Essay:Talk

So for years Rationalwiki has gotten by fine without any real people in authority aside from Trent, who exercised absolute authority. That worked really well for a long time, and the mobocracy encapsulates a lot of what is great about Rationalwiki: the irreverence, the passion for justice, and other good things. But eventually, it became clear that it was no longer working. Even when the mob got together and made a rule, people felt free to just ignore it. The end result was that the people who got their way were just the most bloody-mindedly determined ones. That's not always going to be a bad thing - I mean, often when someone has a fierce desire for something, there's a good reason, like a desire to see others treated fairly or to keep the spirit of dissent alive. But almost as often, it led to anarchy. And once a group gets big enough, anarchy becomes unpleasant. That's why a rollicking fun club of ten guys out getting drunk works fine, but a hundred guys end up breaking some windows.

There have always been trolls and people just interested in making trouble, but far more often the problem is that we love a cause, and so anything that even hints of injustice gets a half-dozen people willing to take a stand. So trolls were able to run around making trouble or being nasty, and everyone else had to put up with it as just one more unpleasantness. But eventually there got to be so many of those things and so many problems that it became apparent that some rules were needed to make things work.

People recognized this. Increasingly, there were more fitful attempts to work up rules and guidelines, and then frustrated cris de coeur from people who couldn't understand why no one was willing to work together. And eventually, this led to the Loya Jirga.

The LJ did very little, because they wanted to interfere as little as possible. That's very commendable, and completely in keeping with RW's spirit. But they actually did so little that they became irrelevant. After all, people naturally reasoned, if they didn't need to do anything, then why were they necessary? Why not just forget them? And so we did, and they never even had another election. Some of them resigned, and the LJ faded away.

But even before they'd had time to vanish, though, the cycle was beginning again. Faster this time. Things had become nastier, and little problems and inconsistencies had cropped up. And so this time, Trent personally took things in hand to address the various calls for order. And he introduced the moderator system. But as it happens, it hit an immediate wall. The biggest wall. Our biggest problem.

The biggest problem was and is the sacrosanct nature of talk pages. Long considered community property, they represent probably the crux of the issue. No one can really do "damage" to RW, after all, in any direct sense: vandalism is reverted and vandals are blocked. So the only real threat to RW is trolling: people who make comments with malicious intent, either blatantly abusive or with the intent of disrupting matters as much as possible.

The only thing a troll can do is make comments on talk pages. "Fuck you, you fucking cunt," is abusive trolling. "Why are you refusing to address my essay on the flaws of this cesspool," is disruptive trolling - assuming the standard context. The latter is much easier to spot and eliminate than the former, so we're necessarily skittish about it.

Now, maybe you don't think trolls of either type are a problem. That's a perfectly valid perspective, albeit one I don't agree with. Personally, I don't want to be part of a community where I am forced to permit someone to repeatedly call me names on my talk page. If you don't mind trolls, then you have to be willing to admit that you would then not be allowed to revert a message on your talk page that consisted entirely of, "You fucking fuck, you are oppressing me." You might think it's "clearly" just abuse or nonsense, but if there's any real content then you have to admit it is also an actual communication, and thus you cannot revert it.

The real problem, of course, is that either view on talk pages is reasonable. It's very reasonable to say, "I want to be able to remove people who are abusing me from my talk page. I shouldn't have to let people call me names or trash me on a page dedicated just to communicating with me." It's also very reasonable to say, "I don't want people who are just trying to ignore my reasonable criticism to be able to remove it from their talk page and thus from anyone else viewing." Both of those views make sense, especially in light of extreme examples: the abusive snarling troll calling foul names, and the heroic reformer pointing out hypocrisy or problems.

But just as it's very clear that both views are reasonable, it's equally clear that they can't exist at the same time. Either people control their own talk pages, or talk pages are community property. And whichever one we choose, people are going to be unhappy when it interferes with them.

And this means that they will be unhappy with anyone who implements the rule. There is, quite literally, no possible scenario where moderators like myself will not be treated in some circumstances like we're being power-hungry monsters. And that's a problem with me, because I've already been called a lot of really nasty names, and I find the abuse unpleasant and the job unrewarding. I'm not going to quit, but it has become clear that something needs to be done. I'm a Rationalwikian, after all: I love a goddamn cause.

So, what are our options?

Status Quo:

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Option 1: Anarchy, or, the Wild West

I didn't even realize this was an option until lately, when someone pointed it out. But it really is. Some people may not think that a hundred drunk guys are any worse than ten drunk guys, or they might like the rough-and-tumble the same way some people like mosh pits. In this scenario, we just do away with any rules about talk pages. You can delete whatever you want from your own talk page and you can revert anyone who tries to do the same to you.

