Blue, if Ace makes personal attacks against Voxhumana on his talk-page, Voxhumana is allowed to revert them. As to other posts, I was unaware that RationalWiki makes a habit of protecting its editors from talk-page posts that they dislike.
I made no personal attacks. Blue's edit filter changes should be reverted immediatly - Blue has no authority to make the changes she did
Voxhumana complained about Ace's posts on his talk-page. Blue put on an abuse filter that gave Ace a warning if he posted on Voxhumana's talk-page. Ace took away her tech rights. Her abuse filter changes were reverted.
....and we are left in a fix about whether or not Ace should give said rights back, obviously.
Grrrrrrr! Shit like this is why we cannot have nice things.
She shouldn't get back her tech rights. That was not the best way to handle the situation, as it only exacerbated it. That's unfortunate. It's hard to feel too bad for Ace because it was only made slightly harder for him to keep purposefully irritated someone, but nonetheless this was a misstep. Right direction, wrong footing.
It's the same thing I tried. If you can't talk sense into people and convince them to play nice (you tried, and it didn't work), force them. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.
Except nothing I did had anything to do with "force"! I honestly don't think you understand what I did, AD.
It's metaphorical force. No one thinks you hopped a plane to NZ with a wooden spoon and shackles.
Maybe you're right, though - I am not as techie as you. I was under the impression that you edited the settings on the AbuseFilter extension so that whenever Ace tried to edit Vox's talk page, he was faced with an automated warning?
When he clicked save, he got a warning (like when you forget an edit summary and have that option enabled), and had to save again.
It's basically an edit notice that appears above the toolbar with a generic notification. Like an edit conflict, but your post isn't lost. In no way does it inconvenience editing or make it any harder for Ace to actually do the deed. Lazy moderating on my part, as I probably should have talked to Ace directly.
Yes, no-one weeps for Ace because he had to click an extra button to annoy someone with his usual childish antics, but you have to realize that the filter is a very powerful tool, so naturally people view all activity with suspicion. Maybe tomorrow you'll write a filter that prevents him from editing any talk page.
Insightful! Yes, I think that's exactly it. I know she meant well, and I know you did too. But it would be wiser not to give her back tech for a while. Eventually she probably should, because she actually does a lot of great work in that gritty and unglamorous behind-the-signs style. Like you did, actually! I hope you're back and to stay, by the way.
Or...Vox complained I had engaged in a campaign of abuse (no such evidence has been provided of said abuse), he (or she I suppose) left citing my 'abuse' as the reason, after he left I carried on a conversation with DickTurpis on his talkpage, he came back and complained I was further abusing him, Blue took it upon herself to edit the filter so that I was warned anytime I tried commenting on Vox's page and suggested if I continued she would take of it.
A) No 'abuse' has been presented B) Blue doesn't have the authority to make said changes C) What the fuck?
Seems to me that she moderated. Can moderators not modify the abuse filter?
From a raw "user rights" standpoint, moderators do not have the power to edit the abuse filter unless they also have "tech" rights.
I think that letting moderators use the abuse filter would go to great lengths in furthering their task. Remember when Nx protected Mara's talk page from vandalism? Then again, putting such power in the hands of Ace would be a terrible, terrible idea.
Ah, but using the abuse filter requires some programming knowledge and, again, it's currently restricted to Tech users. Though I disagree with the sentiment of not allowing one to be the other. It would be a poor use of the talent here to not let Blue be both a Tech and a Moderator simply because we think that's too much power for someone to have. We, as a community, really need to either 1) gain a better sense of trust in our community or 2) not elect people to the Moderator position if we don't trust them.
not elect people to the Moderator position if we don't trust them Unfortunately, a large offsetting factor in mod elections is popularity, and not trust
No, I know. I am well aware of this community's inherent problems.
putting such power in the hands of Ace would be a terrible, terrible idea. Jesus man, I am starting to sound like Magneto.
How far RW has come indeed. This sets a really bad precedent. Please don't do it again.
This is pathetic and why I can't stand RW any more. People confuse "can do" with "should do." And what a great time, right after elections! Ug.
