RationalWiki:Community Standards/Crankspace brainstorm

Proposed solution

I'm increasingly warming to the idea of relegating Dirk and other wall-of-text style editors like Abd, Maratrean, and whoever else I'm missing to a crankspace of sorts. I'm fine with ignoring every single thing they say because I'm dead certain one of the usual suspects who can't resist poking people they perceive to be trolls with sticks will follow them around scrutinizing everything they say and reflectively reverting their mainspace edits. I abhor censorship and the kind of harassment these guys have faced. They're not the kinds of despicable creeps Brxbrx is who deserve to be treated as badly as they've treated this site and some of us. They just believe crazy shit and may be insane. I don't know. Seems to me they're just incapable of shutting up and, like Brxbrx, won't go away. The crankspace idea is growing on me because I care about you guys a lot more than I care about your nemeses. But you're the ones causing trouble with your inabilities to simply ignore people who are bound from now til the end of time to say things with which you disagree. Because of you, we need to truly confine your perceived cranks' edits to a single place so there's no chance they'll ever get into mainspace and so they'll be a cinch to ignore.

Turns out we've already got a solution that solves more problems than limiting their edits to crankspace would: moderator level block them while allowing them to edit their own talk pages. (a) They'd be confined to a single non-mainspace page so anyone who wishes can ignore them with a clear conscience, (b) RW regulars who are incapable of modifying their behavior can continue indulging their needs to poke their nemeses with sticks, and (c) RW wouldn't have to be in the business of providing a forum for these people to talk at each other.

I haven't been following this discussion very closely so forgive me if this option was discussed and rejected. I just can't help but notice that Dirk is still being subjected to random blocks and demotions and these interminable discussions that get our regulars so riled up never seem to end. 20:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that go beyond the moderators' remit, to unilaterally block trolls? Blue (pester) 20:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a moderator function. It would be a community vote - apparently RW can ban people - I don't see why this is any different. If the vote fails, those moderators who purport to give a hoot about order should start removing people rights and blocking them for progressively longer periods for harassing "cranks" by demoting and blocking them. 20:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocking trolls is dumb. It's too easy to create a new account on a proxy IP. It just gives them attention they want. Ignoring them, and slowly revert if necessary (or Nutty's solution-I recommend recipe space since it's dead anyway) is always more effective. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 20:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) That's not going to work in the system we've created for ourselves. We'd be hard-pressed to get a majority vote for banning these cranks, and the two-thirds required for banning isn't going to happen. Further, as moderators' putative power only extends to temporary action, we can't "start removing people rights and blocking them for progressively longer periods" - and if we try to get a community vote, we'll definitely not get a 1/2 or 2/3 majority to vote against TheoryOfPractice in favor of Dirk Steele. Blue (pester) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I should bloody well hope not. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why can't moderators block ToP and remove his rights for hours and then progressively longer for harassing Dirk? That's totes what moderators should but don't do. Lol. As for the ban, it's not really a ban. It's using the block tool to put him where he can cause less trouble but he's not precluded from expressing himself here. We don't have a rule for this. It's one of the few times I'd agree you all have authority to do something. I don't know what yet. 21:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the abuse filter to prevent him from editing mainspace? We don't have rules about that either. Just because we don't have an explicit rule doesn't mean we can just do it. Blocking without talk page editing or with talk page editing is still blocking, and neither has ever been treated differently except for vandals. Blue (pester) 21:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the abuse filter is a far too powerful tool in light of the problem. I disagree with the above. Ignore Troll. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a gazillionty ways to be trollish from a new account. Don't feed the trolls. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 21:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, as Brx reminded me below, there's no such thing as a "moderator level block." Blocking is the same for mods and sysops. Blue (pester) 02:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just take blocking away from sysops; block wars are dumn anyway. Or make yet another group like sysop revoke.

It's like no one at Wikimedia thought of these things, we just use them the wrong way. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 12:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nutty, you're like my brother from another mother

But this is really problematic. One man's unbearable troll is another man's mild annoyance. I've learned to live with Brx (mostly because the kid has smartened up a bit, and people aren't pushing his buttons as much...) , you'd like to see him gone; I can't deal with Steele polluting the wiki, you can ignore him. There have been so many attempts on the part of the community to deal with the folks that piss some people off, and they all end in failure--hell, getting rid of TK was a near fucking thing, as I remember, and MC too, IIRC. I'm not sure anything else but the mobocratic status quo is workable with our community dynamics. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if we relegate them to their own space, and they stay there, then it is the fault of whomever travels to that space should they get burned. If Dirk writes some stupid thing in Crankspace, and you venture there and are offended, it's your own damn fault for going there and, unless it's something as bad as the writings of Tisane, the mob can simply say, and should be told by fiat to follow, that it was your own damn fault for looking. It's like being offended by bestiality, knowing it offends you, but going and looking at it and then complaining that it offended you. Get my point?

