RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <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)

My two cents

… in form of proposed standard procedure for voting. Open for input of course. Might help in the future. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 18:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ace

Just to make it clear, you're not actually addressing the policy or your abuse? Just stating that they happened? I don't understand what the point is. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just quit fucking edit warring and produce a solution instead of pointless repetition. If you think there is a policy issue then bring it up instead of fucking around. Ace^{of Spades} 13:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you/Nx is the one who thinks there's a problem. That's what's so funny about this. Bring it up and stop fucking around. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Errr, the only I think is that the edit warring should stop. Your talkpage is community property and contains no personal attacks. Leave it. Ace^{of Spades} 13:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The talk page should contain no trolling. I removed what I perceived as trolling as I feel I am inclined to do on my talk page, as P-Foster did on his. Nx acted as the arbiter of trolling and reverted me, but not Foster. If you or Nx have a problem with the policy, you need to fix it. Otherwise, fuck off and let me remove trolling from my talk page like everyone else does. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. The LJ's decision was not well thought out, it's open for abuse like Occasionaluse has demonstrated. -- Nx / talk 17:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It probably was poorly conceived. It was done to deal with specific problems in a specific context and it's clearly not aged well. The problem is that a few editors here endlessly edit war in spaces that fucking aren't theirs over their own subjective take on what trolling is. Some of it's obvious point-making, which only highlights the problem. Come up with a real policy or toughen up. 18:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for moderator block

The voting over the Coop over whether or not to ban MC has been going on for a weeks now, and appears to have reached equilibrium, with 20 users in favor of the ban and 11 opposing. Given that the first vote was cast on the 31st, and it's now the 7th, with the latest vote being cast some five days ago, the will of the nearly 65% in favor of his infinite banning should be executed by the mods. I'd do it myself, but I probably lack the AUTHORITAE to do so, and if a mod does it, it'd be wrapped up all tidy like. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal was a 2 year block with the vote to run for a week. It started last Sunday. 18:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I misinterpreted the dates. My bad. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it with a heavy heart and under protest whenever the voting ends tomorrow. You guys are totally disappointing. 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, no! I want to be the one to stomp on MC's face... forever! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Moderators shall be expected to display moderation at all times

Witness this interchange:

SuspectedReplicant: You delete a BoN comment from your talk page, but think BoNs should be allowed to vote? Don't you see the contradiction here? If BoNs are allowed to vote, you should expect to see about 180,000 votes for whatever position I support any time there's a vote.

Nutty Roux: You really are thick. I deleted a comment form an IP saying Huw and I should keep fucking each other. You want more trouble with me like we had in May? If not strap your brain on tighter, asshole.

Maratrean: Very immoderate language, coming from a moderator.

Nutty Roux: I'm not a moderator here, Maratrean. I'll tell you when I'm moderating.

SuspectedReplicant was making a point, whether it be right or wrong, in moderate and polite language. Nutty Roux has responded with a torrent of aggresion and obscenities. I would like to take this opportunity to propose that moderators should be expected to behave in moderation all the time, not just when "moderating". They should lead the site by example. Of course, being human beings, sometimes they will make mistakes, but the proper response to when that is pointed out to them should be "Sorry, you are right" not "I'm only a moderator when it suits me". If a moderator repeatedly fails to display moderation, then the question should be raised as to whether they ought to continue to be a moderator. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that moderators should try to remain calm and level-headed at all times, my basic response is that if you are unhappy with a moderators behaviour don't vote for them in future. - π 00:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not adopt some standards collectively? If Nutty Roux loses his temper, well everyone gets angry sometimes. My real problem is not his anger, it's that he can't see how it contradicts the role of being a moderator. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pi. Bringing up an argument from months ago that has no bearing on the current discussion means that I might have to move Nutty one space down from his current second-to-last space on my voting card, however. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the other moderators should suggest to Nutty Roux that he refrain from verbally abusing editors, since this does not exactly have a positive effect on the moderators' ethos of moral authority. As to voting, Nutty Roux stated in no uncertain terms, during the moderator campaign, that he is quite capable of blowing his top during a crisis; I doubt this will make anyone change their votes. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, and by the very way "mods" were elected - they should not be expected to act any differently at any time OTHER than when they are explicitly stepping in as a moderator. and that shouldn't be happening very often. there is no "role" of being a moderator most of the time. and from what i can tell by the quote, he was not acting as a moderator but as another user. we have to be uber careful not to turn "mods" into some kind of "role". that is not what i voted for, nor did most of the "mob". we voted to have someone able to step in only if things get uber bad.--En attendant Godot 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly we should not impose it by statute, or anything like that, but in order to carry out their occasional interventions, the moderators need to be respected around here all the time, which means it would be advisable for them to behave respectably all the time. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, that's pretty much BS. this place is not a hierarchy and there's no reason that the day to day edits, comments, infighting, snapping, etc., should be any different for you, or nutty, foster or myself or some new bee. respect is gained, and it has little to nothing to do with "acting correctly" or not using bad language or even blocking childishly. respect has to do with how the mod acts when asked to do something *as* a mod. I don't understand the idea of "holding someone to a higher standard". not in real politics, not here.En attendant Godot 01:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

