. You are an embarrassment to the mission. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Whoever was doing was trying to stop me returning to the throne. I am going to seek out my political enemies one night and make them....disappear. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Can that involve Brx? 64.180.243.100 (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems fairly cut-and-dry. Especially now that people know this will work, it's just going to be a bigger problem. Since I was elected, I hope I'm not out of line in agreeing with Dick and saying that probably no one wants to run the whole damn thing again, but let's just spend this mod term putting in place public registration.--ADtalkModerator 05:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You are not out of line, AD. In fact, that may be the only viable solution to the problem at hand. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 12:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Public registration will mean the furore gets moved to "Who is whose sock?" It won't solve anything unless people really are voting twice with publicly declared socks. rpeh •TCE 13:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty pathetic that people do this. Especially since mostly first and second place votes counts, it's not hard to imagine the swing they have. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Some history

Enjoy -- Nx / talk 05:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, we've lived and we learned. Now it's up to the community whether or not they like the results of not doing something earlier about the sock vote. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 06:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A note for discussion

Let me just say that, regardless of what the community decides about the sock vote and moderator elections, there's a much larger issue here: we use the same system to elect moderators as we do Trustees. While the moderators are a site-specific group, the Trustees are the power behind this Wiki and our projects. Can you imagine, had this been a few short years ago, what would've happened if people like TK or Karajou had socked up and voted in people you cannot trust as Trustees? The damage could've been permanent, and the threat of something like that, in our current electoral process, is very real. There is no doubt: the sockpuppet vote poses a serious threat to our electoral system. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 05:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
But we must remember that any discussion about altering the voting process is fascism! Secret ballot means socks can vote, and we cannot even consider trying to stop them or we're no better than the Nazis. DickTurpis (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
How about creating a new user group for approved voters? Known sockpuppets would not be included in this group. It might be a pain to manually make everybody an elector, but once the bulk of it is done we'll only be doing a few every so often--"Shut up, Brx." 06:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem there is, since we don't and won't have checkuser installed, it would require Trent to manually go through the server logs and check every single user who wants to vote, and then make them a member of said group. From a server-side aspect, that's a tedious task for one person atop all their other maintenance tasks. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 06:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
[EC] That's basically the registration idea, which has been suggested already. I'm personally not in favor of it at this stage, as I think it's probably overkill for a problem we don't know the extent of. Since Trent has already seen the list of voters, I'm not convinced the rest of us seeing them is a terrible idea, so we can make a call on how extensive this sockpuppet problem is, and decide based on that if voting procedures need to change. At the very least I think we need to clear up the ambiguity about whether socks are allowed to vote, and answer that with a "no". It won't stop them in itself, of course, but it will prevent their users from taking a faux innocent "don't look at me, I didn't do anything wrong!" approach. DickTurpis (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of open ballots. That just opens up a ton of "you voted for x, what is wrong with you/why didn't you vote for me" drama, and it would give characters like Ace McWicked a list of targets for his poster spamming. --"Shut up, Brx." 06:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Characters like Ace McWicked? You mean good, looking intelligent people? Word. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 07:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As of now, no one's suggesting open ballots, so you needn't fear. To be honest, I'm not entirely opposed to them, as I don't think we need to worry about intimidation, and we should be above the schoolyard antics of "why didn't you vote for me! I thought you were my friend! WAAAAAHHHHH!" Fuck it, if anyone wants to know who I voted for and why I'll tell you. I got nothing to hide. DickTurpis (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Harassment, intimidation, and drama are monnaie courante on this wiki. People will feel pressure to vote certain ways just to avoid grudges and screeds--"Shut up, Brx." 06:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
But other than hurl a bunch of juvenile insults around (which happens anyway) what are people going to do? Fire you from your job? Send jack-booted thugs to beat you up? Those are concerns in the real world, but not here. DickTurpis (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
One would assume somebody who acts that way (whining about not winning, certain people voting against them, and then spamming their pages with posters next time) would be doing more harm for their election chances. --il'Dictator Mikal 06:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
One would assume, yet look at all the votes Ace got. -- Nx / talk 08:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone guess who took a strong position in this thread and voted early and often? Who do you think it was? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You. Since the beginning, you have been an opponent of any measures to prevent socks from voting.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I opposed a voter role because I thought it was pointless with the lack of misconduct thus far. I was very clear that I'd string someone who abused the franchise up with a thick rope. Welcome, Brxbrx. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
And Mikal, nobody ever calls you out on how absolutely cretinous some of the things you say are. I want you to puzzle that statement out loud and doo 20 pushups when you realize you're a fucking moron. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
My view is that unless it's against the rules to vote with sockpuppets that are otherwise eligible (hint: it's not and never will be because there's no way to fairly enforce such a rule), Blue even suggesting that names be published in an election in which people were promised a secret ballot is a breach of trust. "Having more information and keeping the process open" in this regard is a pointlessly destructive exercise that I strenuously oppose. I've got multiple sockpuppets I use to edit on different subjects that are eligible to vote. I will not vote with them. Whether others will vote with theirs is not for anyone but them to decide. -- Nx / talk 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Lol I love it when you collect diffs. I'm so glad to see you posting again, Nx. What a precious delight you are. Now go find the part where I said I didn't think the benefit was worth the intrusion because there was no evidence it had ever happened. Now there is. I thought it was difficult to identify likely sockpuppet voters. Apparently it's not. Go figure. So what you should be saying here is "you were wrong about some of that stuff you said back then." And I was. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Block socks if they vote?

How about this: in future, permablock socks if they vote. I wouldn't want to permablock all socks from RW, they can be fun, but using your sock to vote twice is taking the mick. There should be some kind of barrier against double voting. Sophiebecause liberals 06:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with that: other than Trent, no one knows who voted, so we have no way of knowing which socks voted (or even if they did, can we really trust the word of this Trent fellow? A Trusworthy encyclopedia says he runs a terrorist vandal site!). Even if we knew who voted, ascertaining with 100% certainty who is a sock is not always easy, although there re admitted socks which I guess we can be pretty certain of. DickTurpis (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
And, even more problematic: how would we go about doing so pro-actively. As Trent alluded to before, we know who voted, but we cannot find out how they voted. We couldn't readily purge the sock vote unless we were somehow proactive. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 06:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Presumably it wouldn't purge the vote, but would prevent them from voting in the future. Actually, would it? Can blocked accounts vote? DickTurpis (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
What if Trent determined irregularities may have occurred (a cabal of socks voting for themselves to retain or overthrow power), refused to certify results, and called for a special election? Then, who would serve in the interim, and how could the special election results be certified as authentic? nobsCorporations are people, too. 20:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of socks who voted

I'm not awfully keen on releasing a full list of voters (though not necessarily completely opposed) but it would be more useful to have a list of the known socks who voted. I think this is an issue where naming & shaming would be appropriate, especially if any of the voters were known socks of the elected moderators. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That being said, even if we know which socks voted we don't actually know who they voted for, and we risk a situation where the authority of a moderator is ignored on the grounds that it is assumed that a given sock voted them in even though it might not have. Also I think releasing a full list would be better than just the list of the people tmt is sure are sockpuppets - the Almighty might have made a mistake here or there, you know. Peter HFB2 07:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The authority (if that even is the right word) of any mod can be ignored if someone wants to ignore it, and regardless of whatever evidence there is or isn't that their election was tainted; if someone wants to believe it was, they'll likely treat it that way. I think it's pretty clear we aren't going to void the election regardless, so we'll have to move forward with the mods we have for the next 6 months. The problem, to me, in publicizing the names of the known socks is that it's a pretty loose criterion. What constitutes a "known" sock, exactly? DickTurpis (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
For whatever it is worth, I just went through the voting looking for suspicious patterns and really couldn't find anything conclusive. There are a few votes that have a similar opening run, but these fall in line with the overall voting pattern and there is no reason to conclude they aren't legitimate. There is a possible case for looking at the pair of votes that initially went 21-6-12-8 (Human/Dick Turpis/LArron/Genghis), because those do not fall in line with the general voting trend for the first four rankings. this is not true and was a total error on my part, please ignore it But that observation is far from declaring "sockpuppet". VOXHUMANA 07:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There was more suspicious activity in the first election. Raw ballots were listed chronologically, and recall there were some adjacent identical or near identical sets. It's not proof of anything, but it was certainly suspect. DickTurpis (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC)Yes, that was a poor choice of words - what I really meant was something like SR's behaviour in results archive #2 ("ace is mod" etc).
If I were sock-voting (I have no socks beside my bot, btw, and bots can't vote if I remember correctly) I'd probably get a list of my top ten and split it so that my 1, 3, 5th choices were voted for by me, and my 2, 4, 6th choices by my sock - you couldn't really detect that by looking for patterns in the votes, could you? Peter HFB2 07:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Bots can vote. -- Nx / talk 08:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought you fixed that? Not that it matters, really. Peter HFB2 08:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
How? I didn't have server access. I'm pretty sure I told Trent to fix it, but he ignored me, as usual. -- Nx / talk 08:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Peter - if it was wildly different to the general trend then it might stand out, but the answer is probably no. VOXHUMANA 07:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the whole vote be invalidated, but if any of the elected mods were guilty of voter fraud (& I hope they weren't), we should know about it. I think it would be reasonable grounds for resignation or impeachment, regardless of whether they used their extra votes for their own gain or some other purpose. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

