Forum:Moderators

< Index | Site-related discussion

See also: Forum:Plan of action for user rights and moderation See also: RationalWiki:Moderator elections

Proposal

The job of the moderator

Moderators are necessary to alleviate to major issues with the site community structure that arise because we wind up chasing our own tail. The first is the ability to moderate the ton of discussions that have reached the point where they are no longer constructive but destructive. No one right now can do anything about these discussions because no one has the authority or the tools to act against them. The second issue is bootstrapping missing elements of site policy or procedure. This is a problem as others have pointed out, because we don’t even have a policy for how to change or add policy, or how to establish a policy to change policy, etc. Moderators having he authority to fill in these gaps (with community input) lets us boot strap out of the meta-meta-meta-meta discussions and straight into the practical elements.

Moderate discussion or actions

We have a set of community standards and practices about behaviour on the site. It is usually pretty clear when a discussion or action has moved in a destructive phase. However, we have no way to put the brakes on it. Some try, whether well meaning or trolling in their own right, to curb it with troll templates but then we just argue over the use of those. The main thing is that no one has the moral authority or right to tell people to cool it off for a few hours or a day. And have thus far lacked the tools to enforce it when necessary.

The main point of the moderator is to monitor these conflicts and use the tools given to keep the discussions from veering off in directions that are harmful to the community and the site.

Fill in gaps in policy or procedure

The second major job is to help boot strap certain policies or procedures that we struggle with. A great example of this is how to vote for something, how long does a vote last, when does it pass or fail, what should even be voted on? There is no way to address these issues without someone having the authority to set a certain amount of base policy. Moderators, in consultation with the community and each other, can begin to help us develop a structure of procedures we need for the smooth running of the site.

The tools of the job

The primary tool given to moderators is moral authority act on their own volition to deal with certain problems the site has run into. Moderators are allowed to take actions to curb destructive conduct or discourse and those actions should not be undone by anyone else. Thus it’s a solution to the wheel warring we always get into.

The main technical tools that moderators have that sysops do not is the ability to lock a page so no one but moderators can edit it, to change all user rights, and to hide revisions from everyone. I am trying to think of some ways to allow moderators to enact blocks that can’t be undone by sysops. But barring a technical solution, hopefully the community solution of moral authority to do so will suffice.

A light touch

The mantra of the moderator should be to do as little as possible to meet their responsibility to their position. If a brief note on a talk page asking a user to tone something down, or to not do something will suffice then that’s all that should be used. Maybe a 2 hour page lock on a talk page out of control would suffice. If a block is needed it shouldn’t be for longer than a few hours, a day at the most. A light touch. The moderator job is not to remove people or censure them, but to keep the vitriol in our discourse to appropriate levels.

As for filling in policy issues, moderators should view their actions as bootstrapping not issuing orders from on high. What is the least amount of policy that needs to just be declared in order to move forward? Perhaps just the parameters of the voting is all that is needed.

Permanent removal of rights or censure

Any action that will be permanent or long term, such as rights removal, blocking or censure, should still be handled by the community at large. Moderators can help establish the rules of discussion, and the structure for arriving at a decision, but it should still be the community that is empowered to act on long term issues both in dealing with our fellow community members and site policy.

A free hand

The cautious or cynical reader will realize I haven’t outlined a very specific procedure for moderators to follow. This is actually on purpose. I think that having too many strict by the books regulations and procedures is detrimental to what we want to achieve. And allows people to try and game the rules for fun.

When we first start RW and setup our “community guidelines” they were not rules for this very reason. We created basic outline of what we would like to see and empowered the community to try and develop it. This is the same spirit in which I am proposing the moderator position. We should focus on choosing and electing peoples who we trust, respect, and believe will do the job in the spirit it is proposed. While giving them the freedom to actually act in a meaningful way and not be tied down to endless regulation.

The goal is to curb the meta-meta-meta cycle we get in.

Number of moderators

The moderator position is not needed to deal with the day-to-day issues of the site such as vandals and spam bots. We do not need 24/7/365 coverage. Add to this that the more moderators we have the more likely we are to get right back into a wheel war situation I think it’s best to keep the number of moderators to a small level. I am going to propose 7 as the magic number for our first round. As time moves on we can expand or contract this number as seems necessary.

