RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive21

This is an archive page, last updated 24 June 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, < List>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <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)

Oxy

Hey mods. Inasmuch as Oxy claims to have retired (see here) Shouldn't his 'tech' status be removed? Scream!! (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think her recent abuse regarding blocking, promoting and deleting user comments needs a look. Ace^Moderator 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW - Oxy quits whenever she doesn’t get her way so nothing new here - she’ll be back within a day. Ace^Moderator 19:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think removing their tech rights is the right way to go. Closes the door for any unpleasantness--"Shut up, Brx." 19:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This conversation is doubtless to bring Oxy back anyway. She likes to think of herself as a de-facto Mod and is terminally power hungry so the threat of losing rights will be enough so I say hold off for 24 hours before removing rights. If Oxy doesn’t come back we can do it then. My personal feeling is that if we are going to remove Oxy’s rights it should be because of oxys abuse. Ace^Moderator 19:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense--"Shut up, Brx." 19:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Just realised that I referred to his status - I seem to recall that Oxy doesn't identify as male. Apologies Oxy. Scream!! (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

We need to find a way to prevent that edit warring. Oxy's been warned about edit warring way too many times. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s bigger than that though. Edit warring is the least of it. Oxy acts with impunity regarding blocking (lies about the reasons) and has gone on to unilateral rights removal. Combined with the edit warring and not using talk pages it sets a really bad example for new users to see a tech running around doing whatever they want against the site standards (and yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy in me saying Oxy is setting a bad example). Ace^Moderator 20:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Of all the people here only me and Bongolian edit mainspace, you people leave for weeks and months at a time and never do any mainspace editing. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Who edits what is irrelevant. Ace^Moderator 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You can't remove it without a coop case so this is the wrong venue anyway. Oxy can remove her permissions herself if she wants to actually retire, as some techs have before. Otherwise it stays unless a coop cases decides it should be removed. EK (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I always take it to the talk page, people don't care and revert my edits anyways. My edit to the page simply saying "Marxist" was supposed to be a compromise with Raven, but even that got reverted. I`m sick of this shit. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period. Raven gets to keep poisoning the well and I get punished for trying to clean it up. @Tuxer reverted Raven's edits too. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any actual functional significance to retirement, since there is no mention of it in the Help pages. I agree with LGM, anyone who thinks Oxy should have tech rights removed should make a coop case of it. If anyone does so, please don't waste our time: lay out the evidence with links and specific violation of rules. Bongolian (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree - this is a coop case, but I ain’t starting it. Ace^Moderator 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So basically you two used this space as a drama gallery to release your gripes about Oxy without having to put it to a coop? Bravo. Please give Oxy the respect of not getting the pronoun wrong a third time? ShabiDOO 21:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, someone raised something on the mod page so four of the six mods arrived to discuss it and it was decided that no action would be taken. Ace^Moderator 22:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that Oxy is editwarring again, here, despite me attempting to use the talk page before I edit anything. It's frankly frustrating. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 13:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You're edit warring, you dick. I cleaned up that section to make it fairer to both sides of the dispute. Fuck you. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Requesting a better source (or at least an additional source) than an apparently-defunct anarchist website[1] on the alleged success of an anarchist society in Chiapas is perfectly reasonable. Citing only an anarchist source is not "fairer to both sides". So, yeah, Oxy is edit warring in this case.[2][3] Personally, I would rather not spend my 'retirement' shaking my stick at the clouds and cursing at people. Bongolian (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario, you gave Oxy a 'last warning' on edit warring yesterday (User talk:Oxyaena#please quit it, but as I indicated above, Oxy has continued to edit war as of today. What action are you thinking of? Bongolian (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I`m not edit warring, I specifically edited it to remove that source and get a better one, @Bongolian. I cited academic sourcing, Raven then reverted my edits and accused me of edit warring. Fuck you people. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Given Oxy's consistently toxic attitude, I really don't think that doing nothing is the right way to go--"Shut up, Brx." 19:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I am toxic only because of the constant shit and harassment I get. I`m fed up with this wiki. Morris, Raven, you fucks. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And yet you remain....-Flandres (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Because I can't help myself, fuck you too, Flandres, you dick. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

