RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive11

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 March 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Do the mods actually exist abymore[edit]

? Acei9 01:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Spud (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
were my comments above not worthy of response? Acei9 01:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a mod, but given that she appears to be persistently harassing you and making veiled threats, I've temporarily removed her sysop & autopatrolled status so sysops are sure not to miss anything. A mod's judgment on the matter would be appropriate. Spriggina (sgwrs) (cyfraniadau) @ 01:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah a mod should make some kind of judgment here or at least clarify the rules on ‘investigating’ other users (whatever Anna means by that). Acei9 01:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm a mod. I think Anna Livia went too far in the matter, where it falls under harassment (by continuing a discussion that's explicitly unwanted) and dragging drama (by continuing unwanted "arguments" on GrammarCommie's and my talk page). Ace, you should try next time to more clearly show the problem, such as giving me the link to this page or pinging me or other mods, which is why you didn't get a quick response. Any questions? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope know questions. It’s been a few years since I was properly active here so was wondering how it worked with Anna’s comments under the new regime here. I wouldn’t have stuck around if it was going thing these days. Acei9 02:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Good. If the harassment and drama-dragging continues even after the ban and removal of those statuses, more action will be taken (possible ban or vandal bin), or other sysops have my permission to do that bidding if they beat me to it. I will listen to Anna Livia's complaints, but the reasons are spelled right out and won't change the course of action unless behavior is improved. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the procedure is for these things -- are all people who have sysop removed meant to be put into sysoprevoke? I was hoping for it to just be a temporary removal of privileges, but I'm not sure how that works. Spriggina (sgwrs) (cyfraniadau) @ 03:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think sysoprevoke is to prevent this user from getting sysop rights or exerting sysop privileges? I'm not sure either. I do believe this is temporary removal of privileges until behavior is improved though. I need to check if sysoprevoke is a status only mods can impose. Edit: it is. I'm considering sysoprevoke until behavior is improved, though so far, temporary de-sysop seems to work. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

KD1 v. WWW post mortem[edit]

I don't know if Damian did dox WWW, but if he did, perhaps you should consider additional actions to be taken. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know either, didn't listen that much to all that screaming and yelling. I was out when it happened and the chicken coop was archived before I could get a say and get invested in this. I think What a Wonderful World requested for a revdelete and KingDamian1 complied, so there's that. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
KD1 posted WWWs place of education, see Special:Permalink/1977068. — Dysk (contribs) 20:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

A revision needs burning[edit]

So, somebody replaced the content of Just Asking Questions with a request to call a number in Moscow, followed by what I think was a personal name. I hid the revision and permablocked the user, but I thought to let you know in case the revision needs more moderating. Hertzy (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hertzy Thanks. You seem to have already done all that is necessary. CowHouse (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No personal attacks policy[edit]

As far as I'm aware, there's no specific policy on RationalWiki against personal attacks. I was wondering if we should propose such a policy and have the community vote on it. Essentially, should our discourse be more like Twitter or Wikipedia?Wikipedia Here are a small selection of recent personal attacks (only TheDarkMaster2 received a block):

I agree that TheDarkMaster2 deserved a block, but should we permit the other examples?

Arguments for a no personal attacks policy:

These comments are discouraging for both new and experienced users who are either reading or participating in discussions, and I wouldn't blame someone for eventually LANCB. Also, once one person resorts to personal attacks it is almost inevitable the other side will respond in kind. You won't have a particularly productive discussion if you're calling each other "little shits", "fuckfaces" and "cunts". Seeing experienced users use personal attacks sets a terrible example for newcomers.

