RationalWiki talk:Constitutional Convention, May 2011

Talk about proposed changes here

Spare change?

Meet your new overlord.

Wholly support interim power to tmt. NDSP 22:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the "TMT gets total power (except for my loophole that lets me keep power)" part. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

do you mean the "tmt can only give banhammers to 'crats" bit, because that gives them nothing unless tmt wants to. NDSP 22:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean the "TMT has sole power except for people who had power before an arbitrary date when I had power" part. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Way too much power for one person. Maybe TMT is given sole control over 'crat promotion/demotions, but blocking, registering, and user rights is way too much power. Plus, TMT can't be on 24/7. Klaus Vos (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points. Perhaps we should limit edit access to the site while Trent is unavailable. Like a like a tool or mode he could operate when he goes away or to bed at night. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's putting too much on TMT. I'd suggest that we all keep our current rights until the system changes, and try not to use them in a way that offends someone else. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding uncharacteristically reasonable, why not promote all current sysops, turn all crats into sysops, and leave Tmtoodledoodledoo as the only crat? 䯂 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Because that leaves TMT with too much power, and too much responsibility. TMT cannot always be available, and having one person in charge with little or no accountability is just asking for problems. I'm not saying TMT would abuse his power if it was given to him, I find that unlikely, but I oppose the principal of it and the practical issues. Klaus Vos (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't have a fully-staffed site during an emergency interim government. If we had such a full-functioning hierarchy, there would be no need for this in the first place. 䯂 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

2(ec) That would work well. NDSP 22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New proposal, replace TMT with Andy. IOW, srlsy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No. 3 horses tree, your plan has the benefit of keeping people who can deal with spam and vandalism NDSP 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice the common theme in proposals: "Blah, blah, blah (but I still keep power)". I've got a great idea: Since you fucktards did nothing but fuck this shit up, how about every bureaucrat gets nothing and likes it? Occasionaluse (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The site needs running, headless chicken convention or not. Have you got a better way to decide on a list of sysops other than the crats? 䯂 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, he is merely trolling to exacerbate the HCM. NDSP 22:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It can hardly get any worse. 䯂 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let the RWF board have interim powers to be used sparingly as they will be judged in any future election and, I'm sorry if this upsets anyone, but that applies to Human too as he was voted in. Trent has had de facto control over the wiki since day one and has largely exercised an hands off approach. Hell, he even took a back seat on the board; they weren't obliged to elect him but his record speaks for itself. Let's not get into too much wiki-lawyering at this early stage, TMT pretty much is RW, like it or not. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Genghis on all points. They've been elected so they're the only people who can do this without huge accusations of bias. Well... I'm sure that'll happen anyway, but they can at least say they were voted for. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I might be a 'crat, but for all I've ever used those rights I might as well be a regular sysop at most. I expect in day-to-day terms most of the people on this site don't really give a damn if they're sysops or not, since it wouldn't change their interactions one bit. Would only having Undo and temporary blocks stop you from posting WiGOs or talking about XKCD in the Saloon Bar? Of course not, the only reason a lot of folks here care at all is because of residual CP nonsense (see trolling above to that effect). --Kels (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly my feeling. I don't ever use my sysop stuff (except rollback, which is rather handy, but I can live without). I just edit and comment. «-Bfa-» 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What he said, but I don't even rollback NDSP 22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I use rollback, but I wouldn't die for lack of it. TBH I only ever really use my sysop powers during times of HCM. I suspect it's the same for most people. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally rolled back SRs edit bc my fingers are too big for this little iphone screen and got ECd before i could fix. But nice outrage, SR. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a wiki; no harm no foul. NDSP 22:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No harm, but with your recent actions, it's impossible to tell if you made a mistake of if you're trolling your ass off. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