But if we are all such terrible people, is it really worth spending time here? At some point you have to reach the conclusion that retirement, from a utilitarian stance, is the best solution. Is whatever you are trying to achieve worth burdening yourself with us?-Flandres (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I am a truly terrible person because despite consistently treating Oxy with respect, I am the subject her verbal abuse. Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And people say I'm abrasive...Oxy, just quit it now. Take a break and I mean a real break, not flouncing off in huff telling everyone you have LANCB only to return 2 hours later...and why the fuck are you still going on about Morris? Jesus man... Ace^Moderator 20:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I am toxic only because of the constant shit and harassment I get Oxy you give it as bad as you get it. Maybe if you had a better attitude to disagreement you might get less shit from people but behaving as you have on this page opens you to abuse - act like a hysterical banshee and you'll be treated as one. Ace^Moderator 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you guys (Bongolian and Green Mario excluded) are being just as hostile as Oxy only you're the ones lecturing her. Why don't you lead by example considering you're a beaurocrat? ShabiDOO 20:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In what way am I being hostile? Ace^Moderator 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If by you guys you're including me, I'm quite curious as to how you think I'm as hostile as Oxy. As for everybody else, they're just responding to Oxy's toxicity--"Shut up, Brx." 20:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy, you need to stop making things worse for yourself. The more you insult people, the less sympathy you get. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this?

Is anyone here actually asking for mod intervention about anything? This issue is better off in the coop if anyone wants to take it there - I don't see how this is a mod issue. Ace^Moderator 20:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe blocking them for a few days to help them cool off? Something harmless. Oxyaena is a pain, but they're hardly the worst we've had to deal with here--"Shut up, Brx." 21:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This was originally a request to de-tech Oxy, but it's turned into a more general discussion about Oxy's conduct. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

While I agree Oxy's conduct is at times appalling I fail to see this as a mod issue unless someone wants the mods to take action. In which someone actually needs to make a proposal. Ace^Moderator 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I just wanted to point out what I did was not whitewashing, I even told Raven his latest edit was acceptable to me, only to get barked at to "stop whitewashing." @AMassiveGay called Raven out on his crap, for which I thank him. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I gave up editing the Anarchism page. Oxyaena reverts any edits I do, misbehaves, insults me, stalks me, has removed my rights twice and all with impunity. Since multiple mods do agree that Oxyaena is a problem, what are you waiting for to do something concretely? This situation is unpleasant and unstable. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 21:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your rights were only removed once. Ace^Moderator 21:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, twice. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 21:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't stalk you, I only revert the ones that consist of poisoning the well, and I don't understand why people are okay with your poisoning of the well. You're a problematic person and you were banned from the ratwiki discord for a reason, for once the Discord has more sense than the wiki. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You were given sysop when you had zero edits. I don't see how that's incontrovertible, remember when you gave me a migraine and laughed about it? I do. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter Oxy, you unilaterally stripped rights and that is a no no. Ace^Moderator 21:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Other people have stripped sysopship from people with no edits, why take issue with me and not them? — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Because it has never been brought to my attention. Either way you should leave rights alone. Ace^Moderator 21:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say the first removal of Raven's rights (on 28 April) was justified, I had also removed his sysopship as he had no real editing experience at the time. --RWRW (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So who was doing the sysoping? I don't think it matters if someone with no edits is made a sysop. Ace^Moderator 21:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

