Essay talk:Talk

My problem, having watched trolls in the past, is that there truly are very few options. I tend to just ignore people. But that's hard for some people to do. they want to make sure only what is "ok" (not in a nansy pansy way, i mean intelligent people giving lots of room and thought to that term) is allowed. And once you start drawing lines, you've given Chocolate to the Troll. once a troll, or this troll was engaged, it's hooked and you can't rid yourself of it. Anything you try, from banhamming, to blocking, will just thrill him more, and he will, like a cat with a mouse, play and play till he finds a way in. My "solution" is there is no solution. Cause he will escalate it. we will ban him. he will push it. we ban his whole IP, he pushes it. ....
I do think, though (and have no idea if this is possible) the best way to "ban" someone is make it so they NEVER KNOW they are banned, but their posts do not appear to others. "hidden". that way, they are ignored, without every knowing they are being ignored. I don't know if that's a possiblity on a wiki though.--En attendant Godot 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can revert via botrollback, so they don't show up by default in RC. A radical move would be to mark known troll accounts as bots, but then they could perform vandalism, as very few people bother to check RC with bots on. Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 01:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the tech stuff. Nx has to help me tie my shoes in the mornings, practically. I agree that the options are unfortunately limited, but these are they as I see them. I think the fourth one is the best, but really any of them will work - we just have to decide what kind of result we want.--^talk 02:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I also like 4. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My proposal

1. If a post is arguably legitimate, no matter how much you disagree with it, you can't delete it from your user talk page.
2. If there is a reasonable case (but doesn't have to been ironclad) that a post on your user talk page is offensive or from a banned user, then the user whose talk page it is has the discretion to revert that post, but is not required to. Others should refrain from doing so without their permission. (They can give blanket permission if they want, e.g. If user X posts here, feel free to revert it)
3. Only in extreme cases, such as death threats, posting of personal information, etc., should a user revert something from another user's talk page without their permission or against their wishes.
4. If there is a dispute about whether or not a post is arguably legitimate, etc., that dispute can be taken to the usual dispute resolution processes.

This proposal seems perfectly reasonable to me, and doesn't match any of the options you propose. I feel your list of proposals is carefully constructed to get the outcome you want, by limiting the choices available. There are more options than those you list; certainly my proposal here, and probably some more too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We did that. That used to be the status quo - there was sort of a rule, but "obvious abuse" could be removed. It was a LJ ruling. You weren't here yet.--^talk 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think my proposal is more explicit than the old status quo. In any case, the point remains that you present the options as (1) Anarchy, or, the Wild West, (2) Talk pages are community property, (3) My talk page, my castle, (4) Moderators, and none of them really describes this option. This option is a hybrid between (2) and (3). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I see it, those are the only viable options. I don't think the old way worked, which is why everyone was unhappy with it and why the issue continues to cause friction. Notice how hugely subjective it is: "arguably legitimate" seems clear to you, but it's something people disagree on; "reasonable case" about a poster's identity where again there's room for argument; "offensive" is a wildly varying descriptor; and so on. Either we'll get a lot of people going through resolution processes, or - more likely - people are just going to keep doing what they want and pointing to the fact that the rules are so subjective. After all, how could you ever sanction someone for removing a post if they argue that they legitimately thought it wasn't a substantive message?

The key is accountability. We've already tried a way where everyone is accountable, and it's unpleasant because people just end up fighting over it all the time. That's why the options I have laid out are all, as best as I can make them, very clear about things. Either there are no rules, or the talk page is sacrosanct (barring community vote), or the talk page is your castle (barring community vote), or we decide not to lay down a harsh rule but instead pass accountability to a smaller group of people.

That's what it's really ultimately all about: reducing the number of people who argue about everything. Everyone arguing about everything all the time hasn't been fun, and I think maybe other people agree. Thus the old attempts at rulemaking, then the LJ, and now the mods.