People can do better. Why are some people so keen to argue for mediocrity? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I try to be moderate and reasonable. But if I have to be that all the time in order to be a mod, then I would like to be a special class of user. I mean, if all the mods are held to a special standard then they're obviously not just like every other user. They're super-users, who are expected to merit respect at all times, and so who should be respected at all times. I want a parking spot and a fiefdom.

Seriously, though: we're just users who were elected to a particular position. As long as we do our jobs, then we're the same as other users in every other respect. Any special requirements for people in positions of any power inevitably leads to stratification, and we want to minimize that as much as possible.--^talk 03:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

respect is gained, and it has little to nothing to do with "acting correctly"... I beg to differ. People who behave in an abusive manner are not generally respected for it.

AD, moderators are a "special class" of user in that they are given special powers and moral authority. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think moderators should be held to a special standard. I think they should be held to the same standard as everyone else. But, considering the fact that no one meets that standard perfectly, it seems right to expect that moderators will try to do a better job of meeting that standard than the average user. Like it or not, they have a position of leadership (which while limited in scope, is still a position of leadership), thus they should lead by example. Moderators should collectively be holding each other to account. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a special standard, especially when you talk about how moderators are leaders who should lead by example and should be especially held to that standard because they are special. I mean, I'm not doctor of specialology, but a class of users that are held to a more exacting standard because they're authorities sounds like a special class of users to me.

If you want mods to be special users who are the leaders in charge, that's fine. Propose that. I'll vote against it. All users are equal.--^talk 03:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a funny way of looking at things - "expecting a certain group of users to be of above average behaviour" = "expecting those users to lord it over others". I don't see how the first in any way implies the second. If anything, it actually implies the opposite. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What you want is for moderators to have to always act respectful, courteous, and of moderated temper. On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with that, because we should hope for all users to act that way. But you also propose that moderators should be especially beholden to that standard.

My problem is that a special requirement for behavior does indeed imply that moderators are special users. If they're held to a higher standard, then I think implicitly they are a higher class of user. The corollary to "all moderators must act in a manner deserving of respect" is "all moderators deserve respect."

If I'm a dick to someone, then that's a problem because I'm a user being a dick to another user. And that's enough.

Just vote in a different set of moderators next time, if you don't like the way some of them behave. If your criteria is that you only want people who will always be polite, that's fine. But no one voting for Ace or Nutty was under the delusion that they were always going to be polite, because they're both very plain-spoken (sorry guys! I love you anyway!)--^talk 05:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you AD. I love you too but keep your cock away from ass. Ace^{of Spades} 05:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nutty was acting as a moderator when he threatened those who disagreed with him with a 1 day block. -- Nx / talk 05:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff-link to support that statement? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This and this, but you should also read the entire conversation. -- Nx / talk 05:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

He is within his rights as moderator to set the terms of a vote, even if it goes against precedent, and to block people who interfere with that vote. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

