User talk:Caius/wikilawyering

Voting
Just editing so if you write anything I'll see it on my watchlist. :) human  01:47, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * Its only a matter of time before I am purged... user:Bohdan 02:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * Never! human  02:07, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I clarified it to say that Bohdan is not a troll. Check it dude, you're a statutory exception.- 02:08, 23 December 2007 (EST) Lets be honest, since we are on the subject. This whole "mob" idea will be the end of this wiki (or at least make it a big joke). There is no way a true mobocracy can co-exist with a stringent "site mission". I will guess there are about ten-fifteen editors here. Mostly liberals. What happens if over time thirty conservatives sign up, and no more liberals? The mob will be ruling one way, but the "mission" will be the opposite. What then, do you ban all of the users who disagree with you? Will they be able to recall the current administrators? Can they vote in new administrators? Face it, either the "mob" or the "mission" has to go. user:Bohdan 02:19, 23 December 2007 (EST) (but you don't have to take this seriously, after all, I have very little credibility)
 * I have to agree with Bohdan, though it pains me. Actually, I'm mostly against ochlocracy as an organizing principle anyway (which I think I made clear in my article on the topic.)  As a big fan of "legal-rational authority," over that of the mob, I (personally) prefer some kind of idea as to what we are doing and how it should be done.  (Also, the article someone posted somewhere about how a group can be its own worst enemy reinforces that.)  Researcher 02:23, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * So does that mean we need guidelines like those on the user page? Going to bed, talk amongst yourselves....- 02:24, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think guidelines and standards are a good idea. I think we can avoid the iron-clad rules, since this project will never get very big (unlike WP).  Researcher 02:40, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * To address Bohdan's point: the site mission is only political when political figures run counter to science - ie, cross the lines of our mission statement. If conservatives "overrun" the site, as long as they are still refuting cranks and the anti-science movement, it will still be RW.  A better example (since you are fundamentally correct) would be if RW was overrun with, say, flat-earthers.  Then they would be the "mob" and it would not be RW any more. human  15:34, 23 December 2007 (EST)

On another topic, how can a site that practically encourages sockpuppeteering conduct any kind of clear "vote"? (I refer to the section that mentions a "supermajority") human  15:34, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 * Total agreement. Honestly, even without the encouragement of socks, it still wouldn't work out right, because we can never fully get rid of them. Researcher 15:36, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I never meant that the "vote" should be taken literally. I mean it like, "apparent supermajority," so you don't take a vote, but where it's fairly clear that the only dissenters would be other trolls/lurkers, "supermajority" support exists. I'll edit it...- 16:52, 23 December 2007 (EST)


 * So, it has been decided, for everyone else, that a vote will not be a vote. What purpose does a "guideline" have, if it does nothing other than state a vague opinion and have no "teeth"?  I suppose this is why he removed the discussion from the more public pages to here.  There is nothing in what Ames has put up that even hints at fairness, and leaves everything, as it is now, in the hands of anyone with enough power to declare a "majority".  What, exactly is the point of the vague and pointless paragraphs on the project page? --TK/MyTalk|undefined 17:03, 23 December 2007 (EST)


 * I have made some minor changes in an attempt to clarify and bring greater accuracy to the statements. --TK/MyTalk|undefined 17:35, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Voting and the Mob
As people have noted above we will have to move beyond this at some point and it would be better to address it sooner than later. At the moment any group of motivated people could overrun the site and vote it into anything they wanted. Our site objectives give no protection as the new mob could overturn them.--Bobbing up 12:54, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Do we need better guidelines on sysop elevation?
Yes we do. I generally like your proposals.--Bobbing up 12:54, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * How about a simple "three existing sysops concur and ask a bureaucrat"? That is fairly similar to what we do, but clear and delineated.  Heck, 'crats could even make protected subpages of their talk page for such requests, saving them having to investigate whether the nominators are actually sysops. human  16:19, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * ... I ... disagree with the popularity aspects of making sysop's. The way it is now written, it more or less decrees a "beauty contest" syndrome.  That probably isn't the best way of picking Admins.  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 17:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Well, not sure why it's a beauty contest (don't we want beautiful sysops?). Should there also be criteria the nominators have to use to show why they support the demotion?  Like time served, activity level, activities engaged in (like thankless rollbacks of vandals?), attractive user names, etc.? human  17:31, 24 December 2007 (EST)