This will probably work, in some sense. I mean, RW won't die or anything. But it will also be really unpleasant, and I for one will probably spend a lot less time here, the same way I seldom go to other "anything goes" places like 4chan. And by and large, most people seem to agree. Like any community, most people think that they're willing to give up a little freedom - the freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want - so that the general environment will be tolerable. Not to mention that it's hard to meet our mission in an atmosphere of rabbling revert wars.

A not insignificant fraction of prominent users (Human, Eira, etc.) loved the "Wild West" atmosphere we used to have, so it wouldn't be honest to just ignore this possibility. But be prepared for a lot of grudge blocking, rights wars, and endless edit wars. And understand that this means that no votes will be taken on this issue or any other talk page issue - or at least, no votes will matter. Why would they, when there are no consequences for ignoring them? This would be governance by the loudest, since whoever was most persistent would get their way. If you edit war for four hours, eventually the other person will give up.

Side Note: Votes and at least one martyr

Before we continue, therefore, it's worth noting that in all other options, votes on exceptions or specific cases would be binding. It doesn't matter if you think the vote wasn't fair, or if you disagree with the outcome, or if the person you're defending is being perfectly reasonable this time and he's really going to change. It doesn't matter if you think a mod is prejudiced or stupid or wrong. None of that matters, because there will always be something that can be found.

Any system will be imperfect, and any mods will be imperfect. I think mods can be relied on to watch each other, and certainly the community can take a vote and oust someone if they think he's been abusive. But your personal judgment is not superior to everyone else's judgment, and so you personally cannot ignore community votes. Votes just don't work that way, I'm sorry. So they have to be binding, whether or not you like them.

This means that at some point and no matter what rule we choose, someone popular or cool will take a stand, and will probably get blocked for a short while. There are just too many strong-willed Rationalwikians with different opinions that they're all willing to internet-die for. So it will build into a whole big thing and a nasty community vote that spills over into other talk pages and hurts people's feelings and they will throw up their hands and say, "Don't we have mods to stop this very thing!"

I'm telling you now that it will happen - it's happened a little bit five times already in the past two months. So don't be surprised, and try not to start popping the seams on your wrists Quo Vadis style in the first ten minutes.

Option 2: Talk pages are community property

This is a more strict application of the old rule. Simply put, no one could delete anything from talk pages. Anything anyone says gets archived, at a minimum. If you try to do it, you get reverted. If you do it again, you get reverted and warned. And if you do it a third time, you get a brief block. Assuming this continued, there'd eventually be a community vote about longer blocks, although only someone deliberately provoking would push things that far.

Here, we're recognizing that free speech is fundamental to free discussion and free communities and free pizza. Everyone gets to speak truth to power, and no one gets to quash dissent. But everyone has a different idea of truth and dissent, so we'd all have to put up with a lot of annoyance and vulgarity. As mentioned earlier, the line between "abuse" and "protest" is too thin for anyone to successfully negotiate about themselves. It's seldom as simple as "fuck fuck fuck fuck;" more often, it's "you're fucking oppressing me." Don't fool yourself into thinking you're wise enough to be able to always recognize "obvious trolling" from "legitimate protest" - I don't think I am, and you shouldn't, either.

So the only way this rule is going to work is if it's absolute. Otherwise every week someone will remove something that's perceived by others to be "legitimate," and another round of screaming matches will begin with all kinds of apostrophes flying everywhere to bold and italicize stuff. Not pretty.

We see this happening in the current atmosphere, since this is where we are now: talk pages are community property, but the Loya Jirga declared that obvious trolling could be removed. It's already led to several edit wars, nasty grudges, LANCBs, and Coopings. None of our choices can make everyone happy, but it seems like the status quo - Option 2 with a weird twist - is definitely not working very well.

Also note: if we make Option 2 absolute, it also would mean that no one will ever be blocked as a troll. We don't block people for ideology here, only rule-breaking, and if trolling isn't against the rules, then they will never be blocked. This isn't so much a policy choice as a direct consequence. Only direct threats will be a blockable offense.

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. Users may not change or remove comments on their talk page.

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page.

Option 3: My talk page, my castle

The ironclad rule is that people are the absolute authority over their user page. Some people want to extend that authority to the talk page, and "police it themselves." Under this scheme, you can delete whatever you want from your talk page. This includes "fuck fuck fuck fuck," but it also includes someone bothering you. If another user finds you annoying, then they can remove even your reasonable and calm question from their talk page.

A lot of people like this option. They think that they should be able to do pretty much whatever they want within their own personal userspace and talkspace; as one editor put it, "My space, bugger off." And this is a very good point. You have to put up with annoying crap everywhere else, but do you really have to put up with it on your own talk page? Why not be able to delete it however you want?