He didn't set the terms of the vote. I asked him to explain when an IP is allowed to vote. He replied: "I don't know and I don't care." -- Nx / talk 06:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how he is allowed to set the terms of a vote. The moderators as a whole might be able to, but I've seen no evidence that the moderators are in agreement here. The idea of anon ips getting a vote just seems entirely counter-intuitive. But if it is decided they can vote, I look forward to getting two votes, one with my account and one with my established ip edit history from times I've forgotten to log in. DickTurpis (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dick, nobody was voting twice and there wasn't any credible worry about ballot stuffing.
• As Nx said, I didn't set the terms of a vote. I was preserving the status quo by retaining the BON's contribution to the discussion in light of there being no policy permitting Brxbrx or any other editor or moderator to unilaterally remove a vote of that nature. We've got custom and practice on whether IP's can vote on coop sanctions and regular elections. We have none regarding IP "votes" for the retention of a single template page, particularly where (a) we've got no policy for voting on such things at all vs. simply gauging and implementing the consensus of the community, which last time I checked includes anyone who edits here notwithstanding Dick's and others' claims that one must register to be a full part of the community (there isn't and never has been any support for a claim like that and it would have been abhorred as completely contrary to the spirit of openness at RW a year or more ago), and (b) where the BON was clearly a regular editor (in this case the Cheerleader Troll, who's entitled to participate however he or she wishes consistent with our community guidelines).
• I said I didn't care to have the broader discussion of whether BONs can vote in general and under what circumstances because it was irrelevant to the situation at hand. I took a position on preserving the status quo in this instance, first as a regular editor, and then by promising a block if the vote was removed again. I was undermined at every step. This seems to me to be the only instance in which a moderator took a strong position to invoke his moderator powers in the heat of controversy, albeit a very short-lived one that involved something like 3 editors. It didn't go well. Rather than force the natural outcome of actually invoking my authority and then answering any coop an aggrieved editor wished to bring, I opted to let tempers subside in the hope of preserving what tiny shred of moral authority the community is permitting moderators in doing anything more than move sections around and close discussions. It was clear to me that the loudest people involved in the discussion either didn't understand my position, didn't care, or disagreed and therefore were going to do whatever they wanted anyway, which is exactly what happened. Since my mandate in this context is to preserve order, there's not much I can do if a few people make very clear they're going to make a bigger deal out of the situation than there would have been if a moderator didn't intervene. I continue to believe the BON's vote was removed without precedent and that nobody's said anything in support of its removal but argue by assertion that BON's don't vote in matters like this. I disagree. I hope I'm not the only one who didn't like the outcome, but being popular isn't part of my mandate.
• Regarding SR, I brought up his habit of edit warring me on my RW talkpage and userpage (!), and edit warring and blocking me/removing my rights on RWW, all to force his will to retain personal remarks directed at me and in some instances Human, because it was highly relevant to him edit warring me yet again, purportedly to make a point, around my prerogative to remove an inappropriate comment about Human and me fucking each other from my talk page. I'm sorry he remains recalcitrant despite acting totally improperly. My own intemperance, which I admit, stemming from my lack of any more patience for this kind of behavior from him, doesn't absolve him of his own violations of RW policy in edit warring like that. He can rant about what a horrible horrible person I am and rail about my lack of qualifications as a moderator all he wants. Maratrean can misrepresent my response as a "torrent of aggression and obscenities." I expect exactly that from these users in particular. But if people continue not liking the LJ's decision, they need to do something about it. As it presently stands, nobody has the right to edit war me over removing an purely unproductive obscene comment from my talkpage. The only reason I permitted SR to continue this behavior was that I feel it's improper for me to put on my moderator hat to deal with a situation in which I'm directly involved. I promised to make a clearer statement of how I would approach avoiding any appearance of impropriety or self-dealing as a moderator, which I've been very mindful of. I'll turn an eye toward that project again when I've got more time. But if this was anyone else's page I would have briefly blocked SR so that the rest of the discussion could continue without disruption. I view that as one of the key arrows in a moderator's tiny quiver, whether or not it endears them to the participants of a heated discussion. If that's a dealbreaker, don't vote for me if I run for moderator again. You won't hurt my feelings.
• Regarding the substance of SR's comment and purported point-making about removing an insulting BON comment from my talkpage somehow contradicting my decision to preserve the status quo by retaining the BON's contribution to the trolltop template page, I'm truly mystified that anyone sees these as remotely similar situations, yet nobody batted an eyelash at Brxbrx trying to make the same inane point by impersonating me, so apparently I'm in the minority. As I said to Nx, if people are unable to see the difference between removing an obscene personal comment and retaining a vote for which there is not one bit of precedent for removing, I do not know what I can do to help correct their misunderstanding. 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody batted an eyelash? I was cooped and Ace threw a bitchfit.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The problem, as I see it, is that the issue of ip votes should be a matter of procedure, not decided on a case by case basis. Going through voters and trying to figure out "oh, this must be so-and-so; we should count this one" is a bad way of doing things. Sure, maybe there was no attempt to game the system here, but guesswork of this nature really should be avoided as much as possible. If, in this case, the editor in question was our cheerleader person, all the more reason why she/he should have logged in.