The problem as I see it, revolves around attracting new editors to the wiki as well as improving the quality of the articles involved in disputes on article talk pages. Insults and paranoid insinuations are irrelevant. They contribute nothing to revealing truth in a subject and rather chase away those milder souls with little appetite for the ravings of the jacobins among us. This wiki is not a bastion of scholarship, yet it makes claims regarding ideals of human knowledge: science and moral philosophy. That some folks taking after Robespierre should make so little effort to support their assertions of moral rectitude with decent behavior does not surprise me. Lashing out does not make the world, nor this wiki a better place.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Arguments against:

Ikanreed: Maybe you're so lucky as to not be a person whose life and rights are threatened by them, but "being civil" is only a priority to people whose only concerns are abstractions. Shit like this is exactly why I've been unable to respect calls for civility here, there's too much abuse of the concept in defense of the indefensible.

See also: RationalWiki:Saloon bar#What about talk page etiquette? and Essay:RationalWiki has an image problem. CowHouse (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we should tighten moderation on personal attacks (i.e. flaming), and keep a special eye out on users that ideologically align with us (and again I'm guilty of permitting attacks and doing some myself, hence I myself would want a framework to work on, but if we keep personal attacks down and frowned upon, this will discourage other users who agree with them from also doing so themselves). And there should be no threats against people who try calling mods (for the most part), so if we implement a rule, we should cover that. Of course, we don't allow abuse but it shouldn't be frowned upon to ping mods if there is a courtesy violation. Any accusations of things like "decorum poisoning" or giving mods a hard time (as opposed to disputing through chicken coop) for their decisions should also be frowned upon. I see users not enjoying this sort of discourse and wanting to leave and this is very concerning to me, so I take this issue of civility seriously. Last thing I want is have a bunch of rude users who agree with each other and discourage people to disagree with them. I'd let ikanreed make an actual counterargument rather than have us substitute for him (with his comment in the context of politics, which I don't believe is fair for him). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit leery of a blanket no-personal-attacks rule, as there can be a fine line I think. Ad hominem attacks are poor form, uncalled for, and should be discouraged. I also support civility. For example, there is a difference between calling someone a fascist for no discernible reason or simply because one disagrees with them (both uncalled for) vs. calling them a fascist because they support fascistic ideas or support a politician with fascistic tendencies. The latter is basically what I did on RWRW's talk page when discussing his pro-Trump essay: User talk:RWRW#Politics. Bongolian (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, we should treat policy as guidelines. They're not going to cover everything and I don't expect them to be applied in a blanket manner. Calling someone who supports fascistic ideals a fascist would not be a personal attack, but the caveat is that you have to present a really strong case (i.e. you have to make a clear, reasoned, and detailed rundown) and you're not using the buzzword as it is. Nevertheless, I believe it's preferable to claim that a user supports fascist policies so you attack the views, the preferred mode to tackle an argument, and not assign a user restrictive labels. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW I agree. I was a little surprised by @Bongolian's comment (and I still don't think its accurate), but I defiantly didn't see it as a personal attack. --RWRW (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
It's one thing to consider Trump a fascist, but I'm not sure what purpose is served by labeling his supporters fascists when approximately none of his supporters see Trump as a fascist. Seems like a good way to keep everyone in their own bubble I guess? *shrugs* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

Should RationalWiki adopt the RationalWiki:Contributor Covenant as a community guideline?

Yes[edit]

  1. I say aye. — Dysk (contribs) 13:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Minority opinion: I want to because I don't like losing users and I really like to have something to work with when deciding if someone (a good faith editor, not a troll) gets too far insulting and making derogatory comments. I don't agree with some of the provisions, also think it's vague, and I was working on something else in my draft space, though I think we need to start on something, so that's fine by me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    If we can come up with a more concrete proposal about what is and is not acceptable, with examples, I could be supportive. It should be put up for a vote to the wider community I think. Bongolian (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    How about my sandbox? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!
    Sounds much better. I have just a couple of concerns:
    "Ad hominem attacks are overall strongly discouraged even if you believe there's every justification for them." Why "overall"? Ad hominem's are always bad.
    "Keep in mind this applies to users who edit in good faith, not to either trolls or vandals." This could easily turn into a loophole: "I can insult user X because he is a troll." I would remove it and I would move the sentence: "if you suspect a user to be a troll, however, it remains best to ignore, revert (if the troll has made bad-faith edits), block. Use Trollcollapse or DFTT to prevent other users for falling for the bait and wasting their time." at the end of the bullet point "Questioning a user's honesty". --Lankaster (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well if it's more acceptable to the mob than these "standard" guidelines then I reckon we should give it a go. — Dysk (contribs) 21:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Many nay-sayers are making good points. I vote yes in support of the general idea. A policy needs to be adopted if you expect interest in this wiki to continue to grow. Policies can be amended at the drop of a hat. I want to support enforcement of sound policies. Also, for those of you who like an occasional insult, fuck-off.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No[edit]