On that subject, does anyone know if RW:CS#Voting covers moderator impeachment? Or do we still have no rules on that?
I highly doubt anyone actually running themselves would have cheated in this manner, but I suppose you never know 'till you look. Peter HFB2 07:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
In all votes, if both a user and his or her known sockpuppet attempt to vote, the sockpuppet vote may be stricken by anyone. Importantly, if a user votes only with his or her known sockpuppet, their vote is still valid. - Seems fairly clear-cut to me. Trent is at this point the only "anyone" who can act (being the only person capable of identifying the sock). VOXHUMANA 07:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I meant specifically for impeachment - there is a recurring meme, if you will, that we have no process to democratically remove moderators and thus must wait for them to resign, die, or lose the next election. But it would seem that the same system that exists for promoting sysops could be used, but the threshold is a bit low. Peter HFB2 07:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right. We should add something to the standards. I'd assume that 2/3 would probably be good. It's not fair that there's no mechanism for removing mods at the moment.--ADtalkModerator 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It's already covered under "penalty votes". Somebody would propose impeachment at the Chicken Coop (same as with bans, demotions, etc.), and users would vote. As it doesn't involve "removal from the site", it would need a simple majority rather than two thirds. Hopefully this shouldn't be necessary, as if any of the mods are guilty of double-voting (which they probably aren't), I would hope that they would have the decency to stand down rather than be impeached. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
A simple No Confidence poll (in the Coop, presumably) requesting a resignation could be a first step. nobsCorporations are people, too 17:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well one confirmed sock who "voted" is SuspectedReplicant. I deliberately cast a blank ballot so I wouldn't come back home drunk one night and use it to vote twice after reading some pile of authoritarian nonsense from Blue one of the candidates. rpeh •TCE 07:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

How does one define a confirmed or known sock-puppet unless it is self-confessed? Because I have no idea who most socks are except when pointed out by someone else. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 12:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well in this case, I can confirm it because he's my sockpuppet. Or the other way round. I never can remember. As for the rest, dunno. rpeh •TCE 12:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This calls for a whole new motion....

FFS, guys! Look at ourselves. Is it really that important? Sure, as someone pointed out, a Kara or a TK pulling multiple sock votes might be able to cause minor damage to the wiki but, really, talk about a storm in a teacup. Bad Faith (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But it just wouldn't be RW without a big argument somewhere about voting or user rights! Sophiebecause liberals 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, we're below quota this election already, pull your weight! Peter HFB2 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that people are standing for what amounts to a position of trust on the wiki. If it can be proven that they used socks to vote for themselves, then those people should be automatically excluded from the process. Likewise, and sock votes in general should be disregarded. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Where do people get the idea that a calm and rational discussion about options and the situation is somehow this terrible thing? No one's upset (except Human) and no one's spewing bile (ditto). We're placidly going over events and thinking about whether or not we can improve the process, and there's nothing wrong with that.
This cynical "why are you foolish peons worrying" attitude is easy and silly.--ADtalkModerator 11:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes you just spot a text wall and assume the worst. Scarlet A.pngtheist 11:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What an enormous pile of unbridled bullshit. Wow, I mean really? What the fuck? Read the preceding comments on this page, look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself "Is this the most important thing I can be doing right now? Does this matter?"
Depending on your answer either grab some scotch and head outside feeling grand....or sit back down and create an RW United Nations. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 10:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh! I want to be Slovakia! The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Only if I can be The Vatican. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 10:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Fuck yeah you can! The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 10:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Come 'ere lad, God wants to show you something....... AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 10:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
If we seriously asked ourselves "Is this the most important thing I can be doing right now? Does this matter?" on a regular basis none of us would ever edit RationalWiki. Ever. DickTurpis (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
So what country are you, Turpis? France? The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 12:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm the goddamn MOON, motherfuckers! DickTurpis (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
But, seriously, I have been a mod 3 fucking times and haven't done fucking nothing. The whole position is worthless yet people are complaining about the process.....AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 13:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We definitely need a better process for complaining about processes. rpeh •TCE 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis of the issues

As I see it:

  • Trent, having examined the list of those who voted, found known sockpuppets among the rolls (and potentially many more unknown ones, presumably). According to the voter guide, this is fraud.
  • While some have argued that mods are lame and it doesn't matter, it has been pointed out that this is the same system for electing trustees, which is "srs bsns". For that reason this discussion should probably be moved to a non moderator specific forum.
  • Some have argued that since sockpuppetry can never be 100% eliminated, it is fine and no efforts should be made to prevent it. This is likely a minority viewpoint.
  • If changes are to be made to the voting system, it is best they are done before it becomes a significant problem (e.g. RobSmith or Cretinous Incompetent is elected to the Board of Trustees).

Should the voting procedure be changed? Some certainly argue it should, particularly with an estimate that the fraud rate is as high as 10%, which can easily swing an election in which it took a mere 8 votes to win this time around. We should also keep in mind that this method of voting was never decided on by the community, it is basically what we were handed. There is also the argument that is isn't worth the hassle. (It will be a hassle.) If no changes are made, the next step is simple: nothing is done and things stay as they are. The other option is less straightforward, and specific changes are decided upon. Potential changes to the voting system include:

  • Publicizing the names of all voting accounts.
    • This won't stop the problem in and of itself obviously, but could certainly discourage at least the known sockpuppets, and give the entire community (not just Trent) a much clearer idea of the extent of the problem.
    • Some have argued this negates the concept of secret ballot, though provided who voted for whom is still secret, this is not the case. It happens all the time in the US, and other countries too, I imagine. It could be argued that a key difference is that in real life voters are informed that voting records will be public (if they pay attention to such things anyway), whereas they weren't in this case. Of course, they weren't told they wouldn't be public either, so it could go either way. We were simply promised secret ballot (i.e. your preferences are secret).
    • If anyone still maintains a list of voters violates the principle of secret ballot, it should be noted that Trent himself has already violated this by looking at the rolls. Let the lynching commence.
  • Voter registration
    • This would almost certainly cut sockpuppet activity down to a bare minimum, but it would be a difficult process full of drama and sockpuppet accusations flying back and forth. To many it seems like overkill, at least at this juncture.
  • A voting system other than STV.
    • This will basically do nothing to eliminate socks, but could make it more difficult for a handful of them to have a significant impact on the election. With as few as 7 votes needed to win (in the January mod election), it's easy to see how 3 or 4 sockpuppets could elevated their choice into the top 7. In a system in which everyone votes for up to 7, all of equal weight, it will likely take upwards of 30 to be elected, so a handful of socks won't be such a significant factor. Also, many editors are still confused by STV, which isn't good either.
  • Public voting
    • This would be a big change, as it would eliminate all pretexts of secret ballot, and making voting something like all the other votes on this site, at the Coop and such. Wikipedia's Requests for Adminship could be a model for such a system as well. Details would clearly have to be worked out, as with the above option. Also probably overkill.
  • Other
    • Ideas are welcome.

And of course here's always the "leave it alone" option.

