RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Let's have this page dedicated to the discussion of the election process and the flaming of brxbrx--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

I will be in the mountains, without internet access, from June 20th to around July 4th. Does this make me ineligible? Тy^Talk. 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

no. It just means you won't be around for your coronation ceremony.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You will be ineligible, though, if you do not sign to accept the nomination. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to sign if I couldn't run, but I've signed. Тy^Talk. 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your paddling will be postponed. TetraEleven (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Another question

Have the roles, responsibilities, rights and number of mods been fully defined yet? If not, this page is silly and premature. If so, where did that happen and where is the link to it? ħuman 05:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Forum:Moderators and Forum:Plan of action for user rights and moderation--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not very much has been clarified. There's still rather a split between users who want to see Mods doing basic guard dog work & enacting community decisions, and those who want to them to be judge, jury & executioner in cases of HCM. This stuff really has to be settled before we move on to voting. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Mods are given the tools and authority to take temporary action as they see fit to curtail behavior that they view as destructive or counter-productive to the community or site. As well as the additional responsiblity to help boot strap policy initiatives that need it. The minutiae of the day-to-day can be decided over time, prcedent takes actions to develop. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would behoove us to have a few more specifics nailed down before we start voting (too late for nominations, I guess, but so be it). For