*wiki-slaps you both* Knock it of! NDSP 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry, and sorry to Nutty for escalating. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I get a fuck you for apologising now? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the bitchy bullshit that's causing the issues. You guys aren't even fighting over anything, you're both trying to get a rise out of the other and it isn't helping. Klaus Vos (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologised for an edit summary and post that I used because I thought it was deliberate. Please, please tell me where the double meaning is in the phrase "You're right. Sorry, and sorry to Nutty for escalating."? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There is none there, but the next post is either well intentioned but poorly worded (I thought you were being a jerk) or malicious. Either way, it isn't productive. Just walk away from it, it doesn't really matter anyway. Klaus Vos (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My "recent actions" are mostly about defending myself and others from you, SR. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

ORLY!!! [1] [2] [3] –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for demonstrating the mature contributors that we are. Make a million constitutions, nothing will ever change with this behavior if no one has any balls to permanently remove rights or seriously block other people. Rationalize (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made dozens of sensible contributions to this debate. I have suggested a method of assigning rights and responsibilities that seems to be pretty popular. I have edited several other pages while this crap has been going on. Nutty's contributions have been slightly less than the square root of fuck all, so I'm claiming the high ground here. I can't believe that offering a sincere apology can be seen as an insult worthy of "fuck off", though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A valid logistical concern has been raised here about Trent not being able to handle this amount of responsibility personally. Hence, I have added in the option for him to delegate these powers to the Board, as Genghis suggested. The rest of what has been said here, in my opinion, is a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, is this even possible? After all, RationalWiki Foundation is a legal entity. Discuss. sterile^talk 12:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation owns this site, and while I believe it's pledged not to interfere in regular editorial content, that exhortation doesn't extend to dealing with certain categories of editorial issues that may arise, like defamatory material, trade secrets, etc., and certainly not making any administrative decisions it wishes. Own the site, call the organizational shots. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the board is to ensure that the site is able to run on sound financial and administrative lines. It is not their job to interfere but they would be requested to act as regents during any realignment/redistribution of day-to-day executive powers. They would then be able to implement any client-side changes; Trent or Nx would need to make server-side changes to group rights. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not allow Trent to delegate temporary powers to who he sees fit, if he doesn't want all the power himself? Need it be limited to board members? DickTurpis (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Trent has got enough issues to worry about without being seen to show favouritism. The board have already been elected as a trustworthy group by the site at large. We don't need to be dicking around by adding others. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's a pretty fair point. DickTurpis (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If I had the server, I'd...

1. Pull the plug for a week. Let folks sturm und drang elsewhere for a bit.
2. Do a checkuser sweep and annihilate the concern troll socks I found.
3. Plug back in and start listening to any sensible ideas re. the future.