Meanwhile, if somebody wants to go and debate with Dirk, or Maratrean, or Ben Best, they can be welcome to without the jokers of the mob stifling said debate by blocking said crank for 9 months or whateverthefuck. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

... and if people continue blocking and harassing Dirk even if he's relegated to his own namespace? Blue (pester) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If Dirk ever decides he wants to come back from his voluntary block, I would have no problem with him working in a crankspace and would not fuck with him for his activities there. Here's a practical question though: would crankspace appear on Recent Changes? If the point is to keep cranks away from the attention of folks who can't resist poking them with a stick, it shoudn't. If it doesn't, there still needs to be sufficient eyes to make sure people aren't polluting our good name with hate speech or thinly-disguised defences of illegal and unsavoury sexual activities, as happened a few months ago. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there should be a reasonable limit to what we allow. I certainly think of the Tisane affair when I consider a Crankspace. But if, say, a YEC were to come here (heck, let's all think of RobSmith when I say this) and want to talk about why YEC > evolution, I see no reason to give them a place to spout off where we can ignore them if we so choose. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Or you could, like, ignore him? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nutty, this is an interesting idea that I also considered when Trent brought it up, and it's good that we're trying to come up with solutions. The only problem I see with it is that it doesn't seem to meet our goals. We tolerate some trolls and cranks because it might negatively affect our articles and dialog if we just excluded anyone with whom we disagreed - we'd risk epistemic closure. I look to our nuclear-themed articles as one example, where one or two editors challenged the prevailing ideas and successfully changed many people's minds and improved the article. In other words, then, there's a specific reason we don't have an easy process to block people.
However, if we're going to start relegating some such to their own sandbox, where they will be excluded from conversation and challenges, then I don't really see the point. There really does come a point where disruption outweighs possible benefit. Dirk has been an asshole a lot, and even after he was brought to a vote, he just has gotten worse.
Ace, I see your point. As always, the ignoring tactic makes sense in theory, but it's really a question of degree. You and everyone can agree, I think, that we don't always ignore everyone. It's a question of degree, and we fumble our way along in sorting it out. It sucks that it's ad hoc and accordingly subjective in some degree, but it would be even worse if we had an arcane mess of rules to dictate behavior.
My principles are that we should try to fulfill our mission statement. Allowing crank essays usually doesn't detract from it, and offers a way to permit new dialog and challenge the status quo, making our ideas better and helping us sort out woo. Allowing some degree of social incompetence everywhere else also serves these purposes, usually. Talk pages and common discussion groups can endure a bit of idiocy, and often do.
But the stupid son of a bitch Dirk created like seven new topics, many just repeats. We've bent over backwards for him. He doesn't intend to try to improve or seriously contribute.
He acts up again, no need for crankspace. We'll have a vote to ban. If there were one now, I'd vote in favor.--^talk 09:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to see how you'd all interact with a narcissist in real life. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 12:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue's thoughts

I'm struck by the seemingly disproportionate response. Creating a whole new namespace and a whole new usergroup to deal with one, maybe two editors? Keep in mind that the reason Dirk causes so many problems is not because of what he believes, but because he makes about a dozen new Saloon Bar topics a day. A wall-of-text crank who makes a post and is shunted into a forum to continue wall-of-texting isn't an issue. Dirk does not respect basic wiki etiquette; other POV pushing cranks like Ben Best were not nearly as rude and caused fewer problems.

Crankspace and the crank group is an overreaction to a small, localized problem. People like RobSmith are also crazy, but we let them post because they're not as annoying-as-fuck as Dirk. We have the robrail page for a reason. Dirk hasn't been here nearly as long as Rob, and has three forums and several archives of his own robrail equivalent already.

We can change the structure of our site just to accommodate one rogue. Or we can tell him to shape up or leave. We tolerate cranks, but we don't have to tolerate trolls. Blue (pester) 23:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Trolls want attention and you continue to give it to them. (And the abuse filter is "proportionate"? Whatevs.) sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 23:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

First: it would be fantastic if everyone were able to ignore the five Dirk posts in a row on one of our most viewed pages, if everyone were Gandhi and a master of the zen arts, but that's a completely unrealistic thing for which to hope. Second: the filter is easy to set up and easy to disable. Someone could do it in thirty seconds and undo it in less. A sitewide infrastructure change can only be done and undone by two people and reflects a weightier response. Blue (pester) 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Nobody^{don't bother} 01:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you going to filter? All their edits (in which case it's equivalent to blocking)? The word "troll"? And who decides who's the troll? sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 02:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The hypothetical filter, as I described above, would prevent Dirk (or any similar person) from editing mainspace at the very least, and anything but forumspace at most. Blue (pester) 04:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It infuriates the troll, who will find a way around it and cause more of a rukus. Nothing is accomplished. And it's waaaay overkill a response. IMHO sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 23:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I, personally, think setting up some sort of bot program to move Dirk-esque edits from places like the Saloon Bar to the crankspace is a far better idea. My reasoning being is that any action to move things to crankspace, should we create one, must be a bot edit to prevent feeding the troll. Has anybody but me noticed that the more people move Dirk's shit to forum-space, the more emboldened he seems to add more shit? Abuse filters are useful, but you never know when somebody like Dirk wants to do more than troll (people can have useful input sometimes). Personally I think the best solution is for people here to quit feeding the trolls or, at least, stop bitching when the trolls get fed and energized. But people here are too thin-skinned to deal, so some sort of bot program would likely be best. I should also add, as a follow-up to this, that it is possible to break the Abuse Filter. I won't say how, but it is possible. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