EK, apparently--"Shut up, Brx." 21:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm I wouldn't mind hearing EK's reasoning. Ace^Moderator 21:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has been able to contact @EK on Discord today, so I don't know how quickly she will respond. What I do know is they're both pretty good friends and, as I understand it, EK persuaded Raven to join the wiki. --RWRW (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Many years back my older brother dropping in here for awhile and I immediately gve him sysop rights. I think vouching for people should be ok to sysop. Ace^Moderator 22:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I think it's fair to quote her on what she has said on the wiki support Discord: "@Oxyaena I made an actual effort to get raven to edit more because the wiki is so broken and irrationally slanted so stop being cringe" (07.06.2020)— Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 22:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The wiki rules clearly state that any sysop can give sysop to any account as they wish and after this there has to be a legitimate reason to sysoprevoke. Oxy absolutely broke the community standards. EK (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with you if you want to make a proper case for this take it to the coop. Oxy definitely broke the rules but she has been told now so if he does it again I’ll bring it to the coop myself. Ace^Moderator 23:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Legitimate issue - Mon input requested

I have been loathe to do this but now I believe now there is a legitimate issue with Oxy's behavior towards GodlessRaven. Not only with the constant barrage of abuse but also the non-stop editing warring as well Oxt unilaterally removing GodlessRaven's rights on two separate occasions. We all know this isn't a first for Oxy so mods, what say the rest of you. Ace^Moderator 21:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, the first time around was when he had zero edits under his belt. People with zero edits shouldn't get sysopship. It's cheating. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Huh? "Cheating"? WTF is "cheating"? Also, Oxy, you do not have unilateral carte blance to determine who and who shouldn't be given rights so you were wrong to target this user particularly given your history with this user appears personal. Ace^Moderator 21:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I propose a three day ban (with temporary rights removal, naturally) to help Oxyaena cool off. She needs to understand that wikis are inherently collaborative and that her poisonous attitude is unwelcome--"Shut up, Brx." 21:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy is threatening to LANCB again. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course she is. She does this whenever challenged. Ace^Moderator 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That would make this a lot easier. So long as they agree to their user rights being removed as well. Then we'll be done with all of this--"Shut up, Brx." 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, okay

I'll take a break and back off Raven. Please don't strip me of my rights. — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Oxy. There'd be no reason to strip your rights unless you keep removing rights from users. So hopefully we don't get there. Can we close this up now? Ace^Moderator 21:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I think this mod issue can go away now, but of course let’s wait for more people to agree. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

just leave Raven alone. EK (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this for now, but I think the general tolerance for continued behavior along these lines is growing thin for some of us. Bongolian (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not even a day and she is edit warring again. It's fucking impossible. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 10:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

you know it requires two people to edit war? who is that second party i wonder? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Me, EK, Ace and Brx, constantly having to undo the stuff Oxy reverts, specifically the parts critical of Anarchism. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 10:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

thats false to begin with. its you and ek thats have been doing the warring oxy. and that seems more like personal beef more than anything. the edits in question are of little worth defended only with a pissy condescension. this can be dealt with on the relevant talk page. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy has mentioned on her own talkpage, aswell as on Godless Raven's talkpage that he's (Godless Raven)into Necrophilia or something? So, I think the beef starts with the "dead body fucking" accusations (with, imo, is fucked up and a DSM VI, like bestiality, pedophilia, shit sex ect...). Beyond Reality (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think someone pointed out that off-site behavior is not something you can generally use to punish someone in here. Aside from that, I am not into necrophilia or whatever, that's an entirely different conversation we don't have to have because it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: Oxy's abuse of power, harassment and editwarring , all of those are pertinent to the site. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 11:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you seriously piss off? I said I want nothing to do with you, and AMassiveGay has it right. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and the anarchism article