So I'm sorry, but I don't think your suggestion is viable. Thank you for making it, and you've certainly provoked some thought and helped me clarify my thinking about why I don't think it'll work.--^talk 08:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So, basically your proposal can be summed up as, I am a mod, and I think mods should have more power. A few days ago, I was proposing that mods should be held to a higher standard of behaviour, which you opposed on the grounds that it would make them "a special class of user". Now, you are arguing that the discretion to decide if a post should be removed from a user's talk page, should be taken away from the individual users, and given to the mods — doesn't that make them "a special class of user"? If you are going to argue for more power for the mods, shouldn't that also entail more responsibility; i.e. my earlier proposal that mods should be held to a higher standard of behaviour than the average user. My proposal here still leaves a role for mods and/or the community in resolving disputes, but the first port of call should be the talk page owner's own discretion, and appeal to the mods/community should only be if there is a dispute about whether that discretion has been exercised within the rules. You would have the mods be the first port of call instead. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right: I am a mod, and my favored option explicitly puts mods in a greater position of authority. I certainly can't deny that, although the way you phrase it is a little scummy.

I'm interested in what works. I understand that the old way certainly sounds nicer. But it just hasn't worked very well. It certainly seems like we should let everyone make their own reasonable decisions about their talk pages, but because reasonable people can and do often disagree, it's led to continual bickering and wheel-warring. We're a bunch of highly opinionated, highly passionate, highly quirky people - and we disagree all the time. Unless we work out clear rules of one kind or another, that's all we'll ever do: disagree. And not everyone has your passion for ceaseless oceans of dialectic parsing.

I agree about the responsibility thing, as I said before: if mods are to be arbiters of what is and isn't abuse, then they shouldn't be abusing others. That's a great point.--^talk 09:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I do have one beef that i'm not sure is relevant or not here. but i do think an editor has a right to delete his or her talk page comments. I sorta see it as "my space" and if you come saying something *I* find to be bully esque, i should not need anyone's permision to delete it. even if i just don't like what it says. not sure if that's the same thing, or relevant at all.En attendant Godot 02:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems pretty much like what I called Option 3: my talk page, my castle. It makes sense, but it has a lot of drawbacks too.--^talk 02:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent

Excellent article. You clearly are very articulate and I especially love this paragraph:

“”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 more "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?

Hits the NAIL on the head! That is why people like MC don't take this site seriously and use it as his martyrdom to troll and pretend to be smart with detailed and elaborate language, but he sees right through the system. Why bother? Someone who thinks rationally will block him for trolling or personal attacking and another drunkard will unblock him and argue for his defense. Nothing is done. Nothing is accomplished. There is no sense of "community." So, why bother? I'll do what I want and anyone who threatens that is "fascist!" I believe Human also follows the same ideology to a lesser extent.

You miss one important aspect in point #4 (but I'll reread it anyway). With the power of moderators, there must be a system of an election that must be adhered to with real consequences for those who do not. This sounds like RW is evolving into a society of freedom and order, like that of a working government for the 'users' (or people, to be allegorical), by the users.

This also might imply a policy, or later on as this site evolves, the use of checkuser to enforce 1 account per person, to reduce socking (for those who vote twice in such said elections) and block evasions etc. I am not necessarily proposing this, but I believe it will eventually be something to consider. RatMaster ^háblame 02:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the rules for selecting mods would then be very important - to be honest, I just assumed that. Maybe it should be explicit - if we ever have a vote, I think it should be.

I don't know about checkuser or no socks. That might be a bridge too far for me. Socking is important and fun and mostly harmless.--^talk 02:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Using the tool would have helped deter trolling though. RatMaster ^háblame 02:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The mod election process is identical to the RWF Board election process, I believe. It's already very difficult to cast multiple votes. Blue (pester) 09:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

2 Low key cents.

Back in March I posted the following at aSK about exactly this issue.

“”RW holds that nothing is allowed to be deleted from talk pages, with a couple of exceptions (at least in theory). CP holds usertalk pages sacred to the user, a la "my talk page, my castle." I tend to lean more to the CP view in this, but not completely. I think it would be okay for a user to delete posts on their talk page if there is a reason, and they should give that reason when deleting. Reasons would include incivility and trolling, and harrassment. These are things that an Umpire could also delete, but on a user's own talk page their own subjective judgement can apply. If the reason given seems frivolous or spurious, an Umpire could restore the deleted post. As to referencing a deleted post, I would say that is appropriate to reference its existence and its deletion (including the reason for such), but to reference its content is not appropriate. If the specific content is worth replying to, then the post should be left in place preceeding the reply. If the content is not worth the dignity of remaining on the page, it is not worth the dignity of a specific reply. What should one do if one's post is deleted? I know the frustration of this from WP, when an earnest post is simply dismissed. Depending on the reason for deletion (and indeed the reason for the original post), I would recommend; trying again with a modified tone/style, trying again on an article talk page, referring the incident to an Umpire.