Now, if your concern was more removal of comments than the validity of the vote, I agree with you there. Anyone (with the exception of banned users) should be allowed to comment, and those comments should be visible for all to see an respond to. But such votes should not be tallied in the results, unless the user returns and claims the vote while logged in. That's my take on it, at least. Anyway, this really isn't the best place to discuss interpretation of voting procedure (at least this particular section isn't). There's a proposed policy and discussion sort of ongoing, though admittedly a user subpage and its talk page isn't the ideal location either. DickTurpis (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dick, I think you're not understanding my points or my purpose in posting. Fine for procedure. Limited procedure on exactly this kind of thing would be super. My concern was about not counting a vote that this person had an absolute right to cast. I feel like I'm repeating myself. I'm aware of no precedent for removing or not counting a vote under the circumstances. Has it ever been addressed in the 2.5 years I've been on RW? If so I missed it. So I don't know why you've asserted that it's a no-brainer that a BON wouldn't get to vote on a matter as trivial as altering a template. And your general concern about doing this on a case by case basis doesn't address the fact that we know who this editor was (and s/he obviously wasn't trying to game his/her vote) and there's no requirement that anyone log in to do anything except the 2 things for which we expressly require it. We've got no business not counting a contributor's opinion. So I disagree with your take on things as to the merits as well as that we're even discussing voting procedure. We're not. I was responding to points raised and explaining my position. I'm glad you all are finally getting to talking about voting considerations elsewhere. It's about time. 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

P-Foster's resignation

Apparently P-Foster is resigning his post as moderator (though he hasn't signed his post). I hope he will reconsider, but if he doesn't we will need a replacement. He's suggested LX (ListenerX, I assume), though I'd argue the most fair replacement would be the first runner up in the elections. I believe that is MordantMaenad. Not sure what the protocol is here. This is another thing that hasn't really been worked out ahead of time. DickTurpis (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't just need a replacement (and I hope he'll reconsider). We need him to tell us about the e-mails, because if someone's threatening an RW moderator over RW stuff it's RW business. Though I think we can all guess who they're from. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If somebody's gone to the extent of threatening e-mails, then that's beyond the pale. The mods need to find out who's behind this and take action. We don't need people like that on RW. --PsyGremlin講話 15:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we don't tolerate that sort of thing on site so we shouldn't tolerate it by email, but we kinda do tolerate it. ADK^{...I'll revolve your attorney!} 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

MordantMaenad was the first runner up - just a fraction of a vote behind AD, so the vacant spot should go there if the resignation remains in place. But yes, if people are being hassled off-site then that's not good. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If those emails were sent from you-know-who, then certifying the results of the recent coop vote and extending his ban would be a start. It's been running for more than a week already, and there's a clear majority in favor. Röstigraben (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I did it a few minutes ago. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why bother assigning a replacement? (At least to this observer) it seems to be nearing the point that we can declare the moderator system a failure just like the LJ, with endless cooping and no moderation in sight. --Benod (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, stuff is getting done slowly. And if it weren't for mods we'd have been wheel-warring over MC's block for weeks. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah. The mods are every bit as impotent. Just another club. Just another failure. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's simply that in spite of the fantasies of some the mods aren't wielding their power like a sledgehammer. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they haven't done anything lasting, meaningful or productive. They're a waste of time and server space. I can't wait until this authoritarian bullshit fades away like it always does. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Anyway, this isn't really the place to whine about ineffectualness of moderators (who apparently are simultaneously impotent do-nothings and authoritarian tyrants, as if that makes sense). Can we agree that MordantMaenad replaces P-Foster once his resignation is formalized (assuming it is)? DickTurpis (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if she's willing to take over. Röstigraben (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we need to remaining moderators to sign off on this? I assume that's the sort of thing they do? DickTurpis (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we'd need to sign off on it - it was the result of the community vote. But it's fine by me. Hope Foster is okay.--^talk 22:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Foster is fine, he's just "done". One of those "trash collecting isn't exactly glamorous as it is, and now someone is putting my personal name on their trash" feelings. He left under his terms. it's all good.En attendant Godot 23:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to AD's inquiry as to why the mods should sign off on this: as with just about every other aspect of the moderator position, there is no established protocol on removing or replacing moderators. I proposed elevating the runner up in the recent elections to fill a vacancy, but this is not the only possibility. P-Foster seems to favor suggesting a replacement in his stead, we could also hold another community vote (not suggested), or have the remaining mods decide amongst themselves. The point is, this isn't the only option on the table, so its hardly a fait accompli. My interpretation of the still largely undefined role of moderator would involve deciding issues such as this, in which we don't want a unilateral decision made by a random editor, nor is it worth the hassle of a sitewide vote. So, if we're going to go with the elevate-the-next-in-line plan, we should leave the final decision up to the mods. I believe this is the sort of thing we elected them to decide. DickTurpis (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. Fair enough, I endorse the notion that when a mod has to leave, the next-in-line steps up.--^talk 03:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mods just need to understand the following:

YOU DO NOT NEED COMMUNITY CONSENT TO BAN PEOPLE, DELETE COMMENTS OR CLOSE THREADS. THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF HAVING MODERATORS

Just saying. ADK^{...I'll recollect your demon!} 23:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. But we elected accountable moderators, not CP sysops. If the mod role becomes one of a "I'm an elected moderator so what I say goes" attitude I'll be the first to cry foul and demand accountability. It's my opinion, at least, that moderator actions should be made by consensus among mods, not on the whim of any one of them. DickTurpis (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we try to use the lightest hand possible while still doing the job.--^talk 03:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Making the hand a few ounces heavier might not go amiss. When Fall down was active here, if he socked up the sock was banned. If the bans issued against our current breed of trolls are not to be in name only, that is the precedent we will need to follow. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's accountability, but passing everything by the entire community, waiting for votes, having most of the action and talking being done by people who aren't elected moderators... you guys need to either start blocking or deleting the main pieces of crap without fingering your arses for several days first. One user is gaming the system, one is purely abusive and another seems to be acting like puppet master while thinking they're untouchable. Just go for the fucking throat, that's not abuse, most people will thank you for it. ADK^{...I'll ablate your cockroach!} 07:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I see it, and how I've interpreted the role of moderator and such. On this site we have major issues, minor issues, and those in between. Major issues, such as changes to policy, long term bans or significant punishments, electing people to various positions, etc., should be made by the community. Minor issues, such as temporary blocks or page protection to prevent edit warring, and a few other things, can be decided by a moderator. Those in between, such as interpreting policies, certifying results of community votes and determining consensus, and deciding on significant issues that don't warrant the time and annoyance of a sitewide vote, should be made by the mods as a group. If four mods (ie a majority) sign off on an issue such as this, that should settle it. Except for minor, temporary issues like the ones I stated above, I don't like the idea of mods acting unilaterally. These aren't CP sysops, and we certainly don't need two mods edit warring.

As an example of what I'm talking about here, currently I see two such issues which mods should address. The first is deciding on a replacement (if any, I guess there doesn't need to be a 7th mod, though I prefer we have one) to P-Foster (again assuming his resignation is final). One mod has agreed that runner-up MordantMaenad (who really should have an easier to spell handle) should fill the vacancy; if 3 others agree that should settle the matter (provided MM still wants the job). This will also establish a binding precedent for any future vacancies. The other issue is settling a minor controversy about votes by anon ips. One moderator, Nutty Roux, thinks there are circumstances in which they should be counted. Some of us do not agree. I don't think any one moderator should make this call, but I'll abide by a majority decision among the mods. DickTurpis (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

New moderator

It's been about 3 days since P-Foster resigned and de-modded himself and little has been done about replacing him. Since there is no protocol for replacing mods, I'm suggesting promoting the runner up in the recent elections be the standard practice. Other options, I guess, could be letting P-F decide his replacement, a new election, an election just by remaining mods, appointment by Trent or someone, or leaving the total mods at 6. At this rate we're on track for the last one, but if that's to be the case I'd like it to be because of a decision not due to the lack of one. So here's a formal proposal: from now on vacancies will be filled by the next highest vote getter. In this case they can be found by reading these charts from the bottom up. So the next in line are:

1. MordantMaenad
2. Psygremlin
3. DickTurpis
4. Ty

If 4 mods can agree to this, let's call it settled. Now, who has the power to promote editors to moderators? DickTurpis (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree (mods only)

This makes sense as democratic, and will work swiftly, which is a definite benefit if things are chaotic enough to drive a mod out.--^talk 21:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ace^{of Spades} 21:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Is Mod. Is Good. - π 13:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (all editors)

Offer it to MM, and if she doesn't want it, Psy, and so on and so forth. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As the moderators have been as much use as chocolate teapots, why bother? Pippa (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have used my mod powers to lock pages during mass edit wars. I am not useless. Ace^{of Spades} 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