Both myself and AMG have questioned to usefulness of the disputed section, but thus far Raven and EK have only responded with gloating and accusations of whitewashing respectively. Thusly I would request Mod intervention and arbitration to settle the dispute, at the Mods' discretion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I support this. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget that you are removing a section only because you dislike it (and based on what I have heard, purely based on ideological spite). If you think RatWiki is a save haven for anarchist propaganda, I think you might be very wrong. I hope the mods take the appropriate actions for blatant whitewashing. Nowhere in the article does it contain any bit of criticism and any criticism is removed, which is hilarious, because Anarchists supposedly don't like coercion (but of course they do). @EK @Brxbrx — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 14:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would caution against bringing the dispute to this page, and instead wait for a Mod response. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What happened to "Okay, okay"? Anyway. It's now nearly 11 o'clock at night where I am and I'm tired. But I promise I will look into it. Spud (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO FUCKING TELL YOU!? IT'S NOT FUCKING WHITEWASHING, YOU DICK! — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fellow-moderator RWRW has protected the anarchism page for moderator-only editing. @Oxyaena, I advise you not to edit the page until these issues are resolved even though you have the capability to do so. You had previously indicated that you would not abuse your powers as Tech by making moderator-only changes, so I will assume that you made that last edit without knowing it was protected. Bongolian (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That's crazy that people have to argue over this. Though there are gradations of what constitutes good science, and science is imperfect, there are clearly things that are not scientific. Bongolian (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

For starters, EK and their ilk started an ideological edit war and engaged in poisoning the well while doing so. EK accused me of communist propaganda when I copy and pasted the exact same information into another section. Quite franquly IMO the section should be improved and the ideological leanings removed.--Tuxer (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

you mean whitewashed of any criticism of anarchism so your favourite ideology looks better. That's literally what the whole argument was about avoiding. EK (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not an anarchist and you've not provided anything constructive to the conversation other than poisoning the well and poorly constructed, trollish and ideologically driven edits.--Tuxer (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not an anarchist, but I do question why you are lying about me, accusing me of ideologically trolling when I offer even the slightest non-ideological criticism of anarchism, and repeated make your own obviously biased edits that aren't supported by the sources. EK (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not opposed to presenting criticism of anarchism as long it's not done in a trollish way. Adding "Failures" section with a list of anarchist revolution is poisoning the well (which is a form of trolling) making it appear those experiments failed because "lolz anarchists crazy" rather than the fact that they were brutally crushed by fascists and communists. I am not emotionally invest in whatever issues you have anarchism so back off. --Tuxer (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

you have provided no evidence of your claims. Lied repeatedly, implied that I'm overly emotional, ideologically biased against you, trolling, and claimed I'm poisoning the well when I haven't at any point. So in short could you stop being cringe. EK (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I just want to add that accusing girls/women of being emotional or hysteric is actually very sexist and I would hope that everybody on this website is above that. I hope. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 13:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I used Poisoning the well while referring to the specific content you added to the anarchism, not to this petty argument here. And adding a "failures" while ignoring the context list is trolling.--Tuxer (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. Take it to Talk:Anarchism. RWRW has locked the mainpage, fight it out on the talkpage. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I am

going to be reducing my activity here by the bulk. I am sorry for the pain I have caused. I`m probably not gonna fully retire, but I`m not gonna be as active here as I was before. Goodbye, folks. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fucking hell. Quit fucking grandstanding! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, Oxy. Most people only retire once. I've personally only known one person to retire twice. You take the retirement cake. Perhaps we should reflect on the cautionary tale, The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Bongolian (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Every time. As soon as you don’t get your way it’s the I’m leaving gambits. Ace^Moderator 16:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it was probably funny the first five or six times--"Shut up, Brx." 17:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever impact you think this has is long since gone. It’s just tiresome now, Oxy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A path out of this

From my perspective, political pages — other than those that are related to authoritarianism — are not something that RW does particularly well. This is because of the problem of worldview and because of RW not having a specific political agenda other than anti-authoritarianism.

Be that as it may, RW has a lot of political pages that touch on issues related to RW's agenda. Consequently, conflicts (including edit warring) often arise for these pages. To try to resolve these issues, I propose the following guidelines, which are similar to ones that have been previously discussed (i.e., science vs. snark).

• Citations from bona fide science-based sources and from members of the International Fact-Checking Network (not including opinion pieces from said organizations) should be prioritized over other sources.
• Citations from sources that are clearly either biased towards or against the topic at hand should be avoided. An important exception to this is the use of citations to represent what the topic (or person) has to say about itself (e.g. quotations).

Bongolian (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

So, uh, I just came back from Discord where a few users had a hours long blowout over what counts as a scientific source, so I don’t think this is The answer. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific is always a stretch when it comes to philosophy and soft science anyways--"Shut up, Brx." 17:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is also the thornier problem as what counts as "political". Is Creationism political? Alt-med? Conspiracy theories? It seems unclear where such a line between "political" and "not political" exists, if it exists at all. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should include scientific papers for politics, it's bad enough that scientific facts (climate change, gravity, evolution etc) are politicised we should not make politicisation of science.--Tuxer (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Except there is political science. Science is, for better or worse, political just like anything else. It is also usually grifters that attempt to discredit science because of "political bias". Reality has a bias, and that's why I wanted to edit Anarchism to better reflect the factuality of this world rather than fulfill an extremist political agenda. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 02:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘When I said 'political', I meant politicians and political ideologies (communism, capitalism, etc.), not pseudoscientific ideas (conspiracy theories, denialism) that politicians may use to further their careers. Bongolian (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I shouldn't be pedantic here but communism, capitalism, etc. are economic systems, not ideologies, but ok, I get your point. But in the mission statement of Ratwiki we have "debunking crank ideas" and frankly, this could apply to any subject within or out of politics. Just because some editors have a political agenda to manipulate articles in politics doesn't seem to be a good reason to leave it out wholesale. I do think it's important to delineate how to deal with disagreement within those. I had an idea of the sort that opposing sides shouldn't edit each other's section unless there is a clear violation, bad sources, citation needed or similar. So, in the Anarchism article as an example, nobody should edit the critical part if they have a political interest in silencing criticism. — Godless Raven 🌹 ^Heretic 02:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean given you've been unable or unwilling to defend your edits from moderates who have now repeatedly stated that they just don't see the point you're trying to make, and in fact that said point might in fact be unsound, it's a bit hard to take you seriously here. But again, this should take place on the appropriate talkpage... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes

I’m== At least remove Oxyaena's tech bit ==

You can't remove it without a coop case so this is the wrong venue anyway. Oxy can remove her permissions herself if she wants to actually retire, as some techs have before. Otherwise it stays unless a coop cases decides it should be removed. EK (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect.

One might be forgiven for believing that techs are allowed to create other techs whenever they feel like it “at whim” because prior techs definitely have done this, or that the membership has anything to do with deciding who is a tech (Fuzzy Cat Potato tried that and failed). Ironically, Oxyaena herself recently substituted her judgment for that of the majority of voters years ago to unilaterally change the Community Standards to state:

“”They used to be appointed and removed by the Operations Manager of the wiki, who is himself appointed by the Board of Trustees, but are now generally appointed at whim. The server administrator may also make such appointments and removals, when necessary.

While the Community Standards here are increasingly referred to as “guidelines and not rules”, that is not true in every instance. The Community Standard on techs contains very clear language that was extensively negotiated and voted on in a contentious process following a very difficult time in the site’s history that virtually no current editors were here for or appear to appreciate. On January 15, 2013, the community voted the following language by an overwhelming margin:

“”Techs are users with special powers designed to allow them to help manage technical aspects of the wiki. They are appointed and removed by the Operations Manager of the wiki, who is himself appointed by the Board of Trustees. The server administrator may also make such appointments and removals, when necessary. Except in emergencies, such appointments and removals shall be done in public, with concordant justification to the community. Because this position requires a great deal of trust, no abuse shall be tolerated - not even for fun.

See the difference between what Oxyaena wishes were true and what the users made true 7 years ago? Only Trent and Gerard (whatever “when necessary” means) have authority to appoint or remove a tech. Bongolian made Oxyaena a tech on August 9, 2018, and since Bongolian isn’t Trent or Gerard, Oxyaena should never been given the tech bit in the first place. No coop case is necessary to set things straight. Yes, I’m leaving aside for now that nearly none of the current techs should be techs either and that Fuzzy Cat Potato had no right to remove my own tech bit whenever he did.

Apropos of other discussions of Oxyaena’s abusive blocks, she literally banned me from the RW tech Discord yesterday for being Ken (ironically, after I stated that she was a dishonest and abusive sysop - my first and maybe only post, since deleted, from a lurker account most recently used to watch some of your mods and popular kids use your site’s Discord to shit on Ace, Brxbrx, and me for expressing OLD GUARD opinions they don't share). That ban is perfectly consistent with her bans of a number of other accounts and IPs belonging to me and a few other former editors for being DMorris, of all people.

Oxyaena is breathtakingly dishonest and has a long history of abusing her sysop and tech bits. Only a moderator or other tech can take care of the tech part right now if you have the will. I’ll bring a coop case for the sysop bit. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Bring the coop. I apologize if I violated the rules by making Oxy a tech. I was misled on the conditions for becoming a tech because I myself was made a tech by FuzzyCatPotato, who was a moderator at that time. Are there any currently-active techs who were appointed by Trent T. or David G.? Bongolian (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

'm leaning towards Nutty here - Oxy has a long history of infinite bans for spurious reasons, retiring every second day, constant edit-warring which ends with Oxy blocking which ever user is disagreeing with her and being extremely abusive. While I am abrasive I am not abusive in the manner Oxy is. I think there is enough here to call her tech rights into question. Ace^Moderator 17:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Without comment on activity, Trent has appointed Bertran. The rest of the current techs have not been appointed by Trent or David (barring potential unlogged appointmends, I went into the Logs for both and checked who they appointed as Techs, it could be that there were appointments that aren't listed in the logs.) FCPs addition of being a Tech has the description "election", whatever that means (given how Techs aren't elected). All this is more indicative of the fact that whatever the effective process of becoming a tech is, it is in desperate need of formalizing or bugging Trent and David more to follow guidelines. I will also point out that I am not of the belief that firing our current complete list of techs is a good idea. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it probably isn’t wise to get rid of all our techs in one swoop. But I think there should a focus on the individual techs and their behaviour. Ace^Moderator 18:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh man this is all getting so exhausting. I don't know how I had the energy for this shit 7 years ago--"Shut up, Brx." 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We made it through the Marcus Cicero years which was also very tiring. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]^Moderator 18:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, no coop is necessary to remove Oxyaena's tech bit. How you deal with the rest is up to Trent and Gerard, or the site if you amend the Community Standards. But you really shouldn't do nothing or let this go. Several of your techs have talked openly about using the edit filter to view people's IP addresses, which is really really bad. Gerard isn't around much but he's a smart guy and he follows good advice. Trent made him the server admin specifically to help with things like this. Let him sort it out. The list needs to be culled. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the road all day today so can't give this much attention (as a user or a mod) but broadly speaking I agree with Nutty and think this is an important issue to discuss. I also, after reading comments in the discord group from Oxy, we perhaps need a proper delineation between Tachs and Mods to be written somewhere as Oxy claimed herself to be a de-facto mod as well as a tech. Given mods are elected, not appointed, then techs should not be considered de-facto mods. Ace^Moderator 19:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to second such a motion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Which part? ^{— Unsigned, by: Ace McWicked / talk / contribs}

@Ace McWicked "I also, after reading comments in the discord group from Oxy, we perhaps need a proper delineation between Tachs and Mods to be written somewhere as Oxy claimed herself to be a de-facto mod as well as a tech. Given mods are elected, not appointed, then techs should not be considered de-facto mods." I'm currently trying to figure out how to word that idea as a suggested amendment to the community guidelines' section regarding techs. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Personally, I'd suggest the following changes: 1. Make it explicit on the Tech page that techs do NOT have the right to speak or act with authority higher than that of any other sysop on the site. We have mention that they cannot police other users, but there are other ways to speak with authority that go beyond policing other members (a recent specific incident not involving Oxy that jumps to mind is the link to Discord in the sidebar, where two techs suddenly replaced the link with another, which resulted in a minor kerfuffle). 2. Establish a formal process for appointing new techs. This should definetly involve Gerard, but given how Gerard has never commented on the current list of techs (assuming that he's aware of the expanded list of techs), I would assume that he'd be okay with whatever we end up with, given our current system of "arbitrary appointment" hasn't caused any comments. 3. This one may be a bit more extreme, but I propose an extremely weak version of WP:INACTIVITY to apply for techs. Techs have by far the most power over the site, such as the ability to rename users, add and remove edit filters, change MW namespace material and so on. While none of their abilities are exceptionally harmful, they can be major disruptions (even if cleaned up easily) if a malicious actor were to gain access to an inactive tech account. As a result, I would suggest that if a tech has not made any sort of edit in the past 2 years, their tech rights should be put on a "temporary revoke". If their tech rights are temporarily revoked, they can just get them back by posting a topic on RationalWiki:Requests for user rights and getting a moderator to add them back, without the process of having to apply for it again. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

very much like your point 1. Techs shouldn’t be seen as an authority at all. Techs are just like other users in their interactions with the RW community. Ace^Moderator 19:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ace McWicked Do you mind if I use a slight variation of that phrasing for the community guidelines amendment? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I can’t give this my full attention today because I’m on the road then flying later today but I’ll check in every so often to see where we are at. Ace^Moderator 19:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy has removed her own tech rights,[4] so that issue is resolved. I agree that the Tech page should be written to better align with the Community Standards page and to delineate abuse with regard to technical capabilities and discouraged/disallowed activities. Bongolian (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok - that’s one thing resolved re: Oxy but yes we should change the tech page however any major change should be put to the community but if we are just tightening up the wording then I reckon we don’t need a long voting session Ace^Moderator 19:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok guys. Sorry for not following a lot I got lost early on. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! Scream!! (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm back too. I completely agree with everything The Crow said. Would it also be possible to make a change so that not every Tech has the power to make someone else a Tech? Spud (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To your last point, that's how the rule is already drafted and what was intended by everyone who voted in favor of that language. The issue is that it's been a while since the rule was followed. That doesn't mean it should be changed, although it suggests it. I would get Trent or Gerard to weigh in and see whether the people the rule requires to take action want to anymore. If not, I'd recommend looking at the past discussion on that language for suggestions. Fuzzy Cat Potato's idea of electing techs never had support. The choices that seemed workable were between moderators or Trent appointing them. I vigorously oppose elections, not that it's expressly on the table. And I frankly oppose moderators appointing them either. But my distaste for this site's popularity contests resulting in the installation of marginal talent from whichever clique is running things is probably anachronistic. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Trent isn't really here, in the sense that he hasn't edited for a really long time so would he really be a good way to appoint techs? It seems to me that the existing arrangement where techs just appoint other techs as and when needed works fine most of the time. If techs aren't an authority then why does it particularly matter anyway as long as they behave, which the mods are responsible for and do even now. EK (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a practical concern I've been meaning to voice in regard to the management of the wiki. Trent and David Gerard aren't guaranteed to be around forever, either due to interest or to health. At or before that point we may require alternative methods of appointing Techs. One option might be to have them appointed by the Board, though as Nutty would no doubt point out, that is not without its own risks and flaws. I'd however agree that the system needs improvement. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

the more difficult we make it to become a tech the more defacto authority they will appear to have. This is exactly what happened on Wikipedia when admins became site leaders by default due to the increasing difficulties in getting more. In my opinion it would be better to make it easier to get techs not more difficult. EK (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There would not be making anything easier or more difficult. There is no effective process for techs at the moment. Our formal process relies on two mostly inactive users, which from what I can find hasn't been used in years and only one active tech holds the notion of having gone through it. Any process we end up with would make the process easier, because there is no effective process. I personally would say that in order to become a tech, you need a single mod to support you and then a community vote where you need a majority (supermajority is a bit too much and don't think we have enough active users to have that work for anything that isn't basically unanimous). Given how it is an effective lifetime appointment (unless we want to change that/nonwithstanding abuse), I feel a small extra step of trust (aka getting a mod to vouch for you) wouldn't be too much of a thing to ask for and it would be in line with how most of our current Techs have been appointed by (ex-)mods. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

the current effective process is that any mod or tech can appoint a tech exactly like sysops can appoint sysops. This has been working fine for years and was last done yesterday. I don't see any actual problem. 18:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't treat me as an example of things working out — Fuzzy Cat Potato was violating the express language of the rule when he removed my tech bit. So adding it back was just maintaining the status quo ex ante. The actual problem is that there is a long list of people appointed and removed in open violation of the rule? That's not so trivial? Nutty Roux (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

you were removed and then after a really long time added again unilaterally by my brother which is great but it demonstrates imo more why having complex processes to appoint techs is bad, and also why having activity requirements is bad. Also the rule itself was literally changed to reflect the actual practice and nobody even noticed or cared until now so like don't fix what isn't broken. Anyway my basic proposal is that the tech role should work exactly the same as the sysop role and follow the same guidelines for adding and removing it which should be formally approved. EK (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That sounds horrible. Sysops don't have a lot of irreversible power and the role is handed out to literally everyone if they're not a driveby user who aggressively pushes content into a page (or are a vandal). Worst case they vaporize a few pages/issue unwarranted blocks. Techs have all the extra power that mods have (including editing pages that mods lock to be mods only or locking pages to be mods only) and powers like changing the edit filter and renaming users which is just around the last thing I want to say that every random schmuck should have (mediawiki's rename system logs out a user that's being renamed, so you'll need to log in again). Those are signficiantly more powerful than the move/delete/block powers that sysops have. They effectively have the ability to act over any mod decision (see this undo), even if they don't have the right (I linked to a reversal intentionally here to point this out). To leave that amount of power up to a "eh, we'll just appoint people when we feel like it", to me feels like creating and maintaining a Cabal, which goes rather antithetical to the idea of a mobocracy. Inactivity rules were explained up above. Techs are the most unilaterally powerful users on the wiki in terms of actual power (not in terms of authority), which makes them a particularly dangerous attack vector since they seem to be appointed for lifetime for the account. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 08:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is shit like that which is why I believe Oxy should have her tech rights permanently removed. She can't be trusted to not act unilaterally. Ace^Moderator 09:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No just unilaterally - but outside her remit. Ace^Moderator 09:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

+1. Oxy is a bottomless well of teenage drama, with fringe (bordering on crank) political views. Throw her paranoia and rotten impulse control into the mix, and it's clear to me at least that her having any significant power or editorial influence is an Exceptionally Bad Idea. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This Oxy bashing is getting out of control. I would hope one of the more mature mods would archive this page because the tech conversation is now going on elsewhere and there is nothing left here except to gang up on a user in what is only getting increasingly ugly lynching. ShabiDOO 10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey pal, if this is a lynching it was Oxy that brought the rope. But given Oxy did already resign it’s a moot point now so I’ll retract. Ace^Moderator 11:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Did I miss something? AFAIK the only related thing about changing the Tech page is GCs proposal in the community standards talkpage, which deals more with making it clear that techs aren't mods rather than fixing the appointing process. I'd gladly be linked to the page where this discussion is taking place. As far as I can see, when it comes to the appointing process there is no "other discussion" going on. (And yeah please stop using this discussion to bash on Oxy. She's resigned from being Tech so this entire thing doesn't pertain to her anymore. If any of you want to go to sysoprevoke, coop her instead of attacking her on this page.) Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 11:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)