Forum:Interim plans

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

While we try and figure out the crat situation and what crats can and cannot do, lets take a look at the sysops issue. We had a lot of inactive sysops so I see no reason to just restore them all. But there is no real reason to not give sysops out to those that are active, "mostly harmless", and want them. Emphasize that sysopship is just about the buttons and not moral authority or supra-dispute moderators. That is what we are working out now. That to me seems to cut the difference between the coup and the status quo. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that sysop rights should be restored to active users in good standing. We can sort out sysops after the crats. This coup isn't really a coup, more just a kick up the ass. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what Tmt says on the sysop issue. Ace of Spades 20:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Who determines who is "in good standing"? Totnesmartin has already asserted that human doesn't deserve sysop rights, because he's not "in good standing". I don't particularly see a reason to deny him sysop rights... (and additionally MC seems to think he deserves sysop rights, and probably at least half the wiki thinks that's not the case.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Huh wha? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
While we can say that sysopship is just about the buttons and not moral authority, without any consequence to the sysops, they are the moral authority... except that sysops can undo bans that other sysops have done. But no one could really stop a sysop from swinging their dick around and smacking over all the people who are not sysops. I agree that there were far too many sysops (and many that weren't even active) but drawing the line in the sand and saying "ok, no crats" then produces HCM over simple sysop actions. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I never abused my sysop powers over the last 9 months yet I was unilaterally stripped of these rights. Don't lie, don't claim that you don't take these seriously. Stripping someone of their sysop rights is a method of humiliating someone, and I demand I get them back. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
But the wheel warring will no longer be an issue if we really do empower a group of people to handle non-vandal/spammer blocks and right changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Potentially yes, it could. But if no one can do rights changes, then blocks become the highest level of authority, and we're left with two classes of people... those who can block, and unblock themselves, and those who can't. The whole "wheel war" devolves into block wars... and we don't avoid any HCMs, we just push down the issues that cause HCM lower down the rights tree. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I am talking interim plans here. As we work out how to handle disputes, no one is going to be blocking anyone but vandals/spammers. If people want to be a sysops, I say we let them. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In my case, a bureaucrat wheel-warred with two other bureaucrats to desysop me after a dispute was moderated by the participants. I never used or abused my sysop powers 3 years, nor is there a record of vandalism. I'm not asking for sysop powers now. But the bureaucrat who did this punitive action did so to humiliate me simply for being involved in a dispute that the disputants modxerated themselves. That wasn't enough; he then stalked my to dozens of talk pages to place a tem,plate with a porn star on it. This conduct unbecoming of an administrator at any level. Should he recieve his extended user rights back simply because he asked for them or they're grandfathered in? If that's the case, nothing has been accomplished here at all. nobsdon't bother me 21:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC)This is only for a few days Eira. As long as people use common sense we ought to be alright. And as I type that I realize we're screwed. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
WHo determines what is a vandal/spammer? Is MC a vandal? Is Maratrean a vandal? And the idea that "this is only for a few days" ... temporary stuff always becomes permanent. How often have you seen a school ship off portable classrooms because they don't need them anymore? (I've seen it once, only because the school population dropped by 75%). This is such an ingrained rule in Computer Science as well... your prototype will always become your actual product. No one is going to sit down to redo everything afterwards. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
MC is a troll, not a vandal (except on occasion). I haven't spoken to Maratrean, but I think he's just strange. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I would include trolls in Trents list. Fuck trolls. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
People like JimJast and Maratrean are harmless. MC, on the other hand, is only here to troll. We should vandal bin him for that.--brxbrx-brxbrx 21:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually no, I'm not a troll. I'm a prominent site critic, a dissenter who has been proven right more often than not. I predicted this kind of silly befuddlement, the tendancy of some newish users to get uppity and start issuing orders, and the general degeneration of this sites raison d'etre as it gets bogged down in quixotic attempts to impose a nonsense bureaucracy on a website of around 25 active members. None of you seem to realise how petty, stupid and pathetic you all look with these primitive attempts at statecraft, and frankly you need someone like me around to keep it real and remind you that this is the fucking internet, not the US Senate. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
25 members 40 crats. -- (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Grandfather clause[edit]

I'm in favor of having user rights become more formalized with nominations/elections, but I think all the current user rights should (or should have) remained grandfathered in to avoid more HCMs and endless elections where the result is going to be everyone just getting voted back in. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the new boss, the same as the old boss... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to be a sysop[edit]

List here thy name:

Sysops can now make other sysops[edit]