However, many people here also disagree with each other. If you think about it, you disagree with some people too. You may even consider them to be annoying, and want to tell them so. "Stop doing that, you're annoying," you might want to say. "Quit reverting me, you're biased because of these things" perhaps, if someone keeps reverting your edits. Or maybe you have noticed a long series of bad judgments on their part, and you want to challenge them to defend their views.

If we take this option, you have to be prepared to lose the ability to make those comments. Not everyone will delete them - many won't - but you probably wouldn't be making those comments to that person if they were a reasonable fellow in the first place, would you? Often, it's the unreasonable jackass who gets accused of being an unreasonable jackass, and he's going to be the one who deletes your protests if he considers them unpleasant. So if we choose this, anyone will have the ability and right to delete anything you say from their talk page. Their talk page is their castle, too, and your right to "free speech" does not extend there.

One little-addressed aspect of this is the "unanswered question" phenomenon. Most folks have seen how it works on CP: if you ask someone a question and they don't answer it, everyone can see that. There's an obvious implication there: they can't answer it. It sits there starkly, showing everyone how intellectually dishonest they are and how cowardly they are about it. That's why people usually actually ask questions of Andy Schlafly or Ken DeMeyer: they want the lack of real answer to be seen by other people. And as on CP, this phenomenon can be a good thing. It exposes people.

A similar thing has existed in public life for years, in the form of the "open letter." Many times, you can pick up the paper and read an open letter that has been sent in - it's ostensibly addressed to the recipient, but in order to publicize its concerns copies are also sent to the media and other prominent people. This makes the formal protest/accusation into a public one, that cannot be easily ignored. When speaking truth to power, many people find that power ignores truth whenever possible, and only the light of public scrutiny and embarrassment can force a response.

So if we choose this method, you will have to accept that this phenomenon will probably be gone on RW. Any brave and bold questions you might have, about why this editor is so vicious to an undeserving third party or group - well, those are gone. Deleted. You can still make statements and whatnot, but it won't be obvious to a lot of people, because not everyone hovers over Recent Changes and will see the revert (and implicitly, you wouldn't be able to repeat a deleted comment under this rule). People will have the right not to let you communicate with them, and you have to accept that.

A user's talk page, however, is under their direct control. You are permitted to delete comments on your own talk page at your discretion.

Talk pages (excluding user talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. User talk pages are an exception. Users are permitted to delete comments from their own talk pages when they feel it is necessary. If a comment is deleted, the editor who added it is not permitted to add it again, since this is harassment. A user's talk page is their property.

Option 4: Moderators

I feel strange making this case. I am a moderator, and so anything I say is going to seem like I'm hungry for power. But I'm not. Seriously. This is all a huge pain in the ass and I've been called fascist and a dogsbody and all kinds of things. But I love a cause.

The fourth option is that moderators get to make the call. If someone is posting negative stuff, then you leave a message at All Things in Moderation talk, and a mod deletes it if it's abusive.

There are some downsides. This is slower than managing your own page. If someone's doing something several times and a mod warns them, they'll be blocked for a bit, but overall this is still sluggish. It requires that you see the abuse, then that you report it, then that a mod sees it, then that they remove it. It's not snappy. Further, you might not agree with mods all the time. In fact, odds are pretty good that anyone who has their comment removed is going to disagree and think it was a legitimate comment. If they get warned not to do it again, they'll feel that now there's a pattern where they're being warned not to speak truth to power. If they get blocked for an hour over it, then they'll feel like they're being oppressed. This is a certainty.

There are also some upsides. The best benefit is that it would preserve a lot of what is good about both Options 2 and 3: people could still get abuse removed from their talk page so they don't have to look at "turd turd turd turd turd turd" every time they go there, and they could also be sure of having their legitimate complaints and unanswerable questions being either answered or conspicuously ignored.

Another aspect of this decision might be either good or bad, depending: it would reinforce the new structure of the site and cement moderators as users who have a particular power and command a particular process. I think this is mostly bad, but others are so sick of the nonsense they will be relieved.

I also believe that there would have to be a particular exception for anonymous IP edits. We don't want to set up a system where users can't delete IP trolling, because that would handcuff those users who are targeted by someone malicious - they'd have to sit and wait helpless while their talk page was spammed with filth, and the IP editor would suffer no consequences. Accordingly, users would still be able to delete any comments on their talk page from anonymous IP editors or from user accounts less than a week old.

A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. Users may not change or remove comments on their talk page. Users who feel that a comment is obviously trolling or vile may request removal from the Moderators at RationalWiki:All things in moderation. Moderators will respond to requests by either deleting the comment(s) in question or not. Repetition of the comments is not permitted if they are removed.