Election

We will we have a week long nomination procedure anyone can nominate anyone else, including themselves. No second needed. Each nominee will have to specifically declare their acceptance of the role. We will then have an election using secret ballot, the same extension we used for the board elections. It will go for one week as well and I will announce the results. The basic term of the moderator will be 6 months, and we can have a new election.

Removal

Fellow moderators can temporarily remove the moderate right if someone is using the tools in a destructive way. But as with all things that are permanent or long term the removal of a moderator should be a community discussion, and ultimately decided by the community as a whole.

Where to go from here

I would like to open this up to general discussion and feedback for a week or so. After which we can move forward with nominations. I plan on starting nominations on June 14th.

Discussion

Structure: ideally the discussion section should have all the same headers as the proposal section. I added some. Otherwise this is utter chaos. Nice work, Trent. ħuman 08:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the talk page would be the best place for discussion, but I guess it's a bit late for that. Oh well. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I was gonna post the comment below on the talk page, but a big blue info bubble told me not to. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: Voting

What is this "the same extension we used for the board elections" we keep hearing so much about? I think I voted in board elections but I honestly can't remember what it felt like, & probably there are newer editors who weren't around at the time but may still want to vote for mods. So could you please explain how voting will work? Can we vote against candidates as well as for them? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The extension is a secret ballot and uses STV. The eligible voters group is available after 3 months and 100 edits I think. Blue (is useful) 21:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important that there is an established method for nominees to make their case for why they should be a moderator. Absent this, it's all going to come down to name recognition and a high school-like popularity contest. I also sort of like the idea of being able to cast votes against nominees, much as they do at Wikipedia's RFAs. I realize if such votes are public it can cause some unpleasantness, but I'd say someone who gets 50 votes in favor and 50 votes against might not be the best moderator, as this would be solid evidence that a substantial portion of the community does not have faith in him/her. Likewise comments accompanying votes (both for and against) I've found to be beneficial over at WP. This does eliminate secret balloting, however, but that might not necessarily be a bad thing, as it might make sockpuppetry and fraud more difficult. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Mr Turnip. Much like what happens on WP with the admin procedure, let potential moderators face questions from the floor, so to speak, prior to voting. That would give people an indication of how the candidate thinks and how they would address specific issues. People can read their replies and subsequent discussion, prior to voting. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. If people have strong reasons for not wanting a specific user as admin, that must be taken into account. Really, I think if there are more than a handful of serious votes against a user (e.g. votes for <= 4 x votes against), that should be enough to disqualify them. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

When using a STV system, I fail to see he difference between voting against someone, and not voting for them. If there are 100 votes, and 50 people don't want someone, then that person will not be elected. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But if there are 100 votes and 20 or 30 people don't want someone, they might still get elected anyway, and a Mod who is hated by a quarter of the community is not a popular Mod, regardless of being supported by the overall majority. The risk is that we vote in Mods who have tensions with many other users, & then the drama & infighting just continues. Essentially there's a big difference between not voting for somebody because you don't mind whether they get a Modship or not, and not voting for them because you really wouldn't want them to get one, & the voting system should reflect that. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