LOL! I am all for beauty. I think the language Ames used, and why he did it, will eventually come back to bite RW on the ass, is all. It was added to keep anyone the mob doesn't like from becoming a sysop, and that might be good in the short term, but I am dubious about only making those who have no controversy in their portfolio qualified, while those already holding the job did not have to pass that muster. Although, that said, every place changing criteria will face such problems. We might want to think about keeping sysop appointments with the Bureaucrats, and not set up future hard feelings that could be possible with some sysops voting against those who are proposed. Seems to me the more difficult the and problematic things should be handled by the 'crats. --TK/MyTalk|undefined 17:53, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Ah, I thought you were commenting on the process I proposed, not the main page stuff. And, yes, of course it has to end up in the hands of crats, since only they can actually perform the demotion.  And I see what you mean about hard feelings due to arguments "against" nominations, but during such discussion, sysops are no better or worse than anyone else, right?  Surely they must be allowed to express their opinions pro or con in public, like anyone else?
 * Anyway, what I envision is more like the sort of acclamation process that has resulted in our newer sysops, just slightly more formal. human  18:11, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Speaking of the "requirements", "a user will be elevated if they (1) have a history of positive content and procedure contributions, over some to-be-determined recent timeframe" - we need to discuss how the timeframe thing will work. I think it should be a percentage of the time since registration (with a minimum), or better yet, a percentage of their contributions (ie, if we say 50%, we look back to their half way mark in contribs and count forward from that time). human  18:19, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Given the comparatively large number of sysops we have now we should probably tighten things up rather than loosen them, so I'd say that a longer period of probation rather than a shorter one would be appropriate. And by "longer" I'm thinking of months. By positive contributions we could look at the number of articles created using Susan's "bragging" table which many active editors use, but Human's percentage idea looks good as well. It also seems to me that that, regardless of what selection method we chose, any status change which is opposed by a number of contributing editors should be avoided.--Bobbing up 16:16, 25 December 2007 (EST)
 * I have reinserted the requirement for any new sysop to be generally acceptable to the majority of users as this seems an obvious necessity. I have deleted the word "recent" from the requirement for active positive consideration.  Unless "recent" includes three months.--Bobbing up 03:49, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * As we have discussed, how many is too many to offend? You looking for Admins or just popular people? --TK/MyTalk|undefined 22:19, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * Actually, what we are not looking for is highly unpopular admins (like me). human  23:09, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I have now twice reverted to the last version which includes Bob's well-considered sentiment. Can discussion please take place here, and not in edit comments and on my talk page? human  23:23, 29 December 2007 (EST)


 * I must have missed the discussion here before Bob reverted what both you and I added, Human. Could you point me toward the discussion about Bob's changes, other than his simply stating he made them? --TK/MyTalk|undefined 23:29, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 * Here's a paste in of what's there now for further discussion:

history
(1) have a history of positive content and procedure contributions, over some to-be-determined timeframe

Seems to make complete sense to me (human).

no offense
(2) their appointment would not offend a large group of members

I see no reason to make someone an admin if it would antagonize the membership. But, as Tk says, how will we define "a large group"? (human)
 * Of course you're right but as TK says it's vague. Anyway, one would expect a Sysop appointment to be a pretty non-controversial thing which would go through "on the nod". So now I think about it any objection would be a cause for concern - large group or not. furthermore RW users are a pretty hard group to offend anyway, so it's highly unlikely there would be many (or indeed any) who would fall fowl of the test. So lets say "Any sysop candidate whose appointment is objected to by five members who have been active in the six weeks will not be considered." It gives us a safety net and it's clear and simple.--Bobbing up 03:34, 30 December 2007 (EST)