  1. Not a fan of the "insulting/derogatory comments" bit. Obviously I am against being an asshole. But given that this community frequently goes to edit wars and factional conflicts, I am concerned about this being used as a means of getting rid of the losers. Vague language like that here is just begging for a "Vae victis" situation. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. I support civility. A moderator can and should step in and tell people to cool it when things get out of hand. Bongolian (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Too vague. In addition, if someone (I won't name names) has consistently acted in a dishonest manner these rule would prevent others for calling them out. Another flaw is that some users, myself included, have a ow threshold for bullshit, which means if someone continues to push an agenda (or appears to whether they intend to or not) some of us will likely flare up for pretty straightforward reasons. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    Not necessarily? You can still call a user's argument tactics dishonest without resorting to insults. You just need to present your case. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Again? Dendlai (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Nor am I a fan of the "The use of sexualized language or imagery" prohibition. The right to say "fuck the draft" is one of the boons for which our forefathers bled, and the return of prissiness on these subjects is something I'm not OK with. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. I agree with this in principle, but I think it should be crafted by our community. That way we can address the concerns listed above and come up with a clearer/less authoritarian enforcement mechanism. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  7. This is difficult. I've always taken the view that RationalWiki isn't for everybody, or at the very least that being a RationalWiki editor isn't for everybody. I've always thought it was something you couldn't really do if you were easily offended. And apart from a certain user who gave trolls too much oxygen and couldn't seem to see the difference between trolls and regular users, I think that most people who have complained of offense have been people who have been trying to push an agenda ideologically opposed to the normal RW one. And I think that making people like that feel uncomfortable enough to leave is a good thing. But things have changed a lot since 2007. I don't think we've seen the last of this discussion. Spud (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  8. I'm all for the pledge of restraining talk on sexual identity, race, obesity, etc., but political beliefs and opinions? That goes too far (note: as an avowed conservative, I don't consider identity politics the valid substance of political debate or legitimate political views, anyways. Don't impose your bullshit morality on me. So all you liberal/commie/progressive/Marxist/socialists and genocidal maniacs go ahead and castrate yourselves for the sake of civility and discussion). RobSmithIvanka 2024! 09:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  9. this is a goddamned awful idea. Clearly the work of a diseased mind. Acei9 10:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  10. I don't think we need more bureaucracy to handle this. The moderators and sysops should be entrusted with using their best judgment to deal with individual cases as needed. Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This doesn't deal the need for a clear procedure for moderators addressing honest disputes. That is where both editors are sincere: thus a moderator must have a sound basis for assuming one or other of the contestants is a troll. My recommendations are When a moderator is contacted, they should look at the subject of the dispute and decide if they are conflicted: e.g. user X is an old pal, and user Y is a newcomer. It looks bad when you decide against Y, even if X is a better choice.