AbuseFilter

Here's an infographic about how the AbuseFilter extension actually works. As an example, let's take the anti-blanking filter:

1. Vandal submits a blanked page.
2. Server processes edits and determines no edit conflicts.
3. Server runs the edit past AbuseFilter
4. AbuseFilter checks the contents of the edit, specifically the size of the page before and after the submitted edit, as well as the usergroups of the editor and some other values
5. AbuseFilter determines the edit blanked the page, and the user is not autoconfirmed, so it tells the server not to allow the edit.

This is Filter #1. A hypothetical Dirk edit filter would have the name "Dirk Steele" and the namespace "0" as conditions, and "disallow" as the consequence. Blue (is useful) 06:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Who cares. The filters are not necessary for the problem at hand. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Because blanking the page is the only way to troll. A complicated way to block on a wiki with legendary block wars.

I know how the abuse filter works. What TEXT are you going to filter for? Or are you just making another user group? sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 12:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need any text if all we're checking is the username and the namespace. For goat's sake, just read my post. Blue (pester) 20:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to start yelling at you yet. Please explain your solution further. Would you lock him out of mainspace only? Lock him down to funspace or recipespace? What combination of abuse filters could accomplish the task of obviating the need to lift a single finger to pick up after him anywhere on the wiki while letting these jackals have at him as long as he sticks around? I see your forumspace mention above, but isn't him creating shit tons of topics one of the things people are complaining about? 15:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For the third time: the hypothetical Dirk filter would prevent him from editing mainspace at least, possibly the Saloon Bar too, and all namespaces except forumspace at the most. People such as I are concerned about his overrunning of the Saloon Bar, not forumspace.

But I agree with AD that someone as disruptive as Dirk ought to be told to shape up or leave. That's the response that doesn't require any new filters or new usergroups or anything of the sort. Blue (pester) 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Large, unwieldy, overly complicated system for voting to crankspace someone

I'll just put this here since we'll need it. C®ackeЯ 00:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea

Actually, it's somebody else's idea, Sophie's. Just block undesirables with talk page editing enabled. That's your crankspace right there, batteries included. I also think that to enforce this, a separate block function should be made for moderators. That way, a "modblock" couldn't be undone by the next idiot with sysop rights.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Nutty already mentioned that above. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 00:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I blame my contempt for him as a human being--"Shut up, Brx." 02:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Says the most hideous excuse for a human I have ever the displeasure of encountering. Nutty does far more for RW than you could ever know yet you sit here and claim contempt of him? Who do you think sorts/assists in the legal aspects RW? It isn't you, fuck-face. Keep that in mind. So fuck off, shave, stop fucking your cat and wise up. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

IANRWL. The armchair psychology is easy here, Ace. Brxbrx displays anger at people he desperately fears. He picked me, you, and a few others to hate right off the bat because it was clear we were having a lot more fun than he'd ever manage with his hideous character and inability to function in daily life without causing major friction. This explains why every person here who's put him in his place got added to his shitlist. I mean FFS he has hatefully libeled Godot of all people. What a turd. It also explains why in his very simple mind someone like Blue, who loathes him, is his ally against powerful enemies. In actuality, Brxbrx worships his betters, as he should. It's pathetic. He's pathetic. 14:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

...I "picked" you when you attacked Ty. I saw that as a demonstration of your poor character. Following that, your unapologetic demeanor eradicated any vestiges of tolerance and forgiveness I might have held prior. As for Ace and Human, I didn't "pick" them "right off the bat." If you would look back, you'll notice that my initial relations with Ace and Human were cordial at worst. I think I started to sour on Human when he decided to mark my massage article as off-mission. And Sterile, I don't loathe you so much as I think that you're incredibly stupid (I'm sure IRL you're a competent professional, and socially adept, but online, you're just a real fucking dumbass.) So if I got angry at you for having fun, then I suppose it's true: but the fun in question comes at the expense of others. If you're going to reply to this, take it to the drama dump--"Shut up, Brx." 16:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What a hypocritical pile of shit. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, "not a troll," right. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 22:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has been blocked for 2 years now. Problem solved. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 04:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)