What it seems is off the table is anything negating this election. Short of actual violation of secret ballot its impossible to know what votes are fraudulent, so try to undo them or something would be mere guesswork. Nor can we even be sure the sockpuppets actually voted for anyone, as they could have cast blank ballots, as has apparently happened on at least 2 occasions in the last 2 elections. (The number of blank ballots cast is probably knowable and easily made public.) The only option above which could apply here and now would be publicizing voters, which would only give us an idea of the extent of the problem, and publicly shame those known socks, hopefully discouraging them in the future. About the only thing that can be done relatively easily and uncontroversially is to disenfranchise bots, which most of us probably thought had already happened. This of course will do little, if anything. DickTurpis (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Public voting is not preferable. The secret ballot not only grants more legitimacy to the process, but also efficiently keeps hundreds of project-space edits off Recent Changes. However, as socks are a problem, I do think we should change the procedure by which users are added to the franchise - it shouldn't be automatic.
For that purpose, the "eligible" or "voter" usergroup should not be implicit like "autoconfirmed." It should be added like any other usergroup. But by whom? Sysops here frequently make their socks sysops, or have leftovers from the bureaucrat era. Sysops should not have the ability to add the voter group. Nor should moderators, because they're the ones in power and accusations of election-fixing might fly.
It seems to me that the mods should appoint one or two editors to be registrars of voters, who would be given tech rights and thus the ability to add the voter group. As this would be a time-consuming task, the registrar(s) would have to want to do the job. Editors could bring appeals and accusations of sockpuppetry to their attention in a public forum. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 18:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a lot of needlessly complicated red tape. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me try again then, in a simpler way:
  1. The "eligible" usergroup changes from implicit to something techs can add.
  2. Techs then add everyone who should be enfranchised and is not a known sockpuppet to the group.
Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 18:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
"Add everyone who should be enfranchised and is not a known sockpuppet" is a lot harder than it sounds. That's got to be several hundred editors. If there are going to be changes to the usergroup structure to restrict voting, why not focus them on the minority users who are known sockpuppets rather than those who aren't? Create a new user right groups that is not eligible to vote, and add known or suspected sockpuppets to it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We don't need this kind of silly makework. Registration can be done automatically prior to opening the polls. It's trivially easy to bash out a Ruby script that can check whether someone's entitled to vote according to existing criteria and just add them to the public list. Then people can go apeshit questioning who is and is not a sockpuppet. The only additional hurdle we could possibly add is prohibiting more than 1 vote from a single IP and blocking TOR nodes and proxies. Otherwise you'll never be able to catch every single bit of monkeying around. The significant difference between a registered voter list and a list of who voted is obviously that it still doesn't necessarily need to be anyone's business whether someone did or didn't show up at the polling place. There are valid reasons for both choices.
I have to confess I'm changing my position on this stuff now that it's clear a few people couldn't resist the temptation to horse around. I avoided conceding the need for an open voter roll or registration without solid evidence of fraud because both could serve to discourage people who jealously guard their privacy from exercising their rights. Or not exercising them. Or whatever. But we have to take a look at things if people can sock vote from the same IP and the same system is used for electing people to positions with real legal responsibilities on the board of directors of a corporation. I would have thought, despite there being no clear guideline on this, people would recognize how inappropriate it is to cheat, but some of the editors here are real creepers. Who knows what goes through their heads. I like the idea of publishing a registered voter list. It forces people to commit to voting with whichever account they wish, creates a layer of transparency that we apparently need, but preserves enough privacy to at least partially justify the compromise. I assume people would register their regular accounts to avoid the inevitable clamor Dick referred to, but they don't have to.
Also, IIRC we hashed this system out based on the trustee election system. At least that sounds right. Is that right? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that a form of active voter registration could be acceptable but it becomes difficult when we slap known or suspected sock-puppet labels on editors. How many people would it take to ban a suspected sock from voting? I thought that last time we decided that the eligibility criteria were high enough to prevent a host of socks from voting and that we would live with the possibility that there might be a couple. So perhaps a tightening up on the qualifications to vote based on a minimum number of edits in the last so many months would be in order. Banning proxies or TOR nodes also gets us into problematic areas and it's not difficult to obtain new IPs by resetting your router, using public wifi hotspots, or voting from both home and work. I'm currently using a proxy because I am away from home for a month and my current work location restricts access to RationalWiki. I also think that the fewer positions for trustees makes it much harder to game the system. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Creating and publishing a list of eligible voters is very simple and a necessary step, that's right. But we still would need a way of disenfranchising socks from that list, preferably one that doesn't force Trent to do it manually for each one or go in and alter the voting extension. There's nothing wrong with the extension, just the franchise.
Weaseloid's idea - instead of adding non-socks to the eligible group, add known socks to an ineligible group - would work, though it would add another layer of confusion to the user rights system, and would be the path of least resistance. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, please tell me how you identify socks, all of them. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC, in the same vein as GK) How are you ever going to know who's legit or not? Even linking voting to IPs is problematic. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 19:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There should be no problem publishing a list of voters. Although I don't think it'll help that much. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 20:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(ECx2) You're not going to know completely who's legit and who's not, but people appear to be concerned that "known" socks - like, for instance, NxBot, Blue2, Tiberius Gracchus (Bricks'), any of Marcus' - were voting with impunity. If this is not a major concern, then we don't have to do anything; keeping mind mind, however, that this is the same system we use to elect the Board of Trustees. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason it has to be the same method for all the variety of votes here. If the mob wants to keep mods without bots, that might be fine, but we can then change how we elect trustees. It's a different position, and trustees do not represent the wiki, but all of RWF's projects, whatever they be. Green mowse.pngGodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right, there's no reason except convenience. The Board election method is in the Foundation by-laws, however, so that's not for us plebeians ("the mob") to change. We can change the moderator election method and the way eligible voters are determined. There are some great ideas being tossed around here if we do want change. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 20:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Mh, I'll attempt a "compromise": The current usergroup of eligible voters is purged entirely. A page for voter registration is opened where users can ask to be member of the group (in a simple way like putting your signature with the timestamp down in a list). This page is managed by 1-3 registrar(es) who are nominated by the mods and approved by the mob (so mods can't pull on the system, and the mob has somebody trusted) and also have the ability to make somebody a reg. voter based on the criteria of account age, edit number and not being a known sock. The list of registered voters is held public, the list of people that voted is not. If voter fraud is found registrat(es) give it over to the coop and the moderators. Registrates are allowed to look into the list of voters (and if RWians ever get less paranoid might work checkuser), set up the vote itself and publish the results (to take some weight of Trent's back, who seems annoyed) but are themselves excluded from running for moderator position.
If people think this is "too much process", I'm sorry. Some equally heavy meassures are taken in many modern democracies to insure that no one's fidling with the system. As I have read, this election had 74 voters, not all that much considering a user base of several hundred. --Rutherford (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
[EC] My opinion is that we have a lot of ideas here, most of which are not very good, which is fine, as at least people are thinking about it, and this could be the sort of situation in which a bad idea leads you to a good one. Blue's idea of registrars strikes me as particularly problematic, as it would create a few users who wield a great deal of power, effectively deciding who can vote and who can not. How would these users get chosen via a fair process when the whole reason we would have them is to fix a broken process? Techs would be particularly problematical, as they seem to be created willy nilly, which I guess works for their current job, but would be a fiasco if they become some sort of superuser. Having a list of all eligible voters and having a way of removing known socks from it sounds better in theory, but would still be a nightmare to put into place. Since the enfranchisement bar is really pretty damn low, we must have hundreds upon hundreds of users who are technically eligible to vote, most of which no one knows anything about, many of which haven't edited in years and aren't part of the community anymore, a bunch of which are pretty clear socks/joke accounts, but aren't officially "known", etc. No one wants to see a witch hunt, nor do we (or at least I) want to see unpopular users deemed to be "sockpuppets" merely as a pretext to deny them a vote. I'd like to think we're above such blatantly abusive tactics, but you never know for sure here. I also think we should nto let the perfect be the enemy of the good here (if I'm using that right), and admit we're not going to be able to stop all sockpuppetry, but we can significantly mitigate it and prevent a few people from voting with 20 different accounts.
Right now it seems if we want to take a more scientific approach to this (we are supposed to favor that sort of thing here) we need facts upon which to base any proposals. Right now all we have is Trent saying he saw a bunch of socks in the rolls. That isn't a hell of a lot to go on. Nutty Roux has stated he was against listing voters because there was no evidence of any malfeasance, but now that there is he's a bit more flexible on some policy changes. The thing is, the only reason we know there are issues is because Trent "broke the rules" and examined this "secret list" of voters. To be honest, I'm not sure why he did this. Based on my casual look of the raw data, and Voxhumana's more statistic analysis, there actually doesn't seem to be much suspicious here. Contrast that with the first election in which we had a few identical or near identical votes placed one right after the other, and in that election no one checked to see who voted. I'm a bit curious as to why this time was different, and whether Trent as the authority to examine the rolls when none of the rest of us seem to. Not that I care, really, but it seems clear to me is that the reason we didn't have evidence of trouble before now is because we refused to look for it. That has now changed. There has been some suggestion that the names of these socks be made known, though exactly what that would accomplish is questionable, and it might serve to poison the well. Publishing the complete voter list might be more fair, though also has the potential to create a whole slew of problems. Alright, at this point I'm just sort of rambling. I'll shut up now, try to collect my thoughts in a cohesive manner, and let others rant for a while. DickTurpis (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The registrars would have about as much power as the moderators; to wit, next to none, unless they abuse their rights. Let's examine this more closely.
If we want to disenfranchise "known" socks, we need a process for doing so. I'd think that would be obvious. Who gets to decide what a "known" sock is? That decision is fraught with potential abuses, as Dick points out. What if we decided to remove people like Occasionaluse and Brxbrx on "suspicion" of being socks? What if there's disagreement over whether an account is really a sock or not? Who decides? These questions will come up no matter what process we use.
Thus, if we want to make a change to the franchise based on subjective criteria (status of sockpuppetry), we need to put decision-making power in the hands of people whose judgment we can trust. "The mob" is not a good solution. As to how these people - I call them registrars - are chosen, the best way would seem to be an internal vote of the Board of Trustees. We could make do with Trent himself in his capacity as Operations Manager, but he might not want the responsibility.
If there is no support for this idea, I submit that we cannot make any fair modifications to the voting procedure. The criteria for the franchise would be too subjective to be implemented by the mob. What we could do is release the list of voters so we can publicly shame whoever used socks, but I don't favor that as we are already rather acrimonious about this stuff. Perhaps we could agree that the list of voters will be released next time? Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 23:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
we need to put decision-making power in the hands of people whose judgment we can trust. "The mob" is not a good solution. What's wrong with a list on a page that anyone can add themselves to, and a talk page where anyone can challenge them as a sock? Sure, you still need somebody to make the call, but it should be clear enough at that point that you could trust anyone to do it. Peter HFB2 23:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dick is concerned that the people who make the call would have too much power. I disagree, but I elaborated on his objection and took it to its logical conclusion. I agree with you, Peter, that the registrar would be pretty effectively kept in check by the community and the process would be very simple. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 23:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
So it seems the favored solution here, or at least the one most discussed at the moment, is some sort of registration system. It does strike me, and I'm pretty sure many others, as a bit burdensome, but it is probably the most effective way to eliminate a substantial sock problem. Registrars certainly could work, but no matter how they're implemented we would seem to be creating a new group of users with some pretty substantial power, or at least the appearance of substantial power, which is just about as problematical. Yeah, for the obvious cases we're probably more or less safe, but what about those suspicious accounts that aren't known sockpuppets, but really carry the stench of them? It could get ugly. The problem now may be the known socks, but its the unknowns that carry real potential for trouble down the road. I'm sort of in favor of not reinventing the wheel here. The easiest thing to do for now (other than nothing) is either with this election or the next one, publish the list of voters, which should deter the obvious socks, and will give us insight into whether a lot of additional suspect votes are being cast. That can be implemented quite easily and without a huge cumbersome process. If big problem are revealed we can discuss registration then. Convincing people it isn't some nefarious ploy to undermine secret ballot seems to be the challenge. The truth is, knowing the real names of many people in this thread, and basically where they live, I can probably find out if they voted in actual state and federal elections recently, which makes knowing that they cast some sort of vote in an insignificant wiki's circle jerk seem pretty inconsequential. DickTurpis (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the 'suspected socks' are the biggest problem with that solution, though I have a feeling that they haven't actually voted this time around. Did they, Trent? Peter HFB2 00:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect him to answer that. It would be a pretty strong accusation to make, basing it only on what must be a hunch and information only he is partial to. DickTurpis (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There's also the situation where there's an account that's obviously a sock, but it's not clear to whom it belongs. Or where there's an account that only certain people are aware is a sock - do they have an obligation to publicize that information? Public registration could get very nasty. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 00:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Could? I'm pretty sure it would. And who a sock belongs to is inconsequential. You don't have to know User:Kendoll is me to know it's a joke account that shouldn't be voting. DickTurpis (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
True, but we don't know who to run out of town with torches and pitchforks, so I was just anticipating that some nasty accusations might fly. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 00:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Possibilities: "Aschlafly should definitely vote, har-har-har!" "Brxbrx is definitely a sock of Psygremlin, he told me in an email." It has so much potential to go badly. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Good legislative drafting starts with finding the least possible amount of policy necessary to achieve an acceptable result, not necessarily the best result, if it's even achievable, just a good result. That's particularly important where Blue's familiar style of overblown whatthefuckery won't give any better result than publishing a registered voters list, yet creates a host of potentially explosive problems. Diminishing returns and all that. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
And incrementally. Anyone accepting a Nomination for any position should be monitored for socks and allowed only one vote. This would narrow the list of suspected socks, in keeping with COI rules. If implemented incrementally, the problem of other peoples socks could be addressed after the next election. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This bullshit all started because Trent abused his position and looked at data he had no right to access. He then started flinging shit into the fan by starting this page based on his own personal beliefs of what accounts are socks. Now we're getting unbelievably authoritarian suggestions like "we need to put decision-making power in the hands of people whose judgment we can trust" - a suggestion, by the way, that should immediately exclude Blue from any position on this site. The simple fact is that none of this crap matters. Now it's being used to further the personal agendas of one or two people who want to turn RW into something it has never been. rpeh •TCE 07:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Jesus. You and Nutty are confusing what I was criticizing with what I was proposing. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 07:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
No, we're calling you out on it. Your comment was quite clear and entirely typical. rpeh •TCE 07:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you just propose and defend new user rights groups, a new position of superuser that gets to decide who can't vote, and new procedures for dealing with it? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You guys are overthinking this. Disenfranchising bots would've prevented me from voting with two of the four accounts I used (Capturebot2 and NxBot). Add in another requirement like, I dunno, 10 edits in the last 6 months, and it would've probably prevented me from voting with Ponder Stibbons as well. Adjust as necessary (one could make 10 quick edits with a sock that meets the other requirements, but then they'd probably arouse suspicion if they're obvious socks) -- Nx / talk 07:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets make this clear: are you saying that you sock voted? Peter HFB2 07:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
What was unclear? He just said he used four accounts to vote. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I voted with Capturebot2, NxBot, Ponder Stibbons and Nx. Though that's not 10% I think. -- Nx / talk 07:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is. Trent said that he was counting the people who voted along with their socks to get 10%, so if we take Nx|Capturebot2|NxBot|Ponder Stibbons and add Rpeh|Suspected Replicant (which I suspect would also have appeared, as I doubt Trent's list excluded blank votes) we have a number (6 out of ~75) that is close enough for the accuracy implied. Peter HFB2 08:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Excluding bots would be fairly meaningless, as it only applies to a few users who make their spare account a bot. It's not difficult to maintain a non-bot sock account. Making everyone go through voter registration causes unnecessary hassle for everyone, when it's actually only a small minority who are socks. I'm reminded of last year's desysoping fiasco: everyone loses rights they already had & has to apply for them again. + Let's not become one of those sites that assumes the worst of editors until they've proven themselves. Much better to keep the franchise requirements much as they are (possibly add Nx's suggestion re recent edits) but add a non-eligible user rights group as I suggested above ("voterevoke" or some such). Known socks can be added to this group, along with joke/parodist account (which we know are somebody's sock) and possibly known trolls etc. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Excluding bots should also be pretty easy and uncontroversial, which is something no other proposal is right now. Yes, it would do little, but it would do something, so I see no reason not to do that much, at least, especially since it does appear that bots voted this time. However, couldn't someone running a bot just change its usergroup so it's officially not a bot anymore, and then vote? DickTurpis (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In theory, yes. But in practice: we'd all be able to see what's going on. When, for example, is Capturebot2 not actually a bot? Especially around election times. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 12:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily against bots being excluded (there's no particular reason why they should be able to vote); I just don't see it as much of a solution, since it only excludes a fraction of socks & it's so easy to get around. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I imagine it as a small part of a larger solution, assuming it is decided we need one, and yes, it wouldn't do much. I want to get back to something rpeh said: Trent abused his position and looked at data he had no right to access. While there has been opposition to the idea of publicizing it, I don't think it was ever firmly established that the voter list was to remain secret from everyone. However, I don't see why Trent is the only one who should have access to it. Right now we're all making speculations based on a few words by Trent as if it were some letter from George Washington to his nephew, and now Nx is chiming in claiming he's likely the socks we're concerned about, but for all we know he's lying. The cat's halfway out of the bag, the well is poisoned, we might as well all see for ourselves from whence this controversy is arising. Maybe it does begin and end with Nx, and all we need is an Nx-specific solution, which would be much easier than some sort of goddamn constitutional convention. Release the data! There's no rule specifically against it, and it's secret ballot either way. Let's get some more sunshine on this. DickTurpis (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Fuck these hanging chads. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 12:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
We must put it to the vote as to whether we release the raw data or not. Just one moment while we sort out who is eligible, what voting system we're going to use, .... Bad Faith (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I say we storm Trent's apartment, grab the server & tear the voter list out by hand. Then with the guillotining. Not a sock will be spared. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Franchise