Substitute "Umpire" with "Moderator" and I think it applies here, also. As the essay says, a user's talk page exists for communication with that user. Surely it is reasonable to allow the user to manage their own incoming communication, as long as there is scope to address perceived abuses. I think the troll boxing templates are actually useful in such a framework (indeed I was using something similar many moons ago at aSK, which drew condemnation from RWians). LowKey (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I told Maratrean, we had that sort of approach and it didn't work very well, which is why this is up for discussion yet again. When everyone decides what is offensive, then they tend to lean towards deciding most things are offensive. And then because we're a very combative people here at RW, it turns into a public spat. Over and over.

And we certainly will not start blocking anyone for incivility. You can be as uncivil as you like here, and all that happens is you gain a reputation for being an incredible dick.

I am not a fan of the boxing templates: I think they actually accomplish the exact opposite of their intended effect, since everyone then reads them. Things put in their own special box seem special.--^talk 07:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's the approach so much as "we're a very combative people here at RW" combined with a disdain for rules here. The approach of individual ownership with some accountability is pretty much the model of a mature free community. I think it is long past time for RW to stop being the kiddy table full of people making armpit farts and flinging their food around, mostly at each other. You need some rules and you need to learn to follow them, otherwise no approach will work because no-one need pay it any heed at all. Anarchy tolerated is anarchy established. If it is accepted that everyone is free to ignore the "talk" standards then the standards (ANY standards) are moot. I don't think I suggested blocks. Fair enough about the boxing; I disagree somewhat but not completely. LowKey (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On *personal* talk pages (not pages for articles of course) i really think you have to have a sense of "my space, bugger off". there are some people I do not like, here. Their ideas bother me, their points of view are personally offensive. on my page, and my page alone, if i want to delete someone's rant about why abortion is bad -- even though it's not trolling; or if i want to delete someone's comment who maybe admited something I'd said in private, or uses my real name cause they know me off facebook - I should be able to delete it. (and it doesn't really "go away" since it's in history - it's just not on my page. it's not something i see all the time, or that others see without a bit of effort. I cannot see how this harms anything at RW, nor can I see how it's not productive. That should be the underlying position. do not limit a person's right to do or say anything anywhere unless it 1) limits our productivity, 2) is harmful or bothersome to the wiki or the members. En attendant Godot 00:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has such specific and strongly-held views... Certainly your perspective is a valid one, and I tried to lay it out fairly in my essay here (or at least how I saw the castle view, anyway). But other people feel offended at the very idea that someone could escape just condemnation by deleting criticism, which also makes sense.

There really just doesn't seem to be a compromise that would suit everyone and still work - I'm going to have to think about this some more and work in some more of these views in my summaries. I think this is the most contentious and most important issue that we face, which is why it keeps returning... Sheesh, tough stuff.--^talk

Ready for a vote?

So I have these sections hammered out pretty well, I think, with an assessment of the pros and cons. I just thought I'd ask if there are any advocates of a particular option who feel like I've missed something or been unfair to that view. I'd like to propose a vote on this soon, but I want to get all the input and consideration I can, first. Or maybe someone feels I've left out a good option entirely.
Hopefully this will be the serious and final vote on this matter - RationalWiki will choose the policy, and that will be that. So I want to get it right.--^talk 01:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's about time for a vote. Blue (pester) 01:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If we have a vote, we need a succinct summary of each of the options AD has proposed here. We also need others to be free to add their own options, beyond those he identified. (I don't see my own position as represented in any of those options.) If any of these options imply amendments to the Community Standards, or any modification to the LJ decision regarding removing trolling, then any option doing so should make that crystal before there is any voting upon it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please sooner rather than later. Тy^talk 01:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hell yeah, I'm ready to vote! I don't even know what I'm voting on, but we need some democracy up in this bitch. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

three edit conflicts. what the hell are we voting on? this is way to premature, and way too vague. No one has said if these are "general suggestiosn" "absolute laws". are we going to change the standard operating guidlines? are we going to have mods enforce this? And why are we doing this on the back an Essay talk page. this is way too clandestine. don't we have processes for this? cause if you are serious about changing how things are done, we should have at least 1 week worth of "announcments" saying it's being discussed - and people need to know it's here. Lots of people do not read essays, or have any idea what's going on. it should be moved to a space that is more than just an essay.En attendant Godot 01:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, of course people won't be voting on this essay, or even voting here at all. I'm working out the proposed alterations to Community Standards, via the essay. No vote will take place here. It will be a big intercom-shouted thing on Community Standards Talk, after a discussion about how to set up the vote takes place there. I'll probably link to this essay. Here are just preliminaries and thoughts.--^talk 01:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