<cough>while not strictly a "prediction" it does indicate a sort of "wisdom". This is the only way I'll ever be mod since I won't stand fer election, greatness should always be thrust upon a person. 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ</cough>

You seem to be conflating the term "moderator" with that of "greatness". DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me if you thought I was serious. I think of moderator in terms of a nuclear pile: it just sits there, minding its own bidness but in "doing" so moderates by absorbing neutrons; I've watched the moderators here going out and find some moderating to do! which sort of defeats the purpose, no? 17:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Have you? I've watched the moderators do very little. It seems they haven't lifted a finger to replace one of their ranks, for example. DickTurpis (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

MM is fine because of how close the vote was, but I don't think this should become standard procedure for when a mod resigns. Do you want to have RobS and Lumenos as mods? -- Nx / talk 17:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like me removed, because I'm probably going to be very busy this semester, and I did not know that at the time. Тy^Talk 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think every Mod would have to quit before Rob becomes one, and I'd like to think that isn't going to happen. What's the other proposal then? First runner up takes first vacancy, second and consequent vacancies call for new elections? Or appointment by current mods? DickTurpis (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say leave it to the mods to decide each time. That means they could chose the next runner up or anybody else. I make this suggestion because it's possible that some time might have passed since the election and the next runner up might have posted a LNCB, come out as a troll or whatever. To put it another way I think that next runner up should be the preferred solution but the mods should not feel bound to it. I'd say that MM is fine in this case though.

In any case the mods should vote on it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, it's amazing. You're fucking constantly wrong. How did you live so long with such poor judgement, I wonder.

Anyway, "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." We (the mother fucking community) need to re-vote. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I vote for Occasionaluse. Trolls need representation too. DickTurpis (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You amaze me too Occasionaluse. :-)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought Trolls needed goats not votes. Pippa (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to make this potentially more confusing, we could have a hybrid option, in which the mods vote between the runner up, the candidate nominated by the departing mod, and potentially someone else or something. That would probably make the runner up the favorite, but would prevent Rob or Lumenos from getting the job (probably). DickTurpis (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been just over a month, so I think MM should get the gig. If it were a little longer into the mods' terms then a new election might be necessary, but there's no way that abdicating in favour of a different candidate should be allowed. This is a democracy (ish), not a monarchy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems this would be the place to say that I wouldn't mind stepping into the position. Blue (pester) 03:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then, can we move on to confirm this, or do we really need to devise some kind of new selection process that would be way more complicated and less democratic than the original election? Can't we just affirm this succession by acclamation? Röstigraben (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't be best if we formally enquired if any moderators had any objection? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't but it would legitimise the process a little more.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If they have objections, they can bring them up in the discussion, just like all other editors. I don't see why an objection on the part of a mod should carry more weight than the votes that made her the first runner-up, though. That's the best source of legitimacy there is. If the roster of potential replacements had changed noticeably since the last election, I'd say that would be reason enough for a new vote - but since it's only been a month, the old results should suffice for now. Letting mods name their own successors would be antidemocratic and, as AD pointed out, even potentially dangerous. And devising some complicated process that involves elite selection of candidates would be too cumbersome and intransparent on top of that. Röstigraben (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So... Blue (is useful) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX

P-Foster endorsed ListenerX. Can we not make ListenerX a moderator?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, several people received more votes than ListenerX. -- Nx / talk 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

While I would have no problem with Lx, I think it might be a bad idea to let mods name their successors. If I got all pissy and frustrated - and hasn't that happened to us all! - then I could do something hasty and nasty like saying, "Fine, then just let JimJast take my place!" We don't want someone who is leaving a group getting to decide their replacement.--^talk 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Do it...for teh lulz. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, in terms of votes, I placed eighth; it was the rankings I lost on. I support Blue/MordantMaenad for the new moderator; if she refuses I have no preference. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the term of a moderator?

An important question, relevant to some of the above discussions: how long do the moderators serve for? When will be the next elections? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

6 months, this information is found here. -- Nx / talk 11:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone should copy that to a page not labelled as "Forum"? So, they were elected on ____ and thus their terms expire on ____ (I could work this out myself, but I've had a long week, and too much pinot noir....) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. -- Nx / talk 11:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing this up, Maratrean.--^talk 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean

In violation of the moderator decision to site-wide ban MC, Maratrean twice reverted the removal of an MC-BoN posting. Endless discussion on their talk page won't lead anywhere, and they believe they've done nothing wrong. Requesting moderator action. In addition, any penalties levied against Maratrean should also be applied to Human for similar actions on his talk page. Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I spoke to him, took action, and even though he's being annoying he's not breaking the rules anymore. Don't feed into his persecution complex - he really wants to be a martyr.--^talk 05:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Thunderkatz, you are factually mistaken, I only reverted the removal of the BON-posting once, and then I semi-removed it by collapsing the discussion rather than removing it.