With STV the only way someone with a large number of no votes will be elected is if a larger number of people place them as their first choice. This would mean that the canidate is highly favored by a large number of people, though highly disfavored by some. Why should they not "win" under this scenario? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the risk is that we vote in Mods who have tensions with many other users, & then the drama & infighting just continues. Voting in a candidate who is highly favoured by a large number of people though highly disfavoured by some will lead to more squabbling & factionalism than voting in a candidate who is approved actively or tacitly by most & doesn't come with a bunch of grudges & baggage attached. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we just have fundamentally different opinions about voting and voting rights. A similar situation I think is the US appointments of federal judges. The senate has basically adapted your philosophy where if a minority of people don't like the judge for whatever reason they can not be appointed. This means that the only people that can be appointed are those that are so luke warm that no one really cares about them. This basically preclude the appointment of any judge that has made any important decisions, or written publically about any legal issues. From a practical stand point I don't see how your proposal would even work. What voting system would we use? What are the chances we find enough willing people that don't have people who don't want them even if in the extreme minority? Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting system could still be STV, but as well as voting for a selection of candidates we could also have the option to vote against (with a sensible limit - e.g. you can't cast vote against more than five candidates). When votes are counted, if a candidate has more than a certain ratio of against votes - let's say for now: if the number of users who voted for them (at any ranking) is less than four times the number of users who voted against them - then the candidate is eliminated & all votes for them are transferred to those voters' other next choices as per STV. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this will be a major issue, certainly not important enough to allow a mere fifth of the voters to block any candidate. We'll be voting for people based on how well they can defuse conflicts, not how well they're liked, and I don't think the opinions on the former will diverge all that much. This is not an issue of personal friendships or enmities, but a simple question about a user's track record in getting people to calm down and settle their dispute. Röstigraben (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Voting procedure aside, I think there should be more to it than simply being nominated, accepting nomination and then voting. There needs to be some sort of question and answer situation where their responses can be considered, nd even where they can answer to their detractors. Unfortunately, Röstigraben is being a little naive - people will tend to vote for friends regardless of their capabilities. --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. I'm optimistic for two reasons - first, the vast majority of users seems to agree with the introduction of moderators and the kind of skills they'd need, so I expect them to vote accordingly. Take the last HCM - that one involved a large number of people I personally like and who made tons of great contributions. But they just kept shouting at each other and turning disputes into personal vendettas, which is the opposite of what a moderator should do. Second, if the voting procedure is secret like the board election, there's no reason to vote for someone because you feel a social pressure to affirm your friendship in public. Both of these are significant departures from the old process of crat selection. Röstigraben (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a secret ballot, but I'd also like to see the candidates be questioned and put their heads on the block so to speak. If these are the people who are going to be essentially policing the wiki, I think we need to know more about them than just a nick name on screen. Must like WP's RFA procedure. But without the open voting. --OompaLoompa (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important for there to be statements/Q&A as part of he process so people are not just voting on familiar names. I can't be sure, but it seems to me that the Loya Jirga voting was conducted more based on a who's got the most friends than who's best for the job. Absent some other criteria that's about the only way it can work. No one's going to rummage through hundreds of old edits by some users their not to familiar with to try to figure out their qualifications; they'll vote for the devil they know. Whatever form of voting we do, be it secret ballot or something more like WP's RFA process (take a look around Wikipedia's Request for Adminship page if you're unfamiliar), there needs to be something more than a name nd a check box. Even if they're not used in every case, there should be a forum for each nominee in which they can make their case, be asked questions, and have public endorsements or whatever the opposite of an endorsement is. If some users do think a particular candidate is not suitable for the job, there should be a place for them to publicly make their case, so it doesn't turn into some whisper campaign on user talk pages (which is likely what would otherwise happen), and the candidate is aware of what's said and can respond is his or her defense. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: Short-circuit power

I support this proposal as is, but with a further remark. I think this is more or less stated in the proposal, but we had better make crystal clear that the moderators have the power to short-circuit discussions, period. If the Wiki is in Headless Chicken Mode and the moderators try to stop a dispute, you can bet that the mob will respond by attacking the moderators, quibbling over every little thing they can.

We might also want to recommend (though this would not be good to set in stone as a rule) that if a moderator is a central party in some dispute, they should leave any necessary moderation on that dispute to the other moderators, as when judges recuse themselves from court cases. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you support it before copyediting for unclear typos? ħuman 08:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions LX.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As usual with this process, I object to the intense vagueness Trent brings to his proposals. "I think that having too many strict by the books regulations and procedures is detrimental to what we want to achieve." That's what he built, and now he is trying to fix it. Trouble is, there are now a hundred other opinions on how things should be. Trent, you never should have renamed the Community Standards after I wrote them. ħuman 08:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

