Forum talk:Plan of action for user rights and moderation

Off topic
Question: Would on-wiki HCM's be in mainspace, RWspace or in the forum? If folks are really concerned about WTNWS, (what the neighbors will say), I'd suggest it be as far removed from the wiki as is possible. C ® ackeЯ
 * I personally think hiding intergroup conflict just to present a pretty face to the world is disingenuous, dishonest, and non-transparent. All things that rationalism suggests we avoid. Everyone has dirty laundry, and if we really felt strongly about not hanging our dirty laundry in the backyard, we're better off not making dirty laundry in the first place (impossible) rather than hiding it away and pretending that everyone poops but us. -- 18:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's more a question of moving irrelevant discussion to where it won't distract from our actual content.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Irrelevant discussion"... if this means site politics, then that discussion should be under the RW: namespace, I think. That way if I want to start an article on Chicken coops, I won't collide with politics. It's not unreasonable. -- 18:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the discussion even going in this direction? It doesn't seem to be anything to do with the proposed admin abilities outlined above.  Is WTNWS really a big concern?   19:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I was arguing for a FWTNT... but the big gripe that most people had that kicked this whole shitstorm into gear was over WTNWS... them wanting to hide our shit, and act like we don't poop. -- 19:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. I came late to the shitstorm & can only piece together bits & pieces of what happened, but anyway FWTNT.  HCM should be contained or diffused where necessary to avoid site disruption, not driven offsite or behind the scenes.   19:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not create a new wiki, hcm.rationalwiki.org... and move all the HCM there? 19:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not compress all the HCM into bricks and use it as a cheap building material for emergency housing?  20:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My 2c on this: Why not have a namespace for the HCM that can be excluded as a user option (i.e. to opt out of HCM updates, or even to opt in) from recent changes. Not sure if such a thing is possible, but some people will want nothing at all to do with an HCM, while others will want to break out the popcorn and follow every update. Bondurant (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This will not work. The very nature of HCM is that it extends beyond it's original boundaries. It is by definition uncontrollable in this manner.  Furthermore it is only identifiable once it is in progress and trying to repost it somewhere while it was in progress would only generate more HCM form people who objected to it being moved. --BobSpring is sprung! 09:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise that, but you could have the Chicken Coop, pages related to the LJ and any debate or forum page created to discuss / argue / whatever about who's being an arsehole and what're we going to do about it, all marked as HCM namespace. I don't really have a horse in this race, but all I know is that as an average user, I see recent changes flooded with people shouting at each other and would sometimes like to filter it all out. Bondurant (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You could probably do something like that with site policy pages - I don't know. That wouldn't stop it spilling on individuals talk pages and the bar though. There is also that fact that one person's HCM may well be another person's legitimate desire to seriously discuss site polity. (Or engage in concern trolling of course.)--BobSpring is sprung! 10:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I will resist this at all costs - The road to fascism is littered with the bodies of dead dissidents
The road to fascism is littered with the bodies of dead dissidents. This new iniative will give unprecedented powers to moderators, and allow them blanket rights to stifle dissent, and to label all dissidents as the subjective term 'trolls'. I will resist this, the Rationalwiki Reform Society will most verily resist this, at all costs, at any price, and for eternity. You have been told. Evil will only triumph if good men do nothing. I am a good man, and I do not intend to allow evil to triumph. If you amend the provision granting absurdly draconian powers to moderators I, and the reform society that I represent, may decide to accede to the new demands in the interests of a fairer, more stimulating, and more rational wiki.