EC) I'm getting it set up. We're going to want a vote with finality, so we'll have only a few options that look a lot like this. So the altered standards have to be pretty perfect expressions of the options - we don't want people complaining that they would have preferred a little tweak in such-and-such a way, so I want to represent the main views of the various camps. Obviously, there will always be some trolling idiots who have their own specific scheme, so I can't make everyone happy, but I want to keep this as serious and final as possible. We don't want to do this again in six months.--^talk 01:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Most coop cases lately seem to be talk page edit wars. I think we need to change policy, but I can't decide what. Maybe I'll flip a coin. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, it's tough, right? I completely see the reasonable perspectives of all views. I'd even be happy enough with a majority of the choices, since I can live with most options. Hard decision to make.--^talk 02:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which option is "Status Quo"?

Is that option 1, or some other option 0? Please should be able to vote for the status quo if they wish. I support the community standards as they are now, and I think calling the current community standards "Anarchy" or "Wild West" is not something I would agree with. If we have anarchy, it is not because of the standards as they are, it is because they are not being enforced. I would support an option (5), which is the same rules as status quo, but moderators taking a more active role than they do presently in enforcing the status quo rules, and in mediating disputes about them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What is Wild West?

Leaving the Community Standards unchanged? If so, it is equivalent to Status Quo, and should be merged with it. I guess the real Wild West option would be to strike the relevant clauses of community standards, with no replacement. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple thoughts about option 4

What about other talk pages? Why limit moderation to only user talk pages? Also, what about MC's IP edits? Secondly, while the exception for IPs and new accounts is reasonable, I think the mods should still have the final say, i.e. you can delete the comment, but if someone brings it to ATIM the mods can restore it. And then there's the issue that some of the mods think this kind of stuff is outside their remit. This would definitely make them a special kind of user who should be held to a higher standard. -- Nx / talk 06:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any need to give the mods power over all talk pages, because there's no especial problem with trolling or abuse elsewhere. On Talk:JIDF, for example, there's a good example of some trolling... but no one cares, because no one has to look at it. Sometimes on the Saloon Bar people do the same sort of thing, but again people are happy to ignore it. Only blatant vandalism is a concern, and that's entirely noncontroversial so we all just revert it without worry.

MC's edits aren't governed specifically under 4; their continued rejection would be a consequence of the earlier vote we all took on it. The need to completely ban individuals is a very very rare case, since most of them get bored. I think we really took the right approach this time, too, as long as we can hold the line.

I really like your thoughts about final say on IP/new; I'm going to add that in.

I do seriously agree that if we pass 4, then we have elevated mods to power. I have actually thought about adding in additional changes to 4 that require a higher standard of behavior from mods. In the end, though, I decided that such a discussion would end up derailing this particular debate, so I was going to bring it up afterwards (especially in light of recent events). I see three possible options for such a course of action that we might want to take (no change, always civil, only civil when acting as mod), and if we complicate this vote too much it will never get done.--^talk 07:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Originally I was going to suggest moderation be extended to all talk pages, but then I thought about it and I'm not sure now. Maybe you're not forced to look at it, but what if someone keep inserting irrelevant nonsense and derailing a discussion you are interested in?

I don't think mods should be forced to be civil (if we do that no-one except Maratrean and RobS will want the job), but they shouldn't be breaking the rules. -- Nx / talk 07:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, about the talk pages thing, that's just not a problem. Peer castigation usually functions for regular users (thus the gradual reformation of some of our younger users), and new/anon users generally don't overcome the stigma of being unfamiliar and so they can't successfully derail. Plus, I don't want the mod system getting out of control - this is already a big expansion of the role of mods, and unless there's a serious need it doesn't seem wise to go further. It's definitely something to keep in mind, though.

