RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 23 September 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, < List>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>

, (new)(back)

Hi. I hate red links to project pages. ħuman 10:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Job, tools, philosophy

Are there any suggestions or objections from anyone to my suggested basic format? I think we'll probably adopt some rough procedures to carry these out (i.e. if a mod does something, contact them first to discuss, and afterwards you can call a community vote if you still disagree) but having the basic duties, powers, and philosophy seems a good thing to have done first.--^talk 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Saw the edits on the other page to the language; they all look pretty solid, moving them here.--^talk 23:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

We still have the Coop, right? Is this page just for moderators and involve parties? If a long term solution to the MC situation is going to be hammered out, it should still be made by the community, shouldn't it? Can we formally bring MC before the community and specifically show what he's been doing, and propose a result, giving him a chance to defend himself? This "he's a troll!" "No he's not!" is getting us nowhere. DickTurpis (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

RW:COOP#Counter proposal -- Nx / talk 14:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As this isn't really about a single incident but the latest iteration of MC's long-term behavior, and given that MC asked for the mods to intervene, this is a good chance for the moderation process to work. Any sanction will be put to a community vote, of course. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A conversation we might need to have.

This process will only work if the mob allows it to work. Should it ever come to someone being blocked or binned for reals because the mods got some sort of consensus from the community that a block/binning was warranted, undoing said block/binning would be a violation of the community's standards -- not of a moderators' ruling. Key difference, right? That said, I believe that a workable policy might be 1. undoing a block/binning that came as the result of a moderation would result in a stiff warning. 2. repeating the undo after a stiff warning would be worth maybe a block of fixed duration (couple of weeks, maybe?) and a short (...a month or two or something) promotion to non-sysop? Discuss. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

First thing that should happen is a cheerful explanation and reversal - "Oh hey, the community got together on this, sorry you didn't know!"

If they insist on redoing the unblocking or whatever, then a second reversal and stiff warning.

The third time, then I think they should just be promoted for a week.

If they still insist on ignoring the community's consensus, then I think this last time they should be promoted indefinitely, and only demoted again once they publicly agreed to be abide by community decisions. At least two other mods should agree at this point. I would suggest a community vote here actually, but I think that would inevitably lead to this process being a way for someone to re-litigate a case over and over. So having other mods confirm this decision acts as a brake for personal involvement - i.e. the vendettas that sometimes crop up - while still allowing us to function as we should and limit endless hand-wringing.--^talk 04:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't lose steam - this is another conversation we need to have

I posted some thoughts here about coming up with an idea for happens after a situation that requires moderator intervention. Moderators aren't in a leadership role and our function is not to effect long-term change. That's on the community. All the same problems we've always faced as far as dealing with trolling and other destructive behavior and users' strong reactions are going still to be there. As much as possible, notwithstanding the function of moderators as bomb diffusers, this place has always functioned as something like an anarcho-syndicalist collective that strives for equality and open access to the means of production, as well as self-determination, organization, and management. We don't limit the abilities and rights of users to do everything and more a user might do on any other wiki. Our customs evolve organically and our conduct is governed only by a sort of loose consensus except as to a very few unique circumstances. Let's get together on coming up with some guidelines for how the community will approach destructive behavior instead of having people edit and wheel war, flame out on talk pages, and then run to the coop without a concrete idea of what's supposed to happen there. I would like the community to make a priority of answering several questions:

• Are there holes in our community guidelines that need to be plugged with simple modifications that put people on actual notice that some shit's just off limits? (there are);
• What is the function of the vandal bin? Can it be used for trolls? What's a troll and who decides? Short term it's no problem for moderators to put a quick stop to destructive behavior whether it's vandalism or trolling, but the longer term question of what the community will do about it remains.
• How do we do long term blocks? Do we do community bans and if so how?
• How will we decide whether to remove user rights, whether sysop, moderator, or tech?
• Toward the end of empowering the community to efficiently and fairly handle issues with longer term ramifications than moderators are permitted to handle, I would suggest coming up with a rubric than can be applied to a variety of situations in which the community is contemplating more serious action like long term blocks or removing user rights that includes:
  • • what kind of situations even warrant someone slapping up a vote section - in other words, is this serious enough to spend a substantial amount of time on, and do we even have a remedy for it or can we come up with one fairly;
    • who may vote;
    • how votes will be counted and how many are required;
    • how long voting will remain open; and
    • and how to ensure the person we're considering blocking or stripping of rights gets some basic due process protections in terms of being accused of specific wrongs prohibited by our guidelines and having an opportunity to respond.