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page. If they feel that a comment on their own page is trolling, abusive, or harassing then they should seek help from the Moderators at RationalWiki:All things in moderation. Moderators will respond to requests by either deleting the comment(s) in question or not. Repetition of the comments is not permitted if they are removed. Moderators may also initiate requests, but for obvious reasons would not then be allowed to be the one to rule on them. Moderators should, whenever possible, avoid moderating discussions in which they have in fact played any part, although circumstances may make this impossible at certain times of day.

So then, the vote...

So my plan is to introduce a proposal for a vote onto Community Standards talk. I think the options should generally look something like the below, although the wording may change a little. My intentions are a final vote - something big and binding with real force behind it, so we don't have to revisit this again in six months. As I argue above, this is the most important issue we face, and so I think this vote will be the most important vote we'll have taken in years. We want to get it right and get it confirmed in a serious way. That's why I wrote up a long essay, tried to work through all the pros and cons, and worked up a preliminary set of options that are described and titled fairly - all before the voting discussion even begins. I want to get it done, once and for all.

Proposal

Proposal: That the current Community Standards regarding user talk pages be amended.

Option Zero: Status Quo

Summary: Under the current status quo, users are trusted to exercise their own judgment to discern between legitimate comments and "personal attacks or trolling." There is no appeal or further system if the editor leaving the comments disagrees, beyond a site-wide vote in the Coop or temporary action by a moderator. A minor language amendment is offered in this option, for clarity's sake (there is no actual change in policy).

Old policy User Pages A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Proposed policy User Pages A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission. Users who believe their comments have been removed unjustifiably can take their case to the Chicken Coop or All Things in Moderation, rather than edit-warring over the removal.

Old policy Talk Pages Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Proposed policy Talk Pages No change will be made to the standards.

Option One: Wild West

Summary: The current rules, as well as any subsequent rules, are no longer to be held as strictly binding, but rather just expressing a community preference. Users are free to comment where they would like and delete where they would like on user talk pages. If you want something to stay or go, then you just revert repeatedly until the other person gives up.

Option Two: Community Property

Summary: Users are not allowed to delete anyone's comments from their talk page, nor can their comments be deleted from someone else's talk page.

Old policy User Pages A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Proposed policy A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. Users may not change or remove comments on their talk page.

Old policy Talk Pages Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Proposed policy Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page. An exception to this policy is that anonymous edits from IPs or from newly-created user accounts (less than a day old) may be removed at will by users, and repetition of such edits cause for temporary blocks. This is to prevent users from being paralyzed in the face of a flood of edits from sources that cannot be held accountable.

Option Three: User's Castle

Summary: A user's talk page will be under their direct control. While not absolute - they can't edit another's comments - they may delete any comment they dislike, either for a good reason or a whim. Another user trying to add comments repeatedly will be breaking the rules, and subject to temporary action by a moderator or site-wide vote of sanctions.

Old policy User Pages A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Proposed policy A user's talk page, however, is under their direct control. You are permitted to delete comments on your own talk page at your discretion.

Old policy Talk Pages Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Proposed policy Talk pages (excluding user talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. User talk pages are an exception. Users are permitted to delete comments from their own talk pages when they feel it is necessary. If a comment is deleted, the editor who added it is not permitted to add it again, since this is harassment. A user's talk page is their property.

Option Four: Moderation

Summary: User talk pages are considered community property, but users may ask moderators to remove obviously vile or abusive comments and to impose sanctions.

Old policy User Pages A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission.

Proposed policy A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. Users may not change or remove comments on their talk page. Users who feel that a comment is obviously trolling or vile may request removal from the Moderators at RationalWiki:All things in moderation. Moderators will respond to requests by either deleting the comment(s) in question or not. Repetition of the comments is not permitted if they are removed.

Old policy Talk Pages Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, with the exceptions of obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.

Proposed policy Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page. If they feel that a comment on their own page is trolling, abusive, or harassing then they should seek help from the Moderators at RationalWiki:All things in moderation. Moderators will respond to requests by either deleting the comment(s) in question or not. Repetition of the comments is not permitted if they are removed. Moderators may also initiate requests, but for obvious reasons would not then be allowed to be the one to rule on them. Moderators should, whenever possible, avoid moderating discussions in which they have in fact played any part, although circumstances may make this impossible at certain times of day. An exception to this policy is that anonymous edits from IPs or from newly-created user accounts (less than a day old) may be removed at will by users, and repetition of such edits cause for temporary blocks. This is to prevent users from being paralyzed in the face of a flood of edits from sources that cannot be held accountable.