We don't need a host of bureaucratic procedures. I think that it is simply a matter of having a sufficient number of edits in the last three months and excluding bot edits/accounts because I noticed that an old sock account of mine is actually an eligible voter solely because it has made the occasional edit but over a long period; with RW having been going for 5 years the total edits is a pretty low requirement for enfranchisement. If people are concerned that they may be excluded from voting and actually care about RW then they just need to be more active on the site. If people can be active enough to fulfil the requirements for multiple accounts and vote multiple times then we may just have to live with that. After all, a moderator position is only one of 7 and is pretty much a 'meh' role arbitrating petty spats, it's not wielding super powers. From a cursory examination of recent activity the unelected tech position seems more open to arbitrary abuse. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 08:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah! If I understand you right, you're suggesting just raise the standards for voting? More edits and a longer time? That seems like the best idea that I've heard so far.--ADtalkModerator 08:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually a shorter time, the most recent three months (for example), so that long-time slow-burning socks are excluded from voting. We can't eliminate all socks, so clobbering the known ones and arguing about suspected ones is a pointless bureaucratic exercise. Personally I would also go for only mainspace and perhaps mainspace-talk edits but I know a lot of people who use RW as a social site would object to that. Bot edits such not count towards contributions. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 08:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm. So I guess the time wouldn't matter (might as well leave it at three months) but we drastically increase the amount of edits required to be a voter?--ADtalkModerator 08:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
IIRC the current edit requirement is not time restricted, only that the account is older than three months and edits are cumulative since account creation. I think voting should be limited to active editors, so the current minimum of 75 edits (discuss) could stand but you would need to "keep your membership up"; if you want to take part in the voting then take part in the site. My proposal would be: 1) Account registered for minimum of 3 months, 2) Minimum of 75 non-bot edits in 3 months prior to official announcement of election, 3) Forget about vetting of sock accounts. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
One further thing about socks, I would guess that most sock accounts are used in user talk pages and not editing mainspace. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that definitely some changes to the numbers on franchise would be the ideal way to solve this problem. We need an automated process, because otherwise it is just going to be a ridiculous amount of work for some poor few people.
So the meat of this is that you want to limit voting to active editors, here defined as 75 edits in mainspace within the last three months? Sounds good. I don't think that's quite enough edits, though - I'd suggest bumping it up to 100.
Obviously this system could still be circumvented, but is it a high enough bar to prevent almost all fraud? I think so. But we need some other opinions.--ADtalkModerator 09:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
For some of us AD, 100 mainspace edits is a not a high bar but not everyone is so addicted to RW and I think attempting to eliminate all possible fraud is unrealistic, we just need to reduce it to a non-significant level. One thing I would like to see changed behind the scenes is a list of Eligible voters from the user rights page. You can browse all the other categories of editor but you need to examine individual user rights to see who's an eligible voter. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 09:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Obvious Conspiracy

It's obvious to me that it was the people clamouring for tighter restrictions that were the ones who cast sock-like votes. Just as in the USA, where the GOP keep going on about voter fraud being a problem when it's only their own operatives causing the problem, it's clear that the people highlighting the alleged problem on RW are the ones causing it. Therefore, all votes cast by anyone moaning about sockpuppet fraud in any discussion above it hereby stricken. It's only fair. Deny this and lose all credibility. rpeh •TCE 20:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Silly twit (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There really is no issue here.