Epic hubris: kill it with fire. <nods> --Robledo (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you blocked all the sockpuppets, how would Human claim to have friends? Deny me and lose all credibility (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Two or three of them are real. ħuman 05:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki doesn't have CheckUser installed. AFAIK, it can't be used for edits made before it was installed because it requires extra columns in the database.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The recent changes table stores IPs, so it can be used for the last 5000 edits -- Nx / talk 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Now might be the time to install it. If we put a regular procedure in place for its use, it will not be put to the same use TK put it to on Conservapedia. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that not blocking socks unless they're making trouble would be a good policy; we could also use it to help ensure clean elections. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. One day into this mess, people already start calling for checkuser. Remember that we did just fine without this crap when we had the board elections - put down a minimum number of edits and time spent here, and assume that there won't be many people who put that much effort into their sockpuppetry. I thought that maybe some - few - sensible new practices and rules might come from this side-wide HCM, but I definitely don't like where this is heading. Röstigraben (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need checkuser. -- Nx / talk 08:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel very comfortable with checkuser either. There's something paranoid about it. I have to agree with Röstigraben, allthough I'd probably loose my "right to vote" then. --UHM^{rambling incoherently for 20+ years!} 09:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser will only cause more issues. Who would control it? Crats? Sysyops? Only TMT? Sysops wont work because there are too many. Crats wont work because there are too many issues with abusive crats already. TMT wont work because he cant always be here. It's like having secret police but swearing to only use them to catch fake voters. Way too much potential for abuse and not enough benefit, socks aren't that bad here anyway. Klaus Vos (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern trolls are easily spotted by their ... concern trolling. Come up with a process for defining "concern troll" and dealing with it. But checkuser? Christ. Information gleaned from checkusering an account will provide us with absolutely nothing useful unless we're also prepared to implement IP blocking and blocking the puppetmaster's regular accounts. That last prospect should give some of you who logged in sockpuppets just to stir shit and slag others these last few days some real pause. We've got a few real cranks and concern trolls. Let's figure out how to deal with their behavior as it occurs. We'll get past this without a major policy revamp. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser is overkill. Тy^Talk. 12:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think cheukuser would be a good idea.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having an option for checkuser, especially if we have to have it installed before me need it for it to work. Can we install it and give no one the right to use it as of now? That would keep in in our arsenal so to speak, but presumably we wouldn't have to worry about it being abused. DickTurpis (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Installing it is trivial but why do Bob and Dick want it? What information would you learn from checkuser that would be actionable in the absence of a more far-reaching policy of IP blocking and calling people out on their attack socks? Those with access to the server (Trent, Nx, Pi) can already check the logs to root out the worst offenders. Why isn't this ability, which to my knowledge hasn't even been used, sufficient to deal with the worst cases? Nutty Roux (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If I had access to the server the above would be true :( - π 13:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realize those with server access could already deal with the issue. From what was said above I got the impression we were basically impotent on that without checkuser installed. DickTurpis (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that socks are a problem and are used for concern trolling. I could, of course, be wrong - without checkuser who knows? If checkuser, or simply the threat of checkuser, reduces them then I don't see the problem. On the other hand I don't run socks so maybe my view is different to that of others..--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I view check user as overkill because it might create an atmosphere of paranoia. Тy^Talk. 13:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We'd also have to ban all open proxies (possibly even block editing at night) if you wanted the policy to mean anything.. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If merely installing it into the wiki software or whatever would cause paranoia then we're already dealing with paranoids. I'm not saying it's a great idea, but there might be a case in the future where we think "hey, if we had checkuser installed a while back we might have been useful for solving [whatever]. Too late now." Sort of a better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it scenario. Just a thought. DickTurpis (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for an atmosphere of paranoia when it comes to people trolling, concern trolling, or dusting off their sockpuppets to stir shit or vote on important issues. But we don't even have a policy with teeth for dealing with the trolls we already see here plain as day. Checkusering doesn't stop people from using Tor or proxies. As we see with Conservapedia, any sufficiently motivated person can appear and reappear as he wishes. Blocking with account creation off would stop a user from a single IP from editing or creating other accounts and that's something we can already do. I see implementation of real blocks as I described to be a superior solution to implementing checkuser and all the connotations it carries, including the extremely creepy feeling of knowing more than just those people with server access can poke around those records. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be very wary of letting checkuser operate in the background. The only instance where it might be warranted is when someone was threatening with self-harm, in which case the recent server logs would suffice. I would hate for the FBI to turn up at Trent's door and demand access to checkuser. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's so "creepy" about checkuser. I means that a small group of people would be able to see your real IP number. So what?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I got nothing to hide, but there's a not insignificant group of people on the internet who assiduously guard their privacy and have more than the theoretical objections I'm raising. Some people only edit through Tor or proxies. I'm not one of them. We can already ask Trent to go through the edits of every single person who piped up in the last few days to call out the main accounts behind sockpuppetry, bogus multiple votes, abuse, and trolling. But anyway, checkuser would be fine if like 1 or 2 people had it and there was a strong policy against using it except under certain well defined circumstances. But all this just creates the need for yet more policy when all we have to do is actually regulate trolls, block them, and if they reappear ask Trent, Nx, or Pi to assist serverside. We've already got some tools we never even attempted to use effectively. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nutty here, the whole checkuser thing is a non-starter, so not worth further consideration. The fact is, part of why we're overrun with concern trolls and the like is because until now there's been no appetite for getting rid of them, and people accepting frequent HCM at every little thing as a matter of course. Change that to "can't unblock yourself", "actually follow through on rules", and so on, and you've got a lot less reward for trolling in the first place. I'll note as evidence how many of our trolls don't want this to go ahead. CP isn't comparable because (1) they set themselves up as a target and (2) they treated it as a war rather than just regular wiki maintenance, and escalated things. --Kels (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser definitely isn't the thinking man's solution. For it to have any teeth, you'd have to ban all open proxies, at least from creating accounts. Then what? Suppose I have a dozen IPs at my disposal, which isn't unlikely. Do we need a commitment scheme and a director of intelligence? Anyone who really wants to edit will edit and there's not a goddamn thing you can do to stop them without getting super creepy. Everyone fax me a copy of your drivers license. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that it's claimed to be such a horribly bad idea it's arguably somewhat surprising that Wikipedia has nevertheless managed to become the pre-eminent on-line encyclopaedia.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