Can't remove the right, but can grant it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

so we're back to anarchy? I say we should give out rights such as rollback and delete/restore freely. But not block rights.--brxbrx-brxbrx 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is just in the interim. Blue (is useful) 21:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
But sysops are only allowed to block vandals/spammers its not really a problem. Leave other forms of blocking/binning to whatever body gets empowered. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
But how is the "only allowed to block vandals/spammer" enforced? And what happens when a vandal/spammer/troll is promoted to sysop? And now no one can do anything about it. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Guess we better figure that all out! Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe just vandal bin rights?--brxbrx-brxbrx 21:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
If anything, this has made 'crat elections even more urgent. Blue (pester) 21:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to unsysop MC before he trolls us all into oblivion? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody can, except Nx and Trent. Blue (pester) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No one can desysop anyone else... unless Trent decides to autocratically break the system again... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not autocratic. It was you who broke the system. MC is not 'mostly harmless' as specified in Trent's post. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
And who decides who is "mostly harmless"? There is no dispute resolution, thus Trent is acting unilaterally out side of the rules, and thus autocratically. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Well thats a matter of opinion, isn't it? I don't interact with you, and you me, and so you never feel the force of my tonguelashing. It is only those who deliberately get under my radar who receive a good scolding. Witness Totnesmartin, whom I humiliated into oblivion by the power of reason and oratory. There is nothing I can do with my sysop powers that would inadvertantly wreck the wiki. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently there is something that can be done with just sysop powers that would inadvertently "wreck" the wiki, or I would still be a sysop... but apparently more wheel wars are wrecking the wiki... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
What? You are still a sysop. Blue (is useful) 21:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No. I'm not. If you're saying "I saw nothing in the logs", it's because Trent broke the wiki rules and directly manipulated the database. Thus, no log. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I realized. Sorry. But come on now, "wiki rules?" Mobocracies aren't supposed to have hard-and-fast "rules." Blue (pester) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Right... and by forcing the issue, I forced the mobocracy to return... as I told Ullhateme... the mob wasn't dead. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but Trent is perfectly entitled to act autocratically in a mobocracy. Blue (is useful) 22:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and thus I "win", because the mobocracy isn't dead... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course it isn't dead (resisted urge to invoke Danth's Law). We're just trying to move away from it. Apologies if I sound like a hysterical raving loony idiot again. Blue (is useful) 22:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Right, and as I told someone else, we were moving away from it before ADK and Nx nuked the user rights... so what they did wasn't really any more disruptive that what I did... in fact, potentially less so... because the whole wiki is already in one clusterfuck of an HCM. (And no, you weren't being a HRLI) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You're breaking your own rules...[edit]

I told you nothing changed... and the only solution is to go police state on the wiki... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is why the mass de-crat was a bad idea. Blue (is useful) 21:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly... because it didn't solve anything. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently trusting people to act like grown-ups is too much to ask. Ironically, there's an argument against mobocracy. --Kels (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The solution for solving mobocracy isn't a unilateral blanking of all rights... that's not a solution, it's a band-aid. The second the mob gets power back, they'll rebel. The solution is to gain legitimate right to introduce structure... If you want to complain about people not acting like grown-ups, let's start with ADK and Nx decratting and desysopping everyone... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I proposed a grandfather clause in an earlier thread as well. Mass promotion leading to another HCM? HOOCOODANODE?! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to regain my sysop rights so I can at least unblock myself. I pledge not to wheel war and will only block vandal spammers, if called to do so. nobsdon't bother me 22:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
How did you post? -- (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, 'legitimate right to introduce structure'? What kind of structure? The kind of structure that would have me flogged, persecuted and whipped? The kind that would make me an enemy of the people, and subject to their whims? I say that anyone who doesn't like the inherent liberty of this site should bugger off somewhere else (Like wikipedia), much as Totnesmartin has done. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You take yourself too seriously. Or you're a troll. I'm betting on troll. --brxbrx-brxbrx 22:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the most depressing thread yet. (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


OK, so I get people made MC and Rob sysops to prove points, but I strongly disapprove of them being sysops when there are a vast number of actually qualified sysops out there who have yet to be re-sysopped. Don't wait for people to ask, no one likes to be "that guy" who asks for it back. ThunderkatzHo! 22:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have had a dispute resolution process first... or you know... looked to see if the baby was still in the bathwater when it was thrown out. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe you could stop acting like a four-year-old who just had their lolly taken away. --Kels (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Um... I made my point... I'm not acting like a four-year-old anymore... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)