There's been a lull in activity on the Psy/Marcus front since this morning. I don't think it's appropriate for a moderator to intervene where there's presently no fire. If that changes... I'll be at the Indiana Dunes until Monday getting drunk and sunburned.
This is a perfect time for the community to start addressing some of these problems. Let's get some real consensus on how these things will be handled so we can get it right this time. 20:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll jump in here and respond to some of this, if I may. First of all, there are holes in community guidelines. For one, they still talk of bureaucrats. Also, they are, in some places, too vague. Trolling is discussed but not defined - the crux of the MarcusCicero situation. It also seems to me that guidelines themselves have an inherent problem, in that is violation of them punishable? If not, they only work when they aren't violated, which isn't too useful. If they are, then they're simply rules masquerading under a different name. If they're rules, we should be forthright and call them rules.

Long term blocks and community bans are still up to the community, I believe. But there does need to be some formal way of instigating them. The Coop seems to be what we have. I see the moderators as being the ones to give structure to the Cooping process, so it isn't total chaos. If we're going to contemplate long term blocks or permabans, there should be a solid structure for this. I've said it a few times before, but discussions of MC always seem to be "he's a troll!" as if it's self-evident to anyone walking in off the street. Yes, I've certainly witnessed trollish behavior by MC, but if we're going to make a case out of it, a narrative of his actions, with specific linked examples, should be presented, and he should be given free reign to explain/defend himself. This goes for anyone, obviously.

As for voting, it should be necessary for large decisions, but a simple "this guys being a dick, can we please get him to stop?" can hopefully be handled more informally, as the Coop has done at times in the past. Anyone with a significant history here should be allowed to vote, with the exception of socks and the like. I'm willing to let moderators decide who is or is not a likely sock/troll in the voting process.

Removal of rights is a tricky issue, especially now that sysops (i.e. everyone) can promote/demote. I can see this being ineffective, but we'll have to see what happens. I do think there should be a formal process for removing moderators (and techs), and it should be established before it's needed, so we don't have ad hoc rulings or ex post facto rules. Some sort of supermajority of the community, or near unanimity of the other mods or board members or something. We had a small issue a little while back where an editor demanded removal of a board member. It was clear nothing was going to come of it, but it did shed light on the fact that there is apparently no way to do it even if we wanted to. We should be prepared for this unlikely situation arising.

That's enough for now. DickTurpis (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

question

All moderator talks, all mod requests, all discussions are on open pages, right? I ask, cause i have a strange concern of a ka-bal forming about issues that are, regardless of the new position "mods", page/site wide issues. In just 24 hours this page is already knee deep in discussion of things that i'm left with a wierd feeling "is it really this bad around here?"--En attendant Godot 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that people are concerned with process, of course - the concern about this sort of thing is a reflection of the affection people have for RW, is all. It's part and parcel of the same concern that makes you uneasy now.