  1. The moderator should post a conflict notice in a prominent place, e.g., the Saloon.
  2. If you are not conflicted and nobody else shows up, go ahead and decide the question. Otherwise take a vote.
  3. Let the loser complain and argue all they want on the talk pages. They lost. Let them torment themselves. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

WTF is it anyway?[edit]

  • The Contributor Covenant is a boilerplate code of conduct for open source communities, around 40,000 websites use it including Google. It provides a non-specific but generally effective way of outlining how people should contribute. Exactly how any case should be dealt with is not specified as the Contributor Covenant is more or less a set of ethical guidelines and not some kind of policy. — Dysk (contribs) 13:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
discussion below please

discussion 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

guidelines arent the issue here. these is already in the code of conduct. as others have mentioned its the inconsistant application of the guidelines - something the mods need to be doing job of - a lighter here, more proactive there, and most importantly working on from the page. i dont know if they have anything like a handbook when they sign up, guide when they intervene and how, and maybe some kind of log of everything so you can easily compare similar situations. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

They don't have a handbook nor do they have a log. It can make consistent application difficult. This is mostly what I'm working from and all I'm getting is "just apply the lightest touch". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Two people are leaving because of the amount of insults. Is this something to take seriously then? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it was an excellent opportunity to see if people want to modernise and take on the same ethics as most other online communities. It's worth noting that some people will inevitably be put off before posting at all by all the rude bollocks we have on most talk pages. I don't really give a monkeys, but this is the mainstream code of community guidelines and by not using it we are defining ourselves as using our own rules, whatever they may be. :D — Dysk (contribs) 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
we already have this. everyone knows you can't throw around racial slurs and call people dumb fucks all the time. its haphazard implementation of theses things and of the more vague 'civility' thats the issue. ive gone into more detail at the moderator election page, where it is most pertinent. there is no point drawing up differently worded but otherwise identical codes of conduct if implementation is not addressed. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
a clusterfuck of an idea. I say we castrate the proposer and punish all those who support it. Acei9 10:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh fuck you, didn't you see the bit where I said that over 40,000 other sites use it? You are going to castrate all of them?!? :p — Dysk (contribs) 11:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Calm the fuck down kiddos. Most sites that have a code of conduct adopt a standardized version that (from what I understand) is designed to protect the site's ass rather than really protect the users. You can see this sort of thing in action if you examine Reddit for instance. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
But you can see code of conduct in action for Skeptical Science or Wikipedia. The talk pages and comments in those sites are usually worth reading, no insults or flame baths to slog through, unlike in sites like GameFAQs or comments sections of news sites. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting relevant information on Linda Sarsour[edit]

@Bongolian@CheeseburgerFace@CowHouse@DiamondDisc1@LeftyGreenMario@Spud

James Earl Cash keeps deleting relevant information from the page of Linda Sarsour. The information is question are:

1) Sarsour said she wished she could take away the vagina of a female genital mutilation victim that criticized her.

2) A quote of Sarsour about Jews condoning violence against Arabs and being cool with mosques being attacked.

3) Sarsour "god blessing" the infamous anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.

As usual, James Earl Cash is acting in the most hostile way as possible and he is engaging in edit wars. -Lankaster (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty unfair description, we're all on the talk page talking about problems with specific pieces of your change that are provoking the rollback. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking about 1,2,3? It seems to me that you all are discussing Sarsour and Israel, and it seems to me that you're doing a good job at finding the original transcript about supposed Sarsour dehumanization of Israeli. I don't have problems with that. I have problems with James removing important information like 1,2,3. -19:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Lankaster / talk / contribs
As ikanreed indicated, @Lankaster, it's best to try to deal with this first and foremost on the talk page for Linda Sarsour. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian I would agree, if it wasn't for the usual James Earl Cash's hostility. I don't want to waste hours trying to explain the plainly obvious fact that 1,2,3 are important information, while getting insulted one hundred times and having to read unrelated false analogies.
Are or are not 1,2,3 important information? Why RW should not report that Sarours wished to take away a FGM victim's vagina, spokes of Jews being cool with mosques attacked, and "god blessed" anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan? I let the moderators to take a stance. -Lankaster (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

TheDarkMaster2[edit]