I will also add that Techs and Moderators are not the same thing. Using Tech abilities in the name of moderating is questionable.
Nonsense! It wouldn't be RW without people getting deliberately offended over a minor action that had nothing to do with them and was reversed within the hour.
And you wouldn't be you without your total inability to accept that your actions and suggestions are not acceptable to a site of this nature.
That's a bit melodramatic for a simple misstep that she acknowledged was a bad move, don't you think?
Melodramatic and irony meter busting considering we've just had someone drive an innocent and productive editor away and then deny they did anything wrong and few seem to be giving much of a crap about that.
Take me to the coop (or the mod page) if you think there is a case. I'll defend myself and take any punishment that is deemed necessary without qualification. Drove an editor away? Please.
Well, as I said before I think Ace was well-meaning at that point (I dunno about other points) and any harassment was probably of the unintentional variety. I doubt there's a need to coop anyone, I think it's more convincing people to actually pay attention to how they act, and not assume other people will automatically know your intentions or have the same sense of humour.
Basically, try to treat other folks on the wiki in a decent way. We (and I include me in this) do tend to get a bit carried away at times.
Firstly while the person who emailed me to "update me on the situation" no doubt had the best of intentions, please let me say that I really want this issue to die. (ie: RPEH will be well justified in telling me to fuck off yet again.)
Now, while I cannot declare what Ace's actual intentions were, I certainly regarded it as harassment, and identified it as such.
Ace's current position appears to be "I did absolutely nothing wrong and Vox is a weird drama-creating newcomer that no-one should care about". He labels his harassment as "easily reverted", despite the fact that when I tried to revert he immediately undid it and then blocked me for 30 mins . I'm sorry for not seeing the humour in that.
I'll also note that Ace's alleged attempt to make peace ("Perhaps we have got off on the wrong foot - here is some music you might like"?") was made AFTER I had posted my LANCB statement, and even Trent observed that to an outsider it appeared to be "assholeish".
I like it here at RW and feel I have a lot to contribute. All I want is for Ace to agree to never post on my talk page, either here or at RWW, and to not deliberately antagonize me elsewhere. He is a mod, and should thus be the exemplar of behaviour, not the instigator of such harassment. If there is a way of bringing this about, then please let me know.
and should thus be the exemplar of behaviour Mods are not "better" users nor do they have any requirement to act in any particular manner unless specifically moderating.
There's no requirement, but ideally mods shouldn't make new problems without good reason.
Riffing off what both you and Ace said, nobody should make new problems without good reason.
I mean seriously, unless it's a flamingly obvious troll like Marcus or Rob, why antagonize people at all?
I wasn't deliberately trying to antagonise anyone, and attempted an apology in my own special way. I still maintain I wasn't 'driving an editor away' and I feel Vox is being quite precious about the whole thing. If anyone feels otherwise they are welcome to take me to admin abuse/coop where I'll defend myself and accept any, if at all, punishment deemed fit by the community.
You know very well nothing would come of a cooping, because the rules don't actually cover trolling and harassment.
Please, for the love of god Brx, stay out of arguments that you don't need to be in...this is the main reason you are disliked.
I am throwing that in your face the next time you crash my talk page
Ace, I am not asking for an apology, nor expecting any admission of guilt. I do not wish to initiate any formal process, or create any more drama.
I would simply like you to undertake to never again post on my talk page, or deliberately attempt to antagonize me elsewhere. If you agree to that, then this whole matter can be dropped and I can go back to writing articles and contributing in whatever other way I can.
Well, I never said you were. In fact, I said at least twice that I gave you benefit of the doubt and any harassment on your part would have been unintentional.
All I'm asking is that everyone (not singling you out, me too) just be aware that what's straightforward to you might not be to someone else. We've all got different perspectives, and when it comes down to it gotta get along to some degree.
Hmm, maybe I wasn't really clear in my earlier comment. What I was getting at was where AD said that mods should take care to not start trouble where there isn't any, it follows from what you're saying that where mods aren't better than anyone else then everyone should try for that standard.
Mods are just aware of the fact, is all.