mission
(3) are not actively adverse to the mission or RW

Pretty simple and obvious I think. Signing once to save ink - human  23:53, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Do we need standards about dealing with trolls?
Yes, we do. I think the proposed guideline should be significantly stronger.--Bobbing up 12:54, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * The page states:
 * Trolling is the stirring of controversy, without cause or basis in fact and reason, coupled with a complete paucity of positive contributions. Trolling is not disagreement with a user, or even the majority of them. RationalWiki endeavors to not punish trolls for being trolls. However, where the balance of the hardships weighs in favor of the temporary blocking of the user, and when there isn't objection from other users, a block is proper in Fibonacci order, in minutes, hours (24 or less) or, in extreme cases, days. A good example of a needed block would be a troll posting the same complaint/charge/statement on multiple pages concurrently, and failing to stop when asked.
 * And I think I disagree with most of this. Our article Don't feed the Troll defines a troll as a user concerned with:  Deliberately angering people. Breaking the normal flow of debate/discussion. Making itself the main topic of interest or discussion. Which I think is a better definition.
 * I disagree with the statement, RationalWiki endeavors to not punish trolls for being trolls.  Obviously somebody doing the above should be the subject of progressive blocks.
 * Indeed, the paragraph then goes on to state that they should be punished, which seems to contradict the RationalWiki endeavors to not punish trolls for being trolls. statement.--Bobbing up 16:09, 25 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think you are mis-reading it, Bob. What it is saying is generally, RW doesn't endeavor to punish them, that was AmesG's original part, I believe.  What was added was a good example of what we would define trolling as.  Otherwise you get into punishing contributors for what they say on their own talk pages, which we have always tried to keep as a free speech zone over and above all others. --TK/MyTalk|undefined 00:31, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * That not make sense. Everywhere on RW is a free speech zone.  Trolling is the equivalent of yelling "snowman!" on a crowded ski slope. human  02:01, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * I don't feel that I'm misreading it at all. We should use the meaning of troll we already have and, if people are being trolls, punish them for it. There is a difference between people saying what they feel to be true and trolling. That difference is usually clear, but if you say it's a slippery slope then we'll have to monitor ourselves.--Bobbing up 03:38, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * I've changed the proposed guideline to include our existing definition of troll, and simplified and clarified the instructions.--Bobbing up 04:02, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * I see that the changes I made have been reverted without comment so I'm putting them back in again. There are three reasons for my revision. 1) It gives us a consistent definition of troll and one which ha already been accepted. 2. The Fibonacci sequence is described elsewhere and only makes this instruction more complicated. 3. The existing one is self contradictory as it states we do no punish trolls and later says that we do.--Bobbing up 03:06, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Well, you changed them, Bob, without any discussion, just merely your own statement disagreeing, so you should hardly be miffed if someone else does the same, eh? Since you have made up everyone's mind for them, of course, by all means change them back as they are. The existing definition of "Troll" means nothing, and everything, it is so loosely worded as to mean anyone, saying anything, can be labeled a troll if someone, anyone, doesn't like what they are saying. If that fits this mobs mentality, so be it. I never inserted the language about not punishing trolls, that would be a Bureaucrat here that inserted that language. --TK/MyTalk|undefined 03:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)


 * Excellent wikilawyering TK, but I'm afraid that your attempts at spreading dissension won't work here. Every edit you make just makes you more loathed. If we're so bad why do you hang about? Just piss off to your own sad isolationist existence, why don't you? SusanG 03:37, 30 December 2007 (EST)~


 * "This site is so depressing sometimes. The old prune Susan comes here to snark for no apparent reason and everyone piles on TK when he snarks back. If you hate him so much just ban him and stop pretending you're all better than that....." &mdash; Unsigned, by: 69.158.98.26 / talk / contribs&mdash; Unsigned, by: TK / talk / contribs heh! still a quoteminer TK? 193.113.235.173 05:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Do we need to clarify the line between sysops expressing personal opinions, and sysops "abusing" users?
I wasn't aware this was a problem. Probably I've missed something. Could we get a more succinct message?--Bobbing up 12:54, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * I see two ways that sysops could "abuse" another user. One is a personal attack, which could be handled the same way as "normal" editors.  The other is an unjustified block.  How about if such occurs, we have a kangaroo court on a protected page (unprotected talk though) and if X% of existing sysops agree, the abuser is allowed one or two warnings and then desysopped?  The warnings could be accompanied by one day desysopings, perhaps.  Or the first offense that reaches this threshold could result in desysopping.  And the X in X% might not have to be a majority of existing sysops, maybe as low as 25% would work fine.


 * All this does is codify "peer pressure to be nice", and it certainly provides a way for editors to feel protected.


 * PS, I also think that IP-only editors should have no such protection; encouraging them to register. human  16:24, 24 December 2007 (EST)


 * I agree with you on the above, Human. I do, however, disagree with the popularity aspects of making sysop's.  The way it is now written, it more or less decrees a "beauty contest" syndrome.  That probably isn't the best way of picking Admins.  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 17:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Copied that up to the other section to reply to it... human  17:29, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * Don't we already have a sort-of procedure for this on RationalWiki:Administrative Abuse?--Bobbing up 16:19, 25 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yes, that would be where the star chamber is located. What we don't have, however, is a formal guideline of any kind as to processing a complaint and what outcomes should result in what sanctions.  If we want that. human  17:55, 25 December 2007 (EST)