My sister BabyLuigiOnFire vandal binned TheDarkMaster2. Recently. I don't particularly care either way if this user gets unbinned or not, but maybe another moderator can chip in? Thanks. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to vandal bin him. I don't see any evidence of vandalism on his part. If you think any of his personal attacks could be construed as harassment, that would be cause for a block. Bongolian (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting my contributions to a section of the talk page for Hereditarianism[edit]

I hope this is the right place to post this, but I'd like to know if it's possible to delete a section I added and had a discussion with on the Hereditarianism page (it's the '1973 survey section and inclusion of the second Turkheimer, Nisbett, Paige Harden 'Vox' article' one). Initially I was trying to suggest additions to the page I felt were important, but I very regrettably turned the ensuing conversation with another contributor there into one where I became very explicit about my personal uncertainties and fears pertaining to the issues brought up on the page. I tried to blank this section since nothing mentioned in it ended up being added into the page but this edit was reversed. I'd really appreciate it if any moderators would be happy to allow this section to blanked so that I can rest more easily without the anxiety of this mini-meltdown of mine visible on the talk page being visible to the entire world. If this is doable I'd also appreciate if this section I'm writing here could also be blanked once this is done just so that there's as little proof as possible I made the comments I did. I'm terribly afraid of being stalked, screenshoted and mocked by alt-rightists for my comments because of how vulnerable I came off so if it's at all possible to avoid this I'd be very, very thankful DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2018 (AET)

@DiabolikDownUnder, we have a rule against deleting text from talk pages with an exception for doxing.[1] I don't see how that text doxes yourself. Bongolian (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Alt-rightists are unlikely to take note of random posts on an RW talkpage. Though the more we talk about it, the more likely it becomes for the Streisand effect to kick in. :| 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:33, 13 November 42018 AQD (UTC)
The number of RW editors singled out for harrasment by kiwifarms types is small. Not zero, but very few of us. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

BadPiggies 9[edit]

@Bongolian, CheeseburgerFace, DiamondDisc1, LeftyGreenMario, and Spud
Moderation update:
I recently changed the user rights of User:BadPiggies 9 (BP9) so they are no longer autopatrolled or a sysop. This was in response to BP9 trying to block me permanently for the following reason:

05:19, 29 October 2018 BadPiggies 9 (talk | contribs | block) blocked CowHouse (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Keeps undoing useful edits with stupid excuses, trolling me, and making very serious and untrue allegations against me (see his notes when he edited the SJWiki article). I'm sorry, and I wish it didn't have to be this way, but you're too dangerous.) (unblock | change block)

BP9's subsequent comments showed this was clearly not a joke or an accident. I welcome you to look through my contributions to verify that I did nothing worthy of a block.

BP9 created their account in August 2018 and started editing recently in October 2018. I have tried to be patient with them since they're new (far too new to be a sysop, in my opinion) but they have demonstrated a pattern of problematic behaviour:

I'm also unsure how to deal with the spam (for lack of a better term) on their talk page. Are users meant to be able to spam their own talk page?