They did implement it, so it must be better. Logical. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not as if the whole thing isn't without Byzantine safeguards. Further, I'd hazard to guess than Trent, Nx, and Pi represent a far great proportion of people with what amounts to checkuser as those with explicit checkuser on WP. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I suppose I spoke hastily above; I have nothing to fear from checkuser, because I do not operate any socks here, but it is apparent that a number of our editors do not share my situation. However, what I was actually thinking of was a regular procedure ("Byzantine safeguards") to be followed before all uses, coupled with public checkuser logs (is that possible?) to prevent abuse. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wuchoo mean public checkuser logs? I gotta admit that I'm concerned about this from a personal perspective not because I sock up on RW, which I don't, but because I'm running a good faith account on CP... Nutty Roux (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant that there would be log entries saying, "User X ran checkuser on user Y" — not that the IPs would appear as part of the log entry. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a function of the checkuser extension and that the log of the checkusering being done can be made available to any class of users the admin wishes. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum I would expect any checkuser operation to show up in recent changes, and it be impossible to do such checks in secret, even if only a very few trusted people are allowed to perform it. I am personally against the whole idea altogether but these precautions would make me feel slightly more at ease. Damo^Hi 05:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

If Trent agrees to shouldering this, I'd say we can begin this Constitutional Convention as soon as he signs here. Are there any objections? Blue (is useful) 02:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

See the new forum thingy. Thing. About user rights. Тy^Talk. 02:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically unrelated to this. Blue (is useful) 02:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Then no, no objections from me. Тy^Talk. 02:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ty, do you mean Forum:Rights restructure? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, my mind is a little screwed up after writing the most squicky essay. Тy^Talk. 02:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

squick means something very different than what you think it means.---brxbrx 02:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

[4] is the definition I'm using. Тy^Talk. 02:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That forum discussion is probably what is needed in the long run, but with the Wiki in this state something might have to be done about the trolls and the fighting first. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Now let's intercom this so we can get cracking. Blue (is useful) 02:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we do need a coherent trolling and conflict resolution policy, very swiftlyТy^Talk. 02:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The changes that have been discussed WRT user rights and actually taking the rules seriously for a change could start to deal with the troll problem. Part of what encourages them is the frequent HCM every time something sysop-ish arises. --Kels (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but it looks as though the user rights discussion itself has already started to sink into the mire of nonsense. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not like the trolls want this to go forward, and to them it's just more HCM to wallow in. But if we can get the user rights thing dealt with, that'll give a good deal of breathing space. --Kels (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