This is self-aggrandising bullshit. A trustee has to be, you know, a real person therefore sock issues are irrelevant. If some sock called "Wishy washy masturbatory gorilla" gets elected and then turns out to be Ace it'll be discovered fairly quickly. Rationalwiki is a small, chaotic, wiki based website and these layers of bureaucracy are totally out of spec in regards to the website as a whole. I think everyone needs to go outside or have sex or something. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the danger is socks getting elected so much as casting multiple votes for someone who has no business being on the board. Think Marcus Cicero. Hell, if Jpatt ever bothered registering accounts instead of using anon ips he could be eligible to run and give himself a fair number of votes. Unlikely to happen, but the trustees are about the only part of the site that we need to take seriously. DickTurpis (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
but the trustees are about the only part of the site that we need to take seriously Which is why this red-tape, open polling, political postulating shit is completely out of scope with the size of the problem. If I was elected to trustee and it turned out I was Karajou then it'd be obvious from the first meeting and dealt with at the time. Seriously man, get some fucking perspective here. I feel embarrassed having even waded into this conversation. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The fuck is wrong with you today? 10% of votes for a nonserious position were socks. Now that people know it works and there's an upcoming serious election, it could be a hell of a lot worse. Stop mocking people for trying to productively discuss the problem. If it doesn't interest you, go do something else and stop shoving your really annoying "golly you're all stupid this doesn't matter" attitude in our faces. We get it, you don't give a shit. Message received. Go masturbate in a corner.--ADtalkModerator 03:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
golly you're all stupid this doesn't matter. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh my. The punctuation and capitalization! It pains me! What's wrong, Ace? Are you are 14 year old using Twitter for the first time? DickTurpis (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That would explain a lot. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You know, it really would. DickTurpis (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
ahh well. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 04:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Goddamn it, there really is no tissue here, and some of us really need to masturbate in a corner... DickTurpis (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A general question for the community

It seems there is strong opposition to anything except secret ballot, and I'm sort of wondering why that is. I'm not proposing we get rid of secret ballot, and I see why people prefer it, but I seem to sense a "no way in hell" attitude towards open voting, and I'm wondering why. Obviously in the real world it's different, and there can be serious consequences, but this is a wiki. No one's going to lose their job or be disappeared for the way they vote. Sure, it can cause drama, but we get that anyway, and we should be mature enough to be able to handle that certain people didn't vote the way we wanted. We have public voting on blocks, promotions, and other punishments in the Coop, and the butthurt there seems to be minimal. Would it be so much worse to handle mod and trustee elections the same way? Again, I'm not saying this is how it should be done, but I'm wondering why it isn't part of the discussion. It's less of a policy change and burden than a cumbersome registration process, and it's probably the surest way to prevent obvious socks from voting (or at least having their votes count). We would've been able to dismiss Nx's extra votes before they were even tallied (assuming he did vote 4 times; I'm not 100% sure he isn't trolling us). I get that there could be pressure to vote a certain way, either real, implied, or imagined, but we should be able to overcome that. Any real harassment or intimidation could be dealt with these issues already. I see some benefit to keeping the process open, and making people put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. So, anyone want to chime in? DickTurpis (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to anything that Trent isn't in charge of. He has now twice demonstrated that he can't be trusted. Beyond that: let's talk. rpeh •TCE 18:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Some of the objecting to open votes is on the basis of "it'll clog recent changes" which is just twatty, really. Who cares if RC clogs up for the day? Use the javescript collapser thing, or your watchlist, or choose which space to view. Honestly people, have a better reason than that. Sophiebecause liberals 19:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a non-starter. When the voting on the CP space articles was going it it was removed from RC for a few days. It was no big deal. DickTurpis (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Nominees for office could be questioned in a candidate forum beforehand to disclose a full list of their socks; the relative bona fidas of a candidate then could be judged by voters. Vote stacking by non-candidate socks, if it's still perceived as a problem, could then be discussed after the next election's results are certified. nobsCorporations are people, too 06:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Need pictures for RW animation

I am working with a | friend producing a video project introducing a new idea for a RWF project. The opening is going to be an animation highlighting all the various craziness out there on the internet. Anyone want to help us find some pictures? We need high res pictures that represent or are related to our mission. People, proponents, organizations, ideas, movements, anything. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How strict are you on copyright status? Do you want us to upload them here?--"Shut up, Brx." 21:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
PD, CC-BY-SA compatible, or fair use rational basically. Links or RW uploads works. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Requesting articles without actually creating them

Hi guys, I am a brand new user so I am unfamiliar with a lot of the procedures for many things, so please be nice. :)


I was wondering how to request subjects for articles to be written, without actually creating a new article and having it be empty/populated with nothing substantial. Basically, how do I add topics to the "To Do" list?

OR

If I was to create a new article on the subject I wanted, is it possible to not "publish" it for the world wide web just yet, and keep it as a hidden article until it contains a good amount of content, and then "publish" it for everyone?



Thanks in advance for any help.

dEcib3L — Unsigned, by: DEcib3L / talk / contribs

You can add titles to the to do list... by clicking "edit" next to "Recent suggestions." Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You can create an article in your sandbox by creating page user:DEcib3L/foo where foo is your articles name. ТyTalk 03:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the help, I will put this info to good use in the coming days, and if I get adventurous enough I may even try my hand at contributing content. Thanks again. dEcib3L 05:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Note that pages created in your userspace are still publicly visible, though harder to find in the usual way. If you want a page to be completely private while you are working on it, the only way to do it is to keep the code in a plain text file on your computer. You can copy/paste the code in an edit box at the wiki, edit it, use "show preview" to see if the formatting is correct, and then copy/paste it back to the file.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Spam bots (let's get this settled)

Seeing a lot of posts in various corners of RW complaining about the rise in spam bots. Recaptcha and a few real basic filters (no href in wiki text, etc) keep out many, many, many bots. But it is not full proof and their is a rise of them on the wiki. The problem with the battle of spam bots is one of balance between inconveniencing or flat out pissing off legitimate users versus stopping the bots.

I would like to see a centralized discussion of this and the direction people want to go. Are we content with the level of spam and clean up relative to user inconvenience or do we need to adjust it? What alternative methods are people interested in looking at? Or is my impression that this seems to be an issue misplaced? Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm really kinda meh on this, but a common suggestion is disabling page creation for new users. Тyrannis 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Yeah, they're an inconvenience, not a site-threatening issue, but a major pain in the ass nonetheless. I like the idea of X edits before you can create a page, but, as others have pointed out, it wouldn't be long before people found a work-around, so I guess we'll just have to suck it up and deal with it. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally I don't see the issue - we are not being hit like aSK for example. But that is just me. No page creation for new users could work though. AceModerator 00:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the Ace. CopperheadHisssssss 13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think most legitimate users would mind that they could not create pages for a few edits. And it doesn't even have to be more than, say 3.Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
IIRC Bob said that replacing the capcha - which is clearly not bot-proof - with a simple "what is the 3rd letter in rational" type question, stopped the bots over at our summer home, teflwiki. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Rather than blocking new users from posting at all, could we not block them from posting hyperlinks until their 3rd edit? Although we have enough sysops to deal with spammers it does get tedious to have to wade through RC sometimes to find a change that isn't spam related. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, what about using the MediaWiki extension to block users whose IPs / email addresses are in the Stop Forum Spam blocklist? [2] CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Questy capture. Users have to answer questions posed at registration. A bot cannot answer these. However, my understanding (which could be way off) is that spammers have set these things up so that the questions are sent to cyber-sweatshops in the far east where humans answer the questions. However if the answer to the question is not immediately apparent then they don't bother with it. A question such as "What colour is our logo" would be sufficient. Easy for a human actually on the site but impossible for software and too inconvenient for a human in the far east. We installed this some time ago at Teflpedia and it works a treat. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 14:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it the CAPTCHAs are farmed out, mostly to porn sites, so any question which requires the respondee to be actually posting in a RW edit window would be useful. It might also be useful to have any challenge time limited because it does seem that there is often a delay between the creation of an account and posting the spam message, presumably while the CAPTCHA is being decoded. My personal gripe with the spammers is the excessive amount of red usernames which will never be utilised. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 15:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Question CAPTCHA