Trying to patiently deal with this user has wasted a lot of my time. CowHouse (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that CowHouse, a trusted and respected editor, is in the right and BadPiggies9 is in the wrong.
I completely agree that BadPiggies9 should not have been made a sysop after actively editing for less than a month. BadPiggies9 obviously does not have the experience, or I would say the maturity, to be trusted with sysop rights yet. I do not think those rights should be restored for a long time to come.
I see that BadPiggies9 removed the articles for deletion template from the SJWiki page. The deletion discussion process for that page is still ongoing and, so far, nobody has voted to keep it. Removing that template is very bad form at best. At worst, it is dishonesty and vandalism.
And plagiarism is not a little thing, as far as we are concerned. It is a big deal. Plagiarized sections should be removed from pages at once and pages that are made up almost exclusively of plagiarism should be swiftly deleted.
I also find the fixation that BadPiggies9 has with Cnservapedia to be slightly troubling, especially the uploading of screencapss of vandalism done to that wiki. Spud (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Spud. I don't however see any spam on BadPiggies 9's talk page or anything else that crosses the line. Spam is not allowed on RW no matter where it is. Bongolian (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that the user should not get sysop rights mainly from abusing blocking privileges. It's not productive to block users based on disagreement. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bongolian Spam was definitely the wrong word. I'm talking about the talk page comments under the headings "A Message...", "Operation Xbox One", "Fake News. Sad!" and "My Debate Challenge" (all of them were added by BP9 if you look at the fossil record). Are they meant to be on a user's talk page? Although, to be honest, I'm not sure what purpose these templates serve anyway. CowHouse (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, those templates are disruptive to the flow of the talk page, and they are not formatted correctly (nor are they easy on the eyes). I think they should be moved to the main user page. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it belongs on BP9's home page, not the talk page. It's obviously the least of the problems that you've outlined though. Bongolian (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Here here. 02:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: CheeseburgerFace / talk / contribs
Not hear hear? — Dysk (contribs) 13:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

While all this happened over a month ago, and so I`m a bit late, all responsibility falls squarely on me for being the one who demoted BP9 in the first place. I thought I should have just thrown that out there.--Don Juan (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Nah, nothing is serious. Don't feel bad. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Techs[edit]

@Spud @LeftyGreenMario @RWRW @DuceMoosolini @Bongolian So, time to try and fulfill my first campaign promise.

I would like to formally propose that we surrender our ability to make techs over to people with the "staff" user right, on the condition that techs will be appointed by either Trent or a full Board vote. This is in accordance with this part of the Community Standards. 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes[edit]

  • Sounds very sensible to me. Spud (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that techs should be appointed by staff, though I don’t know if a full board vote would be necessary. Surely one board member would be enough to decide if somebody should get the right. I also endorse the recommendation that any change wouldn't impact the current techs.--RWRW (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No[edit]

  • Doesn't point at any particular problems being solved. I love fixing edit filter shit. It's a useful task. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    • You do realize you will still be able to do that, right? The only change is one of the mods' user rights. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
      Yeah, but a mod gave me the rights when I said I'd look into edit filter problems, with my magic powers of being a half-assed programmer. Unless there's a problem being solved, I'm pretty quick to get on the no train for policy proposals. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
        • What exactly is a "full board vote" mean? Basically, board deciding on techs = good. Onerous process meaning no one ever bothers making another tech again = bad. Also, mods will still have to have the technical ability to add/remove the tech user-right for obvious moderation reasons, it would otherwise make techs unmoderatable -- obviously a bad idea. — Dysk (contribs) 17:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions remain unanswered. Until I can get a solid answer, keeping vote firmly to nay. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  1. Ok two questions.
    1. What exactly is the issue this will fix?
    2. What about the various existing techs?
    Not really asking for a friend here, as I am a tech. :) — Dysk (contribs) 16:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. As Dysklyver wrote above, what about the techs currently in existence? Is this retroactive, or does the grandfather clause apply to us?--Don Juan (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    No. This only applies to future techs. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Well that seems fine then. — Dysk (contribs) 16:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Part of the problem is that there's no technical qualification at all for being a moderator or a board member, so these categories of membership don't necessarily qualify them for evaluating technical skills. Unanimous board agreement seems especially excessive for this reason. I got tech rights immediately and without asking because I said I knew Perl. Well, the fact is it's been several years since I've done any programming at all unless you count generators in Wiki mark-up. Existing Techs are probably most likely best able to judge tech ability, but there's no test and it might be hard to make one. (Submit a code sample? That could be used for doxing.) Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Honest question, is this a real issue? Are mods being allowed power to demote to tech, has that been abused to the detriment of RationalWiki? I myself don't see it. I'm leaning to oppose. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki_talk:All_things_in_moderation/Archive11&oldid=2047212"