I agree with your stance on mod behavior, pretty much, and I think that's what I'll be voting for when we have a vote on it. I want to be able to tell people they need to go suck a bag of dicks, when I think it should be said, but we don't have so many rules here that it's a strain to ask mods to obey them.--^talk 07:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, what if you tell someone (e.g. Maratrean) they should go suck a bag of dicks on their talk page, and then the user brings it to ATIM to be deleted? What if it's at the end of a long tl;dr discussion when you lose your patience? I don't really want this place to become ASK. -- Nx / talk 08:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want it to become the hyper-legalized crapfest of ASK, either. That's why I'm trying to triangulate between three poles: practical operations, imposition of authority, and bag-of-dicks freedom. CP is pegged solidly by the pole of authority, ASK is tenuously balanced between practical and authority (which they manage with their legalism), and hopefully RW will be smack in the middle - we get our work done, we avoid the worst nastiness with a loose bit of authority, and we can still swing around bags of dicks when we want.

It's true that sometimes people who want to just reform us all will bring cursing or stuff to the Coop or ATIM, but I think after a couple of times when they've been received with contempt, they'll give up. As a mod, I'm not going to remove simple name-calling unless it gets out of hand. It's a judgment call, and I think most of the other mods will make the same call.--^talk 08:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Add anonymous/new user exception to option 2?

Could the last paragraph from option 4, "An exception to this policy is that anonymous edits from IPs...", also be added to option 2? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's a great point! Thanks!--^talk 02:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

With the new addition, my first choice of policy would be option 2. Option 1 (my second choice) might prevent further "legal" disputes on this point, but would also likely result in some superfluous edit-warring. Option 3 would probably just result in disputes being relocated out of user space. Option 4 would (a) place an undue burden on the moderators, and (b) make the entire practice of deleting comments useless, since comment deletion is meant to nip turdblossoms in the bud. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My preferred policy is 4, but I could easily live with 2 if I had to. That's why we're having this vote - to see what everyone wants to do. Thanks for the help :) --^talk 03:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't option 2 mean unblocking MC? -- Nx / talk 05:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in the proposal laying any new prohibitions on removing posts from blocked users who have circumvented the block. MarcusCicero usually circumvents it by anonymous edits, which would be able to be reverted under option 2. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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. -- Nx / talk 06:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I am confused. How did AD come up with that? When were these rules ever cited to justify blocking trolls? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's my summary and personal view - as far as I can see, choosing this option implicitly requires acknowledging that all commentary is legitimate. Concern trolls could not ever be blocked, nor could any of the other subtler kind of troll beyond the most egregious ones.

At this point, MC wouldn't be unbanned, as Lx pointed out (his latter edits after the vote were violations of this ruleset), but the process never would have gotten to that point. All of his concern trolling that people pointed to would be legitimate criticism, and the only thing going against him would be his older vandalism and whatnot. His attempts to shakes us and see us scurry, as he called it, would not have been against any rule and wouldn't be bannable.--^talk 06:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would take a narrower view, that option 2 would lay down rules against removing talk-page posts, but does not endorse the content of those posts or prevent users from being blocked as trolls — although it would prevent the removal of any trolling comments made before the troll was blocked. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's wholly possible. I tried to represent all sides fairly in my essay, but inevitably my personal views colored my conclusions. I just looked at the MC problem and thought about what it would have been like if revert wars over this issue hadn't put it in everyone's face, and it seemed to me that no trolls would be blocked like that if we chose Option 2.--^talk 06:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If we had no procedures for removing trolls (and the capacity to revert posts if they circumvented their blocks), option 2 (and, in practice, option 4) would be putting us back where we were before the Loya Jirga was convened. Regardless of which way this vote goes, if there is any doubt on that point, we should put in a policy explicitly allowing the blocking of trolls. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's to be assumed that Option 4 also delegates some amount of authority to mods to temporarily block trolls who post the things that they remove (also a power implied by what Trent said when instituting the mod system). It's maybe part of the wiggle room that I think exists around policies. No one sweats the Standards' guide on blocking the dude who spams curse words or the IP hocking a product, because we have common sense and leave room. It only ever has and only ever will come to a head with concern trolls who are subtler and less vulgar about it, and who demand some amount of legalism to be dealt with. I think Option 4 leaves room for mods to do so under cover of law, but Option 2 does not. That's purely a judgment call on my part, though.

I'm just not sure how any addition to Option 2 that explicitly allows the blocking of trolls would look. Any such blocks would be popularity votes - do a majority of us hate this guy? There wouldn't be any evidence of breaking the rules, because no comment would be against the rules per se. And it's not even a bad thing to be vulgar necessarily, since some posters are just crude and that's part of RW's charm. So what are we blocking the trolls for? Just for being unpopular.--^talk 06:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Trolling could still be against the rules. That means you would not be allowed to delete comments, but you could coop someone for trolling, and then they can be blocked and their further comments can be removed. -- Nx / talk 06:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nx. Deleting comments by non-blocked users is what has led to all these edit wars; we should probably not allow it at all.