AD, I don't have a persecution complex. I am not trying to be a "martyr". I am simply testing you all, to see what you are really made of. And some of you are revealing your true natures to be ones of petty obsessiveness. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is this: We should leave him alone on this count; penalizing him for a single revert is excessive and sets bad precedent. But now that he has thrown down the gauntlet, so to speak, if he tries it again we should revert him immediately, and if he then tries to start an edit war, we should grant his apparent wish and martyr him. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is people should stop being so obsessed with MarcusCicero. It is unhealthy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

All that anyone else is doing is deleting his comments. YOU are causing the "obsession". Grow up or piss off. Pippa (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am causing the obsession? Look at the neverending discussions about whether to ban MC, how much have I been involved in them. Not very much. Have I been campainging to have MC banned? No. Others, however, have expended immense energy on that cause. For me, the issue isn't really about MC at all, it is simply about who gets to control my own talk page. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

ListenerX^TalkerX 06:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on that, Lx! Maratrean hasn't done anything in need of moderating, so that's that.--^talk 06:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thunderkatz, don't stir shit.--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ace's resignation

If I am reading the breakdown of the results correctly here, and based on the precedent set with P-Foster's resignation, then I believe Psygremlin should now be rotated in to take Ace's place as the candidate that is next in line. Is the math right and whatnot?--^talk 14:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I respectfully decline. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like this precedent. Blue was fine since the vote was so close, but this time, especially since Psy declined, I think we should have an election. Since we're only electing one person, it should be much simpler. -- Nx / talk 15:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's a reasonable objection. We would be getting kind of far down the list.--^talk 16:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Should Ace keep his moderator privileges until after the election? Blue (is useful) 19:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No. He resigned, unfortunately.--^talk 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Whining

Loya Jurga didn't work & neither do mods: Just 'crat anyone who has been here two years with more than (say) 500 Mainspace edits & leave it at that. Pippa (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because that worked so well. -- Nx / talk 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, have the mods done any better? The only people who want to be mods (AD excepted?) are those who should not be: it's by & large self disqualifying. Pippa (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to be a mod? You'd have to deal with all the trolls and the troll feeders. sterile^talk 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody asks me to do anything. Nobody posts here and the only messages I have had in months was about an old debate comment and a typo in a bot script. Pimobile (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you made trolls and troll feeders the mods, your problems would go away. Hard to believe, but true. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not fun. I think we're going okay though.--^talk 16:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because Ace and P-Foster have resigned doesn't mean the moderators aren't functioning as they should. To the contrary, MC is blocked and we've had very little HCM since. The only problem which stands out in my head currently is the latest Maratrean incident, but that probably wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't been instigated by an actual moderator (who has now resigned)--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The election

Could someone of a technical persuasion advise on whether or not it's worth it to have a secret ballot (i.e. an election extension) for the election of the new moderator? Blue (is useful) 19:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should we not have secret ballots for the by-election? We had them for the general election. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have a secret ballot, but I was concerned about the technical difficulty of assembling the extension. If the STV extension could feasibly be used to elect one position, then we should use that. Blue (is useful) 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If we can use it to elect three trustees and seven moderators, I doubt one moderator would pose a problem. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Each line of the ballot file would contain only one number, the number of the candidate chosen by the voter. That's all the election extension does, it doesn't actually count the votes, it only stores them. -- Nx / talk 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'm assuming it wouldn't be very hard for the votes to be counted, then. I think we should create a timeline for this election as soon as possible. How about nominations/acceptances last a week, and then voting lasts another week? Blue (is useful) 22:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have all general election nominees automatically nominated, with another opportunity for each of them to accept/decline. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd say we should do another nomination, because we have a better idea of what mods do, now. But to fill one position, it seems silly. I agree with Lx - we should use the previous list, and let people strike themselves off if they've changed their mind. We'll set up the vote page, import the list, allow a couple of days for people to strike themselves out if they are withdrawing their acceptance of the nomination, and then have the vote. I also think we should be choosing two positions - one moderator and one stand-by.--^talk 00:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think a stand-by is a good idea. Blue (is useful) 01:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Next election, just go with 5 mods & 2 alternates (a slate of 7, or 3 mods and 2 alternates on a slate of 5) to fill vacancies should they occur. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 02:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another option