Yours,

President of the Rationalwiki Reform Society, MarcusCicero. 86.46.166.191 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * hear him, hear him. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear FEMA is setting up concentration camps for the Wiki dissidents. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said Marcus. We will fight the power till the end!!  Titus Atticus (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MC productions: Bringing you those priceless moments of WTF. NDSP 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cabalists like Eddy and Nx have come out and said that they want to start banning editors who they personally feel are unproductive. Produce to their personal satisfaction or they will dispatch you. Is that fascist? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ThunderkatzHo! 20:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unproductive != troll; intentionally {insulting,aggravating,unhelpful} == troll. Please understand this. NDSP 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We might be the only ones who understand that. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A PERSONAL APPEAL TO TMTOULOUSE

 * Seriously though, I don't understand this adversion to dissidents. Why do people want this site to be like wikipedia? It is not, and never will be, a serious website or even an encyclopedia. I firmly believe RW should seek to realise what it states on the main page, and it will not accomplish that if it represses all those voices that stand here in criticism of you. I have been born anew; I admit that in the past I did troll, and took great pleasure in that. But now I am a conscientous objector, I am opposed to the momentum towards fascism and authoritarianism. I believe that I am mostly at fault for this trend, and I hope to change this place for the better, to what it used to be. Many of my predictions have proven to be quite prescient; for that, I lie awake at night, haunted by my prophecies. I am truly sorry.
 * TmToulouse, hear me! Hear me now! You do not need to take this course of action. Install me as your Sulla, and in the briefest of time I will purge this wiki and make the reforms necessary. And when I am done, I will retire to my farm and live in peace. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * O jesus, wow. Not worth more commenting. Rationalize (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Methinks the appeal will be fruitless. 23:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * So you're a "Reborn Anarchist"? --ǓḤṂ³ 23:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My Take
I won't bore you too long with my drivel, but here I go again. First, it is unclear to me how we would do sysopship under this new system. I mean, would it reflecct the current system where like most other wikis a selected elite decide, or more like the old system? I'm kinda interpreting it somewhere in between. And the removal of the crat group might help, but would Sysops or only Moderators be able to do the non-user rights stuff, like renaming users. And exactly how much power would these elected moderators have? In theory, they seem only to be able to react in emergency situations, leaving the mob to decide the big stuff. But in practice, I fear that moderators may become like Conservapedia sysops. I mean, would there be a way to impeach them if something like that were to happen to safeguard mob members from tyranny? And back on Sysops, am I correct that they would only be able to block pure vandals and, of course, do the beloved fun blocks? And what exactly is the extreme a sysop would have to go to to be promoted? I mean, yes obvious abuses of power like frivolous blocks on new people and deleting pages without concencus? Is that all? And how would moderators decide who gets the techy things? By mob concensus, by merit, or what? Not that it's a big deal, but I am just curious. I hope this all works out and only hope the best for this little community.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it'll look like the US Congress, where the hoi poli in the Sysop-patrol (House) will be more populist in getting charges trumped up, while the Moderators will be likened to the US Senate, a calm, sedate body that won't do anything fast and won't be "popular" with the lower echelons but who will )mostly) do the right thing. 23:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * The big question is what sort of disputes need to be moderated? name-calling dipsutes or genuine mainspace contributions? There doesn't seem to be a need to implement civility clauses currently -- the rudeness and goodnatured ribbing is what give RW its unique quality that hopefully will always distinguish it from the whimp-asses at WP who can't take a joke. OTOH if I, for example, insisted that Robert J. Oppenheimer was a godless communist scum who should've fried in the electric chair and someone wanted no mention of that, that may constitute a legitimate dispute needing modertation. In WP, it becomes a game to ignore the underlying issues, and bait users into loosing their temper. Then Arbcom reviews user conduct with the possibility of sanctions. nobsViva la Revolución! 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if you wrote that ( and you just did) I would think it was funny. But probably would at least put it in a "special" section if you added it to an article about him.  04:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rob, I worry about moderating as well. Yes, RW has that identity. But Wikipedia and virtually every other wiki does this kinda stuff. And I don't see RW trying to model its community after WP effectively. And I won't mention Oppenheimer.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While we have drawn what might be called some "common law" ideas from WP, we really, really, aren't trying to operate like them. There is a unique quirkiness here that has always been part of our charm, or at least body odor. It takes a calm spirit to enjoy the looseness that has entailed, though.  04:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to layout some more specifics of my plan here and try and address issues brought up in feedback. I will do separate sections for each group and make a feedback space for each one. Questions/comments about each group should post the in feedback section of the group you are asking/commenting on.