While I can't speak for Trent, the idea of sticking him with "restarting" the site is ridiculous. Do any of you even know what he is doing these days? He has always spent lengthy periods away from RW due to his work, and is currently deep into wrapping up his PhD. And you want him to babysit this place? ħuman 02:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"These powers may, at his discretion, be delegated to or withdrawn from members of the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees." Blue (is useful) 02:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's still a lot of work. ħuman 05:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) He is the only one with enough moral authority to do it. Even if he does nothing more than hand things over to the Board, I fear nothing will get accomplished unless he takes the first step. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Basically this. TMT is one person, one person cannot run a site this big, at least not in the way described here. Giving TMT sole control over user rights is one thing, the current crats and sysops can deal with vandals and more can be demoted/promoted if their are issues, but what is outlined here is way too much without any word from TMT, and really just too much. I say we just quit bithcing about how the system is broken and just stop being dicks to each other, that will solve a huge chunk of our issues. Klaus Vos (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That wish reminds me of Cnut's command for the tide to stop coming in. But as has been stated several times, Trent has the option under this proposal to delegate those powers to the Board; he will not have to run the site alone. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So basically, while in one corner I am be tried for crimes against humanity, in another you want me to have a 1/5 vote in fixing this? I find this Quite Interesting, and would love for the UK's National Treasure to join the site. ħuman 05:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking, you are the catalyst for this constitutional crisis, not the cause. I do not think anyone is impugning your loyalty to the Wiki, and I suspect that Trent and the other trustees could keep you reined in more effectively than the mob. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am offended by the phrase "reined in". I was acquitted. I have never done anything wrong. ħuman 04:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're serious? Even a lot of the "NO" votes thought you'd fucked up, they just didn't think you should be de-cratted over it. The general sentiment in the comments seemed to be "knock it off", not "you didn't do anything wrong". --Kels (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object to a "Constitutional Convention" prior to a good faith effort to correct the very few failures of our rules and guidelines to prevent this shit storm. I see about 5 sentences in the Community Standards and Bureaucrat Guide that needed to be edited for none of this to have gone down like it did. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. ħuman 04:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I get it

It's like the Emergency Powers Bill that Hitler signed in 1933 when a Dutch communist was framed for burning down the Reichstag in order to protect the Weimar Republic, allowing Hitler to pass laws without consulting the elected republic representatives. Except instead of having a government building burned to the fucking ground allowing a madman to go and do whatever the fuck he wants, it's because one user promoted another user who then had rights restored within the hour.

Makes perfect sense. SJ ^Debaser 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a few differences: This did not start with human and it wouldn't have ended with him. And we don't empower ouselves, we give it somebody we trust. We can hardly take power away from anybody in mobocracy, nobody has much power there. It reminds me more of a reverse French Revolution, we've noticed that the mob has become too incopetent to be trusted completely therefor we give the power back to the King until we cleared out the situation. I don't expect anybody to get beheaded, though. --UHM^{rambling incoherently for 20+ years!} 09:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I call godwin's law on that. Nothing like the nazis, because a) there is no malevolence b) no genocide c) all issues can be dealt with swiftly if we just make our minds up d) the man in control wouldn't be a syphilitic meth head. Klaus Vos (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am wearing clothes. Hitler wore clothes. I must stop wearing clothes. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of all of us, please emulate Hitler in that respect. Тy^Talk. 17:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You know what would solve your problems?

Discussion moved to Forum:Deciding who gets to be whom if Rationalwiki were the Roman Republic

Oh Look

It's ListenerX, Blue and Ty still on their "Waa! Human was mean" HCM. I think it's about time we actually impose sanctions against this kind of behaviour. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Where? Where have I even mentioned Mr. Powell here? Blue (is useful) 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We should have sanctions on making coherent, enforceable policies? Тy^Talk. 18:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My motives are not in any wise personal. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought that one had died? I mean, yeah, it's a bit of a dick-ish act and wasn't dealt with well but it's quite some time ago with respect to the wiki-politics time frame and retroactive punishments are ineffective. It's water under the bridge and we need to move on to not how to deal with Human and this one incident but how to deal with that sort of thing more effectively in the future. This is why the rights restructure needs to take centre-stage and stay there until it is sorted. ADK^{...I'll receive your mammary gland!} 10:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with ADK.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

First, people really have to decide what this is about. Is it about:

1. When people become sysops, and when do they become crats? When do they get those taken away?
2. Do we need another level?
3. What is the rights of each group?
4. Do we retroactively realign people to these new definitions?
5. And, the eternal question, how do you deal with conflict resolution?