We cut back the number of moderators to whatever level is sustainable. Maybe we have started with too many. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's natural that people have a bit of trouble adjusting to what being a moderator is actually like. We elected them without having any precedent for what the job would really entail - so two users, finding what it turned out to be not to their liking, resigned. If we keep getting resignations after the second full election, then we should consider cutting down the numbers. Blue (is useful) 20:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with cutting down on the number of moderators; with the number we have, we at least have a chance that one of them will see fit to take action in a crisis. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Tmt's got a point; the larger number worked as a safety valve against attrition til the next election. A smaller number reduces the likelihood that one of them will start acting like an idiot, and placing fellow Mods in the position of being asked to review that conduct (which processes are yet to be been worked out). The problem now seems to be avoiding an overburdened workload. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp}

RationalWiki:Moderator elections

I've prepared the (somewhat unnecessarily elaborate) system for the by-election. The timeline for the election should be similar to the one we had last time, i.e., one week of nominations and campaigning followed by one week of voting. Blue (is useful) 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey mods

Move "SuspectedReplicant and Ace McWicked" out of the "Resigning" section. That's not a resignation. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Needs to go. Now.

I can understand why it was implemented, but the arbitrary creation of some sort of superuser is not on. Especially for something that can be fixed with the click of a button. If the vandalism is really such a problem, then demote the guilty and protect the page to sysop level, but we can't have users being given special powers "just because" and with no agreement from the community. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What sort of superuser? There is no superuser. I think you misunderstand how it works. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? So I can edit your userpage, can I? No. Because you have been arbitrarily granted rights or privileges or whatever that the rest of the wiki does not enjoy. Simply because you can't use a rollback button. I presented a solution above. The abuse filter is not it. --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this way Ace and SR can keep their sysopship. Isn't that a better solution? Of course the ideal solution would be for them to grow the fuck up, but apparently that's not going to happen. -- Nx / talk 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Psy, if that's the case, then please demote the guilty and protect the page to sysop level.--^talk 22:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can tell me any reason why you would ever need to edit Maratrean's user page, please let us know what it is. Until then, this comes off as whining. DickTurpis (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Would someone be kind enough to explain the abuse filter's exact function, or to point me to a page where this is explained? Thank you--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter --145.94.77.43 (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see, thank you. So this stops people from vandalizing Maratrean's user page. What's the problem, then? Are there side effects, other than upsetting trolls?--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The objection is that it makes Maratrean a special sort of user with the power to have an untouchable userpage - more of a philosophical objection than a practical one, but it is a valid objection. Nx's position, and it's one I agree with, is that Maratrean's an annoying idiot who nonetheless doesn't deserve to be a punching bag who gets continually trolled and persecuted, but since he is an annoying idiot we also don't want to punish the people who are trolling and persecuting him (since we like them and it would reward concern trolling). Thus this solution, which is a stopgap measure but seems to be the only one that might work.--^talk 01:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with this, but also see no reason why this privilege should not be extended to anyone who requests it. DickTurpis (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It's basically given out to any vandal victims that want it, or something like that. So you could probably get it too. I'd vandalize your user page to help you qualify, but then I'd be blocked...--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The abusefilter is just a temporary implementation, I'm working on an extension that will allow mods to lock a user page so that only the owner (or mods) can edit it. The difference is purely performance (abusefilter is necessarily slower) and that mods need to make themselves techs in order to edit abusefilter rules, and then it will be available to anyone. Assuming Trent agrees to install the extension, that is. Or alternatively, we can sober up. -- Nx / talk 08:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Or become just like sysops on Conservapedia who lock everything they don't want edited. Actually, could you give this right to Human so he can out MC's comments on his user page and then lock it? sterile^talk 02:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, locking a user page is entirely unlike locking an article. That's an absurd comparison.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Blah, blah, did you say something? sterile^talk 02:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oooh. That's a brilliant debate tactic. Ignore every point your opponent makes! Since we're playing reductio al CP, then may I compliment you on your education at the Ken

school of rhetoric?--User:Brxbrx/sig  02:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It ain't Conservapedia. It's Wikipedia. Why people at RW can't get this any more sorta pisses me off. sterile^talk 02:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)