Current elections
Right now we seem to have elections for the Loya Jirga, as well as for new Bureaucrats, ongoing right now. Are these elections now considered defunct, as both groups as replaced by moderators? I'm fine with that, but if this is the case can we make that clear at the relevant pages? There's no point in continuing the massively slow train wreck over at the crat election page if the position isn't going to exist. DickTurpis (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think everything of that sort has become defunct due to the ensuing attacks on the wiki by autocratic people who WANT CHANGE NOW. Luckily we seem to have self-healed.  I really don't think any major changes are needed, except for perhaps making some of the community standards binding "rules", finally.  05:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with those other elections is that we're supposed to vote for crats and judges without the faintest clue what they'll be able to do. That's completely pointless and creates just another source for conflicts - the whole "redistribute user rights first, then work on policy" approach is what got us into this mess. While people are discussing concrete proposals like this one, all parallel elections should at the very least be put on hold, and if a consensus in favor of Trent's suggestion emerges, we'll see whether we can adapt the old election processes to it. Most of the candidates would probably be willing to run for this new position as well. Röstigraben (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with how policy discussions are done on this site is that there are always about half a dozen forum/project pages on the go at once, all of which tend to start with something along the lines of "it has become apparent that things need to change" and none of which ever link to each other. It makes it very difficult for anyone who's been away from site or just isn't following every single discussion to pick up what's actually happening.  If LJ/crat elections still seem to be ongoing, it would be wise to put a note at the top of the page linking to this page so that they can be at least put on hold.  Similarly any other policy discussions which might impinge on or conflict with this one.   07:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weasel, that might be the ENTIRE solution to so-called HCM. Just link all relevant pages to each other. Hot damn, it's the internet!  Money for nothing, and links for free.  07:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that all parallel discussions are put on hold and that we concentrate our attention here. This proposal makes all other elections redundant.  We would then need to link those parallel discussions to this page.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob's suggestion is cogent, as the above would nullify all the other policy discussions. The problem is that everyone has their own idea, and a lot of them are good, but their is no one to stand up and say "okay, here is what we are going to do" and then do it. No one but me. Something needs to be done, and I have proposed what I think is the best solution that captures the general theme of proposals across the site. I am also giving plenty of time for feedback to alter the model and gather what consensus we can before implementation. The vast majority of people that have commented so far like the basic idea at least. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * CAN THE ELECTIONS!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put a note at the top of the LJ election page, directing to here, & someone else seems to have caught the crat election one already. I've also replaced the links to other policy discussions in the Community Chalkboard with a link to this one.   18:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My US$0.02 which is coming increasingly less valuable with the rising Australian dollar
I think Trent is a pretty cool guy, Eh he put together a very good proposal AND DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING -  π    23:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And this...
... is why randomly stripping and changing the privileges of people without checking things over first is a bad idea. Someone fix it, I would have, but apparently my block ability has gone the way of TK. -- 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mass de-sysopping was a dumb idea. They should just undo it all. 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less about the politicking, I've already had more than enough for me to reconsider being at this site, but yanking the rights without checking the logs was unbelievably stupid. Last week blocks were fun and cheap, now they're serious and mean you're fucking screwed unless someone notices RC, and all of this just to make a point. -- 12:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is interesting...
But it does not clearly state a problem, and does not clearly state how it supposed to solve whatever that problem is. It's just a rejiggering of user rights and names done server-side, as far as I can see. As long as the Guidelines are not Rules, there is very little to enforce. And I can only think of one person so far on RW who has displayed the traits desired of a mod, and he just changed his name to something I can't remember. One. I have not seen these skills displayed by a single other user - and that is not an insult, since that is not what most of us are here to do. If anyone wants to argue that point, I want a solid example of someone else defusing a conflict. This, to be frank, is not Trent's best work. 06:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn it... shut up... if you question the revolution theater, it will never work, and people won't be lulled into thinking things have changed. (BTW, my understanding on the matter was that when the mods were established, that the guidelines would become rules.) -- 06:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)