Okay, we can give that a try with some context sensitive questions. People want to help brain storm a set of questions? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What kind of context sensitive questions are you thinking about? Provide a few examples and I might be able to expand the list. MDB (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Something like "what are the third and fifth letters of this site's name". Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
They have that at TEFLpedia, Bob M says it's stopped the spammers. Sophiebecause liberals 16:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"which is better, goats or jerboas?" Spammers are the dregs of society and would therefore say "jerboas" while all right-thinking people know the goat is supreme. Sophiebecause liberals 16:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Something as simple as "what is the main image in our logo" would also work, as it would be very hard for a computer ot parce the brain from the brackets, as it's just one image.Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Obligatory. It would have to be a very large set (hundreds) to be effective. Anything less, and you're basically giving spammers a key to the place. I guess we could use GK's form and make them generic, e.g. "What are the X and Y letters of this site's name" would generate 132. You'd still need a large core of generic questions. Also, I need to get into the spamming game. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


What we need are questions about the logo. Something that the average human being who knows nothing about the site or its history can answer easily. What are the first or second letters or whatever. It doesn't need to be subtle to work. They need to be questions which can only be answered by someone who is present on the site and actually looking at it.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 18:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to make the CAPTCHA hard or subtle. It just needs to be a scheme unique to RW to stop spam. Just a flat "how many letters in 'rational'" or something will do the job, as long as the fields are uniquely named and the bot can't grab the question and stick it on a porn site somewhere. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A few points, Bob is absolutely correct that we need context questions that are answerable by anyone looking at our website but know little to nothing about it. Occasionaluser is right that if we have a small database of questions it is easier for spammer but only if they specifically target our site and build a database of our questions/answers. I think we can rely on "security through obscurity" as far as that goes, much like the ClubTM it doesn't really protect your car but it's easier to just go steal your neighbours car than deal with it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So how many questions do you need?Pink mowse.pngGodot What do cats dream about? 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say "one", something like "How many letters are there in goat? (Hint, there are four letters in goat.)" and just accept 4 and "four" as right answers. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"How many letters are there in goat?" would be a bad question. You do not need to be looking at the site to to answer it. "How many letters are there in our logo?" would work. In Teflpedia we've only get something like three questions.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In which somebody parties like it's 2007

Generic questions like "which is a type of pie: apple pie or Bruce Lee?" are good, but we should also have questions relate to RW, like "which wiki is our mortal enemy?" An American Fallacy (super crazy fun time!) 17:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, CP, ASK and Citi don't meet it, meta doesn't, RWW doesn't... what wiki are you talking about?--il'Dictator Mikal 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It's obviously CP. Don't try to fucking deny that. GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 17:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
CP hasn't been the "mortal enemy" of RW in a long time buddy--il'Dictator Mikal 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess WIGO:CP, the biggest WIGO, and the entire 'Conservapedia' namespace, not to mention the numerous references to CP and its sysops in various other places on this site, magically don't exist anymore, you fucking moron. An American Fallacy (super crazy fun time!) 17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on it. One day at a time. Тyrannis 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that somebody who shows up in so many conversations would not notice the amount of time put into topics NOT related to CP, or fail to notice how old the CP stuff is compared to the rest. CP isnt our archnemesis, it hasnt since we started branching out, our enemy is anti-science in general, not any one place. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It's more the case that a new user who comes over without knowing about CP, and yes, if you read the "how you found us" page, they do exist, won't know enough to answer that question. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 17:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
A site can focus on a general topic and still have another site as its 'archenemy', you penis-boned stuffed-butt.
All they need to do is look at the list of WIGOs on the Main Page. It's not a hard question.GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 17:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, when did CP become our main enemy again? this isnt 2008, this is 2012, and we arent soley dedicated to cP--il'Dictator Mikal 17:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that it is still a large part of this site, as well as its history. It's like saying that The Joker isn't Batman's archenemy because he fights other dudes. GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"Well, its still part of our history, and some of us are still mostly CP watchers!" is what you just said, and its the shittiest defense ever. Is france still the mortal enemy of england? Turkey to russia, mongolia to China, everybody to poland?--il'Dictator Mikal 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Never in my life have I wanted to use the trolltop template...until now. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You're ignoring that we haven't moved on from CP. Maybe expanded from, but not moved on. An American Fallacy (super crazy fun time!) 17:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
And your suggestion for moving on is something that tells all new users that CP is our "mortal enemy"? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Your guess is as good as mine. Тyrannis 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Questions

  1. What is the x and x letter in our name on the logo?
  2. what color is the main color of our logo?
  3. What is the primary picture in the logo?
  4. How many brackets are in the logo?
  5. Are you a spam bot? Y or N
  6. Which is a type of pie: apple pie or Bruce Lee? (but...isn't he related to Sara Lee?)
  7. How many capital letters in the logo?
  8. How many items are under Navigation/Community/Toolbox on the create account page?
  9. What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
African or European?

Considerations

I don't think these two questions are good:

  • Are you a spam bot? Y or N
  • Which is a type of pie: apple pie or Bruce Lee? (but...isn't he related to Sara Lee?)

You don't need to be looking at the site to answer them.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 07:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest....

Can you go in to the database and grab a couple of example profile rows of typical spam accounts and paste them here? I'm interested in seeing whether it looks like they grab just the captcha from the site, or whether they farm out the whole registration form. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

BoNs

So, would we disable editing outright for BoNs, or just page creation? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess if they can get past the new captchathey're probably human, so why disable page creation for them? It's not something I'd want to see, suppose a BoN wants to make a legitimate comment on a red talk page? Sophiebecause liberals 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There's also the Saloon Bar 82.whatever, and the 50-something who edits reasonably often. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
and several articles created by BoNs over the years. BTW This edit comment shows someone knows their RW history. Sophiebecause liberals 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. BoNs are not the problem. The vast majority of spam is by accounts registered specifically for that purpose, not bare IPs. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 22:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
But if we put this system up for every non-autoconfirmed edit, we'd need a lot more questions. How about only for page creation and account creation, with the other capatchas being retained elsewhere? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 05:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
For information it didn't stop IP's at TP and we ended up`blocking them. Bu we have less resources there than RW. I don't see much IP spam here, but I do see some valid IP edits and comments. I'd say leave them alone for now.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Surely the only questions you need are random combinations of two or three letters from the site name, just like my online banking login.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 10:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So...

Are we going to do anything? BTW, I just saw this—I didn't know they did that. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 07:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Secret messages to farmhands

I say we put messages asking the people doing the captchas to come to this site and tell us where they saw the captcha, if there be quality porn there, or if their sweatshop is well known to unbiased multicultural orgs such as Human Rights Watch.

The captcha would be a good place for other informative adverts in the form of informative terms that you could scroogle or startpage.com. The Respaminator! (memeware copysate Lumecorp) Unicow (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What the screaming tentacles of fuck are you jabbering on about? Sophiebecause liberals 21:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
We are talking about using a "captcha" that asks a question. The people who run the spambots apparently farm these out to be solved by people who don't actually know of this site. With me so far?
What I suggest is that instead of doing things the usual way and putting only a question for the captcha, we put a special message to the people who are solving the captcha for the spambots. Ask them to come to RationalWiki and tell us where they come from. If they already know that they are working for the spambots they probably won't tell us anything but if they are farming these things out to porn sites then the people who solve the captchas will learn the porn site is run by the same people who run the spambots and they might come tell us.
Second idea is that we put "advertisements" with the captcha question so that the spambots will advertise for us. So the captcha might read like this, "To edit the wiki, answer this question: How many brackets are in the logo? (This message is to spambot captcha solvers: To learn how to convert human poop into food for chickens, fish, pigs, or dogs, google 'soldier grub composting toilet'.)" Perhaps this is more practical if you have an unpopular wiki that is mostly edited by spambots. =D I find it amusing that spammers will be sending spamish messages to their "employees" or "customers" whist they are trying to circumvent the spambot blocker. Perhaps I am alone in this amusement. Unicow (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm.png The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 10:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Headers like "Secret messages to farmhands" are part of why no one takes you seriously. The other part is the incoherent post beneath the header. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the "porn sites solve captchas" may be a bit of an urban myth. OK, somebody may have tried it but I doubt it's the norm. The official captcha.net doesn't take it very seriously anyway.
Captcha Farms are the most likely possibility.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 06:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Eggcellint clues about our target market, Bob.
Stabby the Retard, it was perfectly coherent to the lumenated. What would y'all do if you were to take "you" "seriously"? Unicow (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Questy CAPTCHA

Lets give it a shot and see what happens easily reversible if there are problems. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's working? I had some problems creating an account the other minute - I'm sure I had the right input, but it wasn't having none of it. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 08:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This took me about five attempts until I met a capatcha that would let me pass (it was the 'what is the name of this wiki' one). The one you give below, which I originally got, wouldn't work. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 08:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Something not quite right. I had the question "what is the third and fifth letter of the site name" (or something similar. "to" didn't work, "TO" didn't work but "t and o" did.--System (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
A perfect example of why this idea is so shit. How is the user supposed to know what format the answer should take? TO, to, t/o, t & o, t + o, etc. etc. Don't even get me started on "what colour is our logo?" ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That can be addressed by using multiple choice style answers. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Question answer format

The format for the question/answer looks like this:

$wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => "What is the first and last letter in our name on the logo?", 'answer' => "ri" );


If people want to format up some more questions for variety and paste them up here I would be grateful. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

$wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => "What is the first and last letter in our name on the logo?", 'answer' => "ri", 'answer' => "r i", 'answer' => "r and i" );
Nihilist 22:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah can we not have multiple answers for each question? Also, is case taken into account? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If there were four answers, a bot would get through one time in four, which would make things manageable. If it were allowed more than one guess per login attempt, that rate would rise. I'll go with questions like "what in the Xth letter in word Y?" and no multiple choice. Sophiebecause liberals 10:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You can't use a question which can be answered by looking at the question alone, as spam farms can deal with that. As mentioned you need something like "What is the nth letter in the site logo" or similar. Speaking of which, after this whole conversation, about a week ago I changed the spam questions on one of my forums (which was getting about 10-15 spam signups a day) to the above and I haven't had a single spam signup since. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly right. You only need to ask about one letter. Asking about two just introduces an unnecessary complication.
You've got to think about what is happening at the other end. There is some poor chap in a thirld world country who spends his life answering captchas. All he sees is the captcha. He gets a pittance for each one answered and he's on the clock. Anything which means that he's got to open up a web browser to find out the answer is just going to be ignored. So they have no chance to learn or remember answers and, even if they, did they don't get the same sites each time.
Obviously at some point spammers will get round this, but it works for now. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, making it the nth (randomly) letter of the logo ought to do just fine. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

borken captcha alert

Please see following conversation plagiarised from RWW 62.212.67.209 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

CAPTCHA on RW is borked

The CAPTCHA on RW seems to be borked. No matter how many times I give the right answer, it just doesn't accept. 93.182.132.100 03:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean the 'nth letter in the logo' one? Have you tried deliberately inputting the wrong letter, i.e. 'a' when it asks for the first? Tobul Oltarolin 03:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This guy managed to get through. Tobul Oltarolin 03:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Two insights: FIRST, it doesn't work at all for LiquidThreads. SECOND, it works okay for rationalwiki.org, but not if you use another domain, like mail.evowiki.org. Why would anyone use that domain? It's indexed in Google, so people finding RW pages from Google will end up on it and not realize, or just not know any better. 166.70.207.2 06:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Given that the LQT thing means you can't get through to Trent directly, could you post your findings to Forum:Spam bots? Tobul Oltarolin 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Science articles, or science reference section, or boot

There is a long, ongoing "non discussion" about how we should be handling science articles on RationalWiki. Not ones that are easily RWified, but things like biology pages, zoology, evolution specific pages, etc. How much do we want to be a reference for science information? How much do we want to send people off to other sites for this information? Is there a place for a separate "namespace" for articles that are reference in nature. We really should look at this as a whole, and decide as a mob what our view of ourselves is, in relation to actual science information. Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That intro stated, I'll give my own personal view, which is that I think we would be fine having a reference section. However, not being a scientist or well informed about science beyond highschool, my only concern is "to what depth". Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
(EC) I've softend to a form of ref sace or some such. ТyNo 16:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sophie suggested putting a namespace for 'reference' or similar and including elementary level science articles there. That might be a good plan. I know I find those articles useless, I just read wikipedia for the same information (and honestly I don't care much about physics and I already know the biology); however, the tone here can be kept more conversational and jokes can be thrown into those articles to make them more palatable to a casual reader, so I do see a point in having them... as long as RW articles keep themselves unique from simple dry encyclopaedic content. I could see someone thinking this site would be a good place to get the basic grounding in, say, evolutionary science, and it would be nice to fulfill that perception in RW's own goaty idiom. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
On that note I think "palatable" would be an angle to go for in the reference articles. Humour, for example, goes a long way to making dry science interesting. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 16:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've never really understood why we have to separate "reference" articles and "regular" articles. In a sense, aren't all articles reference? Is climate change in reference and climate change denialism in Main? Are logical fallacies in Main or reference? I just see it as an artifical division that will be confusing, particularly to readers and new editors--lots of "no, that doesn't belong here." It's just not worth it. steriletalk 16:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In my gut, I'm kinda of a mind that we don't really need these outline articles... but if we do have them, my view supports yours, ERK and Sophie that they should be easy to understand, light hearted, humerus stuff. (and again, I am not really knowledgeable about science so don't count my opinion very high - if only cause "easy to understand" may actually be more problematic, or not, or...)Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)(EC)
Humerus stuff, eh? ;-) Anyway, I think easy to understand may be a problem but it's kind of the point. If you want a full high-level briefing, there's already a place for that. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 16:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sterile: Totally valid I think, but as I see it the 'debate useful' material would go in the main article, and if people want to write more details about the actual process of meiosis in a semi encyclopaedic way, that stuff would go in reference. That way people who already know what meiosis is can read interesting, useful information about common logical fallacies used in debate, crank theories regarding meiosis, and other things we come here for... but if someone feels the article is sparse or just doesn't understand it they can click a link to "if you would like to know more about meiosis check out our __reference__ on the subject". ERK! | Complaints Hotline 17:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif
My original point in all this is that plain science articles don't conform to the mission. Why should i not create 9000 bird articles, with a section about how they evolved? They'd be allowed as science articles that promote evolution, but how do they advance the mission? There's no real difference between science articles and Felidae, an article that finally got spiked after an epic debate on the talk page. I think refspace is overdue. Sophiebecause liberals 17:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Science, by being anti-anti-science, is in our mission, if it is something denied. And, again, it's still not clear to me if logical fallacies are reference or Main articles. And I'm not explaining this 80 gazillionty times to newbies. steriletalk 17:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a newbie? well maybe if you add up all the LANCB timeouts... Sophiebecause liberals 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Not you, a real newbie. If you went to a skeptical wiki and typed in "evolution" and didn't get an evolution article (or more likely, get a redirect, the inevitable consequence of reference space), you would think it odd, no? steriletalk 17:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Evolution is obviously on-mission, and has counter-evolutionary claims and arguments to provide missionality. Golgi bodies is not, as there are no anti-golgi claims in circulation. That's the difference. Sophiebecause liberals 18:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
So a better way to look at it might be "what articles are worth a 'reference' page, as they are direct and immediate to things we discuss here? For example, from someone like me who doesn't really know what "life" is, a discussion of the general notions that viruses are (or are not) alive, but single cells are alive is more worth an article than something about Plattypus. Similarly, an article that discusses modern studies on abiogenesis (such as J. Southerland's works) is probably important to us, whereas an article about covalent bonds (those are the ones that don't disolve in water?) work... It's not that we do not need such articles, but that we should be more picky about what topics we have articles on? Is this what I'm hearing? Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yo Sterile, as a "real newbie", I gotta say that's a bit annoying. Would you like new people to come and get involved in the development of RW? Or would you rather let it sit and stagnate? You're free to say you've made your case on this before, and I'll happily read where you wrote it, but unless it's the environment you're aiming for, I'd rather not be dissed for trying to get involved... and if that's the environment you're going for I'm on the wrong wiki.
Anyway, on topic, the trouble with banning reference-type material out-of-hand is the risk of zealous rules-enforcers removing stuff that contextualises important concepts. If I'm writing an article about eukaryotes, I have to explain a bit where I'm coming from whether I'm writing an encyclopaedic article or a description of it as it relates to quackery. Not everything is black and white like the golgi. On the other hand, allowing too much encyclopaedic content drives away readers like me, who know about the topic but want more information about cranks and weird theories; that's what I come here for. Seeing a huge article mainly describing what a topic is, rather than what bizarre claims Andy Schlafly makes about it, is boring. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 22:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but i suspect he does not mean "newbee" to RW, as much as "newbee" to science. Kinda like I'm always asking you all "ok, explain how atoms work", and "is there really space between us even though it feels solid", etc. And those probably are good articles to have some basics on (?). Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant someone new to RW. You don't want someone to not be able to find things, or worse, make something in Main that should be in reference, as it will make people bite the newbies. But if someone wants to write a proposal (for the ???th time) and we can vote (for the ???th time), so be it. steriletalk 23:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I utterly misread what you meant: I thought you meant this was an argument you'd had before and didn't want to clarify your stance on because you had done so many times before. My fault entirely, I apologise (and struck out previous statement) ERK! | Complaints Hotline 23:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

First question (starting small): do we want to keep this stuff? Yes/No/Goat. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

yes, but in some kind of reference space. Sophiebecause liberals 11:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I was getting there... The next question is: what would be the difference between referencespace and CZ's Catalogs (e.g. this one)? Because my envisioning is of something disturbingly similar. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather keep them in main space for the reason others have suggested. We want all of our articles to have some connection to our "pov", and the line between RW and "reference" seems very... cloudy?
Third question. What are our criteria for what articles we should have, and what is too complex.--Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I would go not by complexity so much as levels of 'support': if we have a 'reference'/outline page about a topic in support of various mission articles that want to link to 'cell' or whatever, we shouldn't have articles that are another level of support, i.e. 'cell' referencing 'meiosis,' unless the mainspace/mission articles also want to link to meiosis. Otherwise, that material should be placed in the higher level article (cell) and culled if unnecessary/too long.
The Complexity issue isn't actually a outline-only thing: how much detail should we go into in the main articles? I would say 'as much as the author knows so long as it is understandable.' Peter Monomorium antarcticum 03:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a reference namespace, as it's been defined here, would be a good move. Our current criteria for distinguishing articles are mission status and deletion status, the former being whether or not an article directly furthers our mission statements and the latter being whether or not we'd want to keep it.