Also, there is not going to be any objective definition of "trolling" that will catch it all, especially since trolls game the system. At the end of the day we are going to have to have votes to remove trolls — even self-admitted ones like MarcusCicero. The moderators can step in to prevent the railroading of someone who is just "unpopular" and not a troll. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I am hesitant to rely on the mods to step in. I guess we'll see which way people vote.--^talk 07:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, we could do that. We could add a section to the Standards that says something like, Users who repeatedly seem determined just to cause a disruption or problems may be subject to a community vote in the Chicken Coop. My point is just that such a vote would amount to a popularity vote. Both ways are methods of writing the rules in such a way that allows a lot of freedom of expression and goofing around while also allowing us to limit the amount of trolling that occurs, but I think that my way limits abuse and majority-bullying.

In my view, people should be blocked for breaking rules and specific incidents of misbehavior. There's still going to be a judgment call involved (as the mods or individuals bring specific incidents for correction) but it's better than a broad vote on whether someone is a troll. The latter seems more likely to me to result in a consideration of, "Does this person belong here?" or "Do I like this person?" And those sorts of votes lead to groupthink and weakening of our community and mission.

Again, just my opinion. I think both perspective are perfectly valid.--^talk 07:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

two more cents

Cent the first: I don't understand the false equivlence between community property and no deletions. Effectively in any scheme except Castle a user's talk page is community property. Disallowing deletions is the oppoesite of community property because any single editor can add almost whatever they want and the community would not be entitled to delete it.
Cent the second: My proposal above for a not-quite-castle (Manor?) was serious, but I don't see any sign of it in the essay proposal. I am advocating a policy whereby users have control over their own talk pages, but must be able to justify good-faith reasons for any deletions. LowKey (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "Community property" on RationalWiki traditionally means that it is the same as all other talk pages and not subject to a user's control. The community doesn't delete comments anywhere on the wiki (barring obvious exceptions like vandalism) and so treating a user's talk page as community property means not deleting any comments.

2. Your proposal reflects the status quo, pretty much. That's how it seems to me, anyway. Users can delete stuff from their own pages in the case of "obvious trolling or abuse" i.e. good-faith reasons.--^talk 14:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Fare enough, I guess.

2. "Obvious trolling or abuse" are not the only conceivable good faith reasons. Rather than a narrow, prescriptive list of reasons, it seems to me that it would be better to establish a principle of demonstrable good faith. Also, it is not really the current status quo because "obvious trolling or abuse" is undefined and subjective. There have already been acrimonious cases of wheel warring, and chicken cooping, over this. LowKey (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If people can remove comments for any reason as long as it's in good faith, that's just Option 3, where their talk page is under their control. Most everyone is certain that their reason is a good one. And "good faith" seems just as undefined and subjective as "obvious trolling or abuse."--^talk 02:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It close to option 3, but not completely. There is an expectation that deletions can be justified. Not to worry; it is obviously a minority view anyway. LowKey (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

suggested clarification to option 0

Can we add a mention to option 0, that the Coop or ATIM are the answers, not edit warring? i.e.

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.

(addition in bold). This is just a clarification to make things crystal clear, so there can be no dispute. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that addition. Blue (pester) 01:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

why do we care about personal talk pages.

Quite seriously - why do you all care about talk pages. I will remove comments I do not like on my talk page. it's a place i have to go every day, something i cannot avoid. so if someoen comes on and says something that angers me, i'll delete it. why do you all care? when did this / why did this become such a huge issue for this wiki?En attendant Godot 02:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If everyone agreed with your attitude, it wouldn't be. But, not everyone sees things the way you do, hence the controversy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I get they do "not see it teh same way", i don't get the reasons. what does it matter if i or you or george bush removes a comment that causes them stress? how does the wiki itself get hurt? shouldn't we be worrying about things that impact the wiki, not just an individual user who does not want a particular picture, word or topic on his or her page? --En attendant Godot 02:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a dissent-quashing issue. On Conservapedia, sysops would delete all criticism, even justified criticism, and RW, seeking to be CP's antithesis, implemented the opposite approach. Blue (pester) 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)