When moderators are given the specific authority they will be given, it's unclear if they can take these actions unilaterally or as a majority vote of moderators. I'd be against any moderator being able to take an action by themselves; this can lead to abuse of power and more wheel warring as one moderator reverses the actions of another ad naueseam. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Given that much of the previous HCM seems to have been over crats taking unilateral actions, a majority vote from all mods would be required before action could be taken. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I don't much like the sound of this. HCM occurs when one or more or loads of editors are dissatisfied about something or disagree about something & want everyone to know how they feel about it, leading to wheel warring & arguments which spill over onto multiple pages. Part of the point of the Chicken Coop is supposed to be to siphon all the bitching into one location then talk it through to solution. Taking emergency measures to stop wheel warring is fair enough, but stamping out further discussion on an issue isn't going to help. The disgruntled parties will still be disgruntled, & more than likely the bitching will continue in offsite channels which is just going to contribute to wiki-factionalism. Better for disputes to be settled in the open & to take as long as they take. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in this proposal to shut down any conversation. But rather to help facilitate them through several means. First, by keeping the dialog at a reasonable level. If people start just calling each other horrible names (which does happen) the discussion degenerates and factionalizes. Moderators can step in and say, grow up or take a time out. No one can currently do that. Also we often wind up hitting a brick wall where even if a discussion is fruitfull no one can actually do anything because no one is designated to help boot strap innovations to policy or procedure. Now someone is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment was a response to LX's suggestion that "moderators have the power to short-circuit discussions, period", whatever that means, rather than to anything in your proposal. I see what you're saying & don't really disagree, but I think this kind of authority should be used rarely & cautiously. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If restrictions are placed on which discussions the moderators are able to short-circuit (by which I mean to get moving again, in the manner Trent suggests, bypassing Headless Chicken Mode; I was thinking specifically of bringing tendentious discussions on Wiki policy to a vote), when push comes to shove, the editors will start quibbling over whether the moderators are allowed to short-circuit. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The nomination and election procedure is where we as a community should be electing people we trust and think will do the job. I have also outlined constraints on the role of the moderator. They should not do anything that lasts longer than a day or so without community input and decision making. Because of this having to do votes amoungst themselves is just added cruft and complication. A moderator should be able to act freely within the constraint provided to deal with a negative situation. We elect people who we believe will properly identify these situations and act with as light a touch as possible. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Trent, if we had three people like this (to paraphrase and steal someone else's comment), there never would have been a "problem". There still isn't a problem, really. Since we don't have three such people, who will be the mods? What happened to your careful study of groups? This is not the answer. ħuman 07:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would name Goonie, Nebuchadnezzar, and Π as suited to the role, for starters (whether they would accept it is an entirely different matter). We used to have more "Moderators," as they were called in the social dynamics article, but they have a bad habit of disappearing in frustration; I am thinking specifically of AKjeldsen and Armondikov. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Armondikov?! Are you fucking kidding? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No; Armondikov was always very reasonable in discussions when I was around, and also was strongly opposed to the cheapening of dialogue here on the Wiki, which is a quality we need in a moderator. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is for it to be clear who was the final decision. Even if a decision is unpopular, if someone (or group) has the go-ahead to make an unpopular decision and is willing to take the heat for it, then it's clear that the decision has been made. sterile^talk 22:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: Moral authority

Interesting choice of words. ħuman 08:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to? Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Rational or vested authority? ħuman 07:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Executive authority?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: Removal

Is completely unclear. ħuman 08:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is too unclear. How would moderators remove another? Certainly one moderator should not be able to remove another just because the former is over the opinion the latter is acting in an unconstructive manner. Even a majority vote by moderators could be a problem, especially if factions appear within the group and this process is used by the majority to remove the minority. (I don't think this sort of thing would happen, but I'd like some sort of assurance it won't.) Reversing a legitimate election is the sort of thing that should only be done in pretty extreme circumstances, and for that reason it should not be easy to do. Perhaps a unanimous vote by the board, or by the other 6 moderators? Some sort of supermajority of the community voting no confidence could be a good idea. But this sort of thing should be worked out before it's needed. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If a moderator goes "rogue" moderator starts fucking up the site for some reason the other moderators need to be free to act to remove user rights temporarily. After which consultation with the community can be brought in to decide what to do next. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How does the community ultimately decide? Again, it needs to be clear, even if there is some flexibility in the process. sterile^talk 22:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be up to mods to remove each other. In the unlikely event that all the mods go nuts simultaneously, then tmtoulouse can pull the plug. If tmtoulouse loses it same as the mods, then there's nothing we could do about it anyways. But this doesn't matter, unless some sort of internet trolling virus takes up the whole world we'll never have to worry about this.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If one moderator goes rogue, the other moderators can moderate a "recall election." If for some reason Trent and the moderators started raising Cain all at once, the Board of Trustees would probably have to order the server shut down. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: Where to go from here