We currently have four artificial classes of content here: "off-mission/keep," "off-mission/delete," "on-mission/keep" and "on-mission/delete." These classes are already incredibly murkily separated and have caused untold arguing among veteran editors and with newbies. Creating yet another class criterion - requiring more arbitrary distinctions based on namespace - would only introduce more confusion. This reference namespace would create the classes "reference/on-mission/keep," "reference/on-mission/delete," "reference/off-mission/keep," "reference/off-mission/delete," "main/on-mission/keep," "main/on-mission/delete," "main/off-mission/keep," and "main/off-mission/delete."

If we set up actual guidelines on what content we want to host as articles, we can alleviate the need for a new namespace... except for those source documents, which are currently handled by a nice template. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 05:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt that it would cause more confusion. Despite a lack of rules, the main-space deleters/movers seem to do their job pretty well, additional guidelines would only result in more rules lawyering. CopperheadHisssssss 14:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the "Reference" or "Source" namespace, if it's ever created, should only be used to store source documents which are important to the mission. Using it for general science articles is a mistake. There is essentially no divide between "reference" articles and "mission" articles, since general science articles often have sections on common myths related to the subject. Radioactivity and neuroplasticity are good examples. --Tweenk (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
And what do we do with articles on, say Andorra? Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Outline articles

Personally, I'd like to call into question the missionality of "outline articles". By, this, I am referring to articles that use {`{sci-outline}}, and are typically just brief descriptions of the subject matter without having the slightest thing to do with any of the four points of the mission. As a typical example of these articles, we'll use meiosis.

  1. Documenting pseudoscience ~ Let's see, these are science, not pseudoscience, so no.
  2. Documenting crank ideas (any real difference between this and #1?) ~ Not a crank idea, and I really don't see any difference between Items 1 and 2.
  3. Documenting authoritarianism and fundamentalism ~ Neither of the two.
  4. Documenting the media on items 1-3 ~ This one should be immediately obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together.

I know the mission guidelines are just that: guidelines, but seriously: do we really need these short articles, especially in the case of the meiosis one, where I can find literally everything in some high school biology textbook? If I wanted general information, I would've gone to the big wiki. These articles aren't on-mission, and they aren't snarky. There's literally nothing in them that really says "there's a reason to use this one instead of Wikipedia". Of course, going through to find and delete each article with {`{sci-outline}} would be painstakingly tedious, but we could just delete them or modify them to meet the mission or be snarky.

Hence, I would like to propose a plan of action, called Operation Silhouette just because it sounds cool:

  1. Any RationalWikian who wants to join can do so.
  2. If a member of Operation Silhouette comes across an article with the {`{sci-outline}} tag, they will consider if there is any pseudoscience based off of it.
  3. If that user can think of some pseudoscience online relevant to the article, then the user will add information about the pseudoscience, add a redirect if necessary (for instance the article on the 5.9 kiloyear event was redirected to the article on the pseudoscientific book based off of it).
  4. If the user can't think of any relevant pseudoscience but can think of some snark, then the snark should just be added and the article moved to funspace until it's removed in a cleanup project or something.
  5. If neither Items 3 nor 4, then the article is simply to be deleted, because seriously: why do we need these short boring irrelevant synopses? If I need info on meiosis, I'd go to Wikipedia, not RationalWiki.

Comments, questions, suggestions, voices of support, constructive criticisms, etc., are welcome. Ad hominiems about me wanting to delete articles are not. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. Wiki articles on science tend to be totally impenetrable to a casual reader. Basic outlines of science subjects are interesting and relevant to what we do here. As for your claim I can look up meiosis in a biology text book; no doubt this is true, except I don't have a biology text book, nor have I ever heard of meiosis, so how could I look it up? I would, and I presume, others too, would quite like to stumble upon it one day whilst browsing recent changes or random page, and learn something about it. You want to deny me this opportunity because it doesn't fit in with your narrow view of what RW is. I think you need to hang out here for a little while longer before you start formulating site policy. --DamoHi 09:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Relevant? How? Tell me, which of the four mission points does it relate to, and how does it? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you before (several times I might add), the Community Standards make it clear that these type of articles are permitted.
"RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia; it does not require articles on every known subject. However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world."
You can find the relevant page reference here.
Please stop your campaigns. You are a newcomer to the site, appear to have no idea what the site is about, and as such should take some time to get the lay of the place before demanding it conform to your ideas. --DamoHi 21:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Responses to Criticism

Sometimes, people critique my idea. Like I said above, constructive criticism is welcomed, so I'd simply like to deal with it right here, right now. I'll add more to this as more people add to it.

Problem: Wikipedia's articles tend to be very complex and "impenetrable to a casual reader". Solution: This has occurred a lot of times over the years regardless of subject or wiki. Hence why they made something called the Simple English Wikipedia, which intends to be understandable by children and the ESL community, and would probably be understandable by an adult casual reader with English as his first language. RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia, as our guide to writing new articles spells out quite explicitly in its first item.

Dissent

While I agree with Godot's philosophy that any page can be mission, in many cases you may find that the mission topic is covered by another article, and that the outline is merely important supporting material that shouldn't clutter the main article. Or that the material would otherwise have to be duplicated between several psuedosciences on the same science.

Additionally, this would not be a good use of funspace. Whatever it is, whatever it was intended to be, I highly doubt that that's it.

As for wikipedia, if I honestly didn't know what meiosis was but I needed to to get the gist of the article, I would rather the link here than to TOW. You just need to know the outline, and that's not something wikipedia can be relied on for. And we have a wp: link in the template, if it comes down to it. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 08:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree. ТySerious Business Guy 14:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
So, tell me, how does our article on meiosis meet with any of the four points of the mission? I went through them one-by-one in the OP. Also, I highly doubt not anything can be on-mission. I've heard of a preschool called "Clover Patch". I've heard of no wingnuts or fundies there, it's just an obscure preschool. Someone please make an on-mission article about Clover Patch preschool and prove me wrong. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Who cares? Honestly?--il'Dictator Mikal 17:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You do: otherwise, you wouldn't have replied, and you would've just told me to go ahead if it made me happy, because you wouldn't care either way. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I care that you think you know what does and doesn't belong on the site, that you barely ever listen to ANY advice we've tried to give you and that every time you decide to do something like this i have to see it on RC. I dont give a damn about our outline articles, let em stay, are they causing you pain by being there? You didn't even know they existed until you went on a wiki walk.--il'Dictator Mikal 21:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
wiki walk. ohhh i like that!Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Mission

If you are really the teen you claim to be (and I still find it hard to buy some of you are teens, heh, but that just might mean you'll take over the world) then you probably have never worked a "real job" before. And that may make you unaware of what a "mission statement" is or where it comes from. A mission statement is about a goal, a guiding direction, a place we want to focus on. but it's not some kind of hard/fast rule. "the only thing allowed here are things that are on mission". hell, if you were literal about that, all of CP would be gone, all the personal talk pages would be gone, adn essay space would be gone. Mission is a good guidline, but you really need to get off the idea that you can hold a give article up to the light and say "is this mission or not", when other editors are saying "seems good to keep". sometimes, mob is what mob is, regardless of how missionable the mob is. --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bring on referencespace, please! Sophiebecause liberals 21:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
(EC: here we go again) Jobs have "mission statements"? You mean I could potentially encounter this kind of argument in the workplace?Francis.gif Peter Monomorium antarcticum 21:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
No, cause here mission statements are somewhat useful. in the job market your "mission statement" is fucking obsurd. our mission statement is something like "We seek to provide a legal atmostphere where local governments and native tribes can address their legal concerns while being legitimized as indpendant, isolate entities. we belive that each client is an individual and not just a representative of his larger goverment. We seek to make a working environment where each employee has his best chance self actualization, and personal and professinal improvement". it's complete BS. And since 84ish, when it got popular, i've yet to have a job that didn't make us "revisit" our "mission" each year. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Very absurd... Do we have a whole page for "Job woo/BS"? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 21:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
my god, you could have a whole wiki on it. Pay checks being the first woo!  ;-)Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
We have barely anything about work (management speak and trade union are all I can think of) but most workplaces are authoritarian in practice, and management is a world of woo. It's something that RW really needs to cover, and yet we hardly even notice the gap. Sophiebecause liberals 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem may lie in the number of people editing from work, and whose bosses wouldn't let them if they spent all their time effectively complaining. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
My world mostly resembles 'dilbert', so it's been done. :-) but you're right, tere's probably lots of stuff...Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Bring on referencespace, please! I hope that's not sarcasm. Smiley.gif Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 22:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Typing Captcha for every edit?

Put me on the white list. I don't need to enter a captcha for every edit. Is there an edit count I have to reach? If so what is it? The captcha is annoyingly hard. If you're the person who handles the spam extensions here let me know. I will tell you how to get rid of it. --Arbuckle (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been moved into the autopatrolled category. It happens automatically after so many edits. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 23:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

«1..1»(1 total)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support