I assure you: everything we have done and will do, is going to be public.--^talk 22:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Further question

Not that it matters much here, as this seems to be a pretty one-sided vote, but for future reference, are we working on a majority rule model or a rough consensus one? (I asked this once already but have not received a response.) Is this something for the moderators to decide amongst themselves? DickTurpis (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Majority, I am assuming. No reason for otherwise.--^talk 19:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Moderation process question/comments

This is going reasonably well with a minimum of sniping, LANCBs or feeding of trolls. Thank you all for making the process work so far. Speaking on behalf of the mods, we're obviously kinda making this up on the fly. When the process is done, I will take it upon myself to write a brief statement summarizing what happened in the interest of creating a little jurisprudence, so next time we can start at square 27 instead of square one. Please use this section for any praise, hints, criticism or insights when the dust has all settled. Thanks. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 21:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good plan dude. Ace^{of Spades} 01:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the MC case going on here & not at the Chicken Coop, & with no link from the Coop? Can't we have just one place for deciding these things? If that's gonna be here from now on, we should probably shut the Coop down & redirect to here. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See section directly above. This currently procedure grew organically out of discussion on mods, and since it seemed to work well the current proposal is to move this process back to the Coop. DickTurpis (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Question: How will we deal with MarcusCicero's sockpuppets, when they appear? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. There are pretty obviously a few of them on this page.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

They get swiftly b&.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)=

EC That, my anticommunist friend, is an awesome question. I await the input of the masses to help figure it out. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 21:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I say, that at some point you have to drop this. the more you attend to him, the more he will (like a kid throwing a temper tantrum) fight back and play this game. Can you not just ignore it? --En attendant Godot 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No. We tried that, it didn't work. -- Nx / talk 21:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(ECx4!) Block them as soon as we can be sure - at least that's the way we're supposed to deal with IPs. --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Godot, b&ing someone is only a proactive method of ignoring--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured it was implied in the proposal where imitators/socks are blocked. Ace^{of Spades} 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's NOT a proactive way of ignorning them cause they jump up and down and go "hehehhe I made them block me, they are scared/annoyed/etc., with me and that give me a hard on". I do not get trolls, never have, never will. but i worry that he is inteninally consuming you all. Look at how much energy you've spent in the last (3?) months dealing with him. and just in the last hour. --En attendant Godot 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all that much. --85.76.153.66 (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... that's the problem, we spend too much energy dealing with him instead of just getting rid of him. -- Nx / talk 22:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@elle qui attend Godot, et tous les autres: Today is the two-year anniversary of this edit. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandal binning IPs

immediate vandal binning of any subsequent post by an ip. If it isn't MC posting and is just an imitator then it'll be necessary collateral damage without long term implication.

The vandal binning lasts forever, so you'd have to remember to unbin the IP later. It would be better IMHO to use short blocks. -- Nx / talk 21:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I totally and fully HATE this idea. many comments that are useful come from IP only. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are suggesting. --En attendant Godot 21:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably. I'm suggesting using short blocks on MC when he posts as an IP instead of vandal binning that IP as suggested by Ace, because a vandal binning lasts forever until undone. -- Nx / talk 21:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all IPs. Just those from (I think) 86.40 and 86.47 (goat I hope I'm right here, I can't remember numbers all that well). --★uːʤɱ sinner 22:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

gotcha. didn't know he was only using one ip. lame troll.;-)--En attendant Godot 23:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically, that's not one, but as the first two numbers of IPs are geographical locations - it's not that hard. --★uːʤɱ sinner 23:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Godot, you're right: this is a very tricky subject. We will be very careful in how we handle it.--^talk 04:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Marcus has a dynamic IP, he can get a new one quite easily, so the vandal bin will be ineffective and only cause collateral damage. A 30 minute block will have the same effect of forcing him to reset his modem, without leaving an IP binned forever. -- Nx / talk 10:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we will do that then. That makes more sense.--^talk 03:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck did you idiots do?

You blocked a harmless thorn in the wiki's side for a month? You are morons. ħuman 09:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I will inform the 26 idiots who voted to block him that they are morons. Thank you for your input.--^talk 09:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we didn't check with you first, Human. What with it being your wiki and all. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 12:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Human, for once at least I actually kind of agree with what you have to say. I am surprised. (I voted GOAT rather than NO though, because I really didn't care that much.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No point lamenting him, I say. The wiki is better off (unless you want to open up a diatribe about how moderators are fascists or some crap like that).--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

More constructive criticism from Human. What a surprise. RatMaster ^háblame 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)