Glad you have a plan and a deadline. ħuman 08:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if that wasn't clear. That was sarcasm. ħuman 08:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"I plan on starting nominations on June 14th." - not sure how you missed his deadline. Blue (is useful) 16:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. The plan? And thanks for imposing a deadline. Idiot. ħuman 07:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And so the ad hominems begin. Next you'll be telling Trent to fuck off and that he doesn't do anything useful here. -- Nx / talk 07:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call Trent an idiot, troll. I called the person who missed that there was a deadline that I was being sarcastic about one. Nx, you are so useful when you predict what you think I will do next. ħuman 07:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's sometimes hard to understand your drunken ramblings. Trent's the one who's imposing a deadline, not Blue. -- Nx / talk 07:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic: since there are clearly still issues to be worked out, I'd say June 14th is a bit soon to start making nominations. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, it's June 14th... now what? Тy^Talk. 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody creates Rationalwiki:Moderator elections in an attempt to be useful and fit in--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, we're doing nominations not elections yet. As far as I can tell anyways. Тy^Talk. 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Too late bitch! I've included noms on the same page. And you're nominated.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion: A free hand

What meta-meta-meta cycle? So some ED exiles loved the drama and overblew the recent Coop incident from a teapot to a tempest, then Armondikov abused his crat rights to remove all crats, then Nx abused his server access and removed all sysops... where's the problem that this is supposed to solve? ħuman 08:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The internet does not actually have a location. --85.76.181.162 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of us see a systemic problem. Apparently you do not. Either you are missing something, or everyone else is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not described it, as far as I can see, except for references to "hcm", which is a silly meme made up on rww. ħuman 07:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, did you say "everyone else"? Really? I thought you were smarter than such sweeping statements. And smarter than this mess you have created to bow to the whiners. ħuman 07:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, and so the ad hominems begin. -- Nx / talk 07:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Both ADK & Nx were in positions of trust and presumably felt that they had the "moral authority" to do what they did, regardless of it being way outside the Standards & an insult to the community. Is there anything in the proposed system to prevent this sort of thing happening again? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

While the HCM 0 was ongoing, I proposed a change to the Community Standards to disallow unilateral bureaucrat-to-sysop promotions. It was voted down. I do not think, therefore, that we can rightly accuse Armondikov of violating Community Standards during the Saloon Bar Putsch. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What? Both the CS & bureaucrat guide say that unilateral promotion should only ever be done as an emergency measure against a user who is using abilities destructively & who should then be referred to the Chicken Coop to decide whether they stay promoted. Also, making a unilateral decision to overturn the whole admin structure of the site is grossly against the spirit of the CS even if not explicitly stated in them. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Both the CS & bureaucrat guide say that unilateral promotion... Unilateral promotion of sysops to ordinary users, not of bureaucrats to sysops. Nutty Roux defended Human, during his Trial, on the grounds that the Community Standards did not prohibit unilateral promotion of bureaucrats to sysops. However, since this is prohibited in the Bureaucrat Guide, I was inclined to think the omission was accidental; the vote settled the ambiguity in the other direction. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

CS may not specifically mention unilateral demotion of bureaucrats because it's not something we expect. I have no idea what vote you're talking about but it doesn't sound very conclusive. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Moderators are constrained in their edict. Such actions would be excluded for two-fold reasons: it is outside the job/responbsilities of the moderators to make those kinds of decisions. Moderators should not take any permanent action (such as right removal) without singificant consulatations with the community. Moderator tools should not be used for longer than 24 hours, with the exception of the need to oversite particularly egrarious content. Such as postiong someone's phone number or something. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What about Tech users? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tech users shouldn't be doing anything that does not involve specific technical issues of the site or site management. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So rearranging user rights on a whim is "right out"? Might want to rethink who you are bestowing such rights to as Operations Manager, because your choices seem, well, poor. Easy and lazy, sure, but poor choices. ħuman 07:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Human is right. At least we should be able to vote for tech users. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm the only "ED exile." Don't paint with such a broad brush. Anyways, I'm sorry you don't get to be king of your little fairy kingdom anymore, but the times they are a changing. --User:Brxbrx/sig 22:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)