To be honest, it's too large a scope right now, and it will fizzle out without limiting it. sterile^talk 12:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

While those are many specific questions, I believe they are related and solving one correctly will solve the others. For instance, dealing with conflict resolution effectively will necessitate the use of moderators to make the decisions when a circular impasse is reached. And this will necessitate a discussion about how to appoint those people and have them held accountable for their actions. So I don't think it can be split up. Yes, it's an epic task, but I don't think there's a way around that. ADK^{...I'll burn your cutting board!} 12:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK sounds fair. When we need to do then is clearly specify the issues and then decide on the order in which to tackle them. That way we avoid talking about every issue simultaneously.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say reassigning the sysop/bureaucrat/whatever roles should be the very first thing. The "everyone's a sysop" thing has been causing us a lot of problems now that we're getting past the "everyone knows everyone" stage, and it's gotta go. --Kels (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Kels on this. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The "everyone's a sysop" thing was how RA managed to almost destroy this place. It was his idea, and it was a really bad one. ħuman 04:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, actually. The "mostly harmless" trend started before RA was a bureaucrat, and it reflects a mindset about sysopship that existed before he was even here. Conservapedia treated sysopship as if it was a military title, and we made fun of that. Pink_{(Is a perfectly acceptable colour)} 04:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, Human, a lot of us lost our respect for RA for keeping years-passed grudges. The road goes both ways, I see. Blue (is useful) 04:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pink, that is not true, if you do your research. And Blue, what I say is simply true, not a grudge. If I could express it without invoking a user name I would. But it is true, and it is what happened about 3 years ago, and it wrecked any sensible method of user rights management ever being implemented here after my ad hoc policies for sysopping way back when. ħuman 06:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Need user group with access to limited (as in 31.4 or 314 second) blocks. I know you dried up cunts are just dying to strip everyone but yourselves of rights, but you need to keep the place fun, even if you aren't. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And once again your dulcet tones remind us just why you're such a pleasure to have around. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Must mean I'm wrong. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Psy who's with Kels. Although it's not my thing, fun blocks could still be part of the basic janitor's cleaning kit. Could limits be set for what sort of blocks may be administered or undone?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OU's first sentence actually makes sense, which is a surprise in itself, and I agree with it. The rest is Not Even Wrong and can safely be ignored. To Pink, that's something I'd call fine-tuning after the roles issue is done with, but I'd say anything under pi minutes could be done/undone without any particular fuss. --Kels (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I wrote an extension for UESP once that can do just that. -- Nx / talk 16:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You are a genius, after all. ADK^{...I'll balkanize your antidisestablishmentarianist!} 16:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking a break for studying to say that Nx is indeed a genius, and that I agree with Kels. Тy^Talk. 16:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Nah, it's pretty simple. here it is -- Nx / talk 16:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I expected that it could be done by one of you guys but knowing that we're not handing out RPGs to all and sundry when we equip the militia is a reassuring step. Might I suggest that pi blocks could be "fun" but other periods would be serious? Sometimes people just need to be forced to take a little breather.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Normally boring things interest me.... but the navel-gazing here is starting to get too boring even for me, and that is saying a lot (not just on this page, I mean on the whole Human-crat-debacle in general...). Right now I am drinking beer. Some rather nice Polish beer, actually. It is called Zywiec, it came all the way from Zywiec in Poland to me here in Australia. That is a long way for beer to come. But it was worth it. They should send more. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"This isn't easy, so I quit." --Kels (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif. Maratrean live-blogging about drinking a beer is highly relevant to the discussion taking place here. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

When even Maratrean grows weary of the conversation, you know we're fucked. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As one who mostly stood an watched

From my perspective we're finally seeing a slackening off of tension. The troops are being pulled back from the borders and normal diplomatic procedures reinstalled. Even the 99 red balloons have sailed past. Of course nothing was really established and it's same as it ever was, just the way I like it.

Yes, folks, it's been another HCM crisis brought to you by RW where the mob rules. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The cabal isn't happy with us being dysfunctional, they want us to be broken. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're confused, that's what you keep advocating. Continuing with a system that's broken, and probably always was. --Kels (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Coming on four years now, and we are paid up for the best part of the coming year. I don't call that "broken". ħuman 06:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're confused. We're dysfunctional. Maybe you're so dysfunctional that you forgot this happens every month or so. It takes about a week. Normal operation resumes. What you want to do is break RationalWiki, I assume because you hate the RationalWiki we have now. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You realize that when you started to quote TK, you removed any necessity to take you seriously, yes? --Kels (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I realize that people like you judge statements by who said them, not what was said. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely true. So when an obvious concern troll with an obsession for using one of TK's favourite insults says something, it can usually safely be discounted as garbage. --Kels (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who is concerned is obviously a troll, right? I mean who would care about this place? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Time for the chicken to grow a head, I think. ADK^{...I'll vomit your deity of personal preference!} 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the cabal is actually Andy Schlafly's sockpuppets and this is an attempt to destroy RW from within. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Which cabal? There are several. The old cabal, the SDG, the new cabal, the shadow cabal, the hidden cabal... Тy^Talk. 16:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, TK faked his own death, and all of those are entirely made up of his sockpuppets. But don't tell anyone, it's a secret. --Kels (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no cabal. sterile^talk 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh... tmtoulouse in charge?

Tmtoulouse isn't the Chairman of the Trustee Board anymore. He has stated that he doesn't want to be in charge... he understands the idea that a system that cannot survive without its founder is meaningless. So, why thrust all this "power" upon him, when he's already stepped away from that. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, he is the only one with sufficient moral authority to do this. If this option were invoked, he would presumably hand authority off immediately to the Board of Trustees (or the Loya Jirga), with only symbolic involvement on his part. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is still wasting his time. And dishonoring his legacy. ħuman 06:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How is Trent the only person with sufficient moral authority? Is Trent somehow morally superior to all other human beings? Or is this just a matter of "He is the Holy King, and the only one with Divine Right by God to rule"? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To take a random example, Human here had half the Wiki baying for his blood the other day; something we cannot say of Trent. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so, we've eliminated one person on the wiki... how many others? You stated that Trent was tho only one with sufficient moral authority... did you conduct an extensive examination of all editors/sysops/crats/whatever on this wiki? Because unless you examined everyone, you can't say that Trent is the only one with sufficient moral authority. And establishing a vote to establish who should be given "emergency authority" would actually provide this person with legitimacy as well as moral authority. Why do we have to vest moral authority in Trent just because he's the founder, when... and this has been said a hundred times before... he has already abdicated all his authority? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Dishonoring his legacy"? WTF dude, you do know that Trent is still alive, right? --Kels (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stoopid

I just read the page again. There isn't even anything there to discuss, beyond someone really liking the word "whereas". And dumping a bunch of work on Trent that he spent 4 years of his life disposing of. Heal yourselves. ħuman 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Must I keep repeating that he would not actually have to do any leg-work? ListenerX^TalkerX 07:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems like the dumbest thing I have ever read. Stick Trent with being the only crat (once again, since May 2007), and there is no "leg work" involved for him? Really? Are you really that divorced from reality? ħuman 07:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I hear "interim power," I cringe. It's a wiki, not a dictatorial coupe. There isn't all that much in the way of power anyway. sterile^talk 11:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside of Human apparently trolling by this point, I do agree that you've let form get in the way of function here. Yes, we slapped the lable "constitution" on the site rules, but for crying out loud you don't need to be as hidebound about the whole thing as if it were an actual constitution for a country. It's a bunch of website rules, let's now blow this into something bigger than it is. There's no need for an "interim government" or whatever, so the Trent thing actually is stupid. Blue's set up a few straightforward reforms that don't require transitional juntas or a zillion whereas scattered at random or emulating Marcus' strained classicisms, and it seems to make sense. There's no reason any of this should take more than a couple of days, yet here we are because of getting caught up in language, formality and needless detail. Personally, I'd just like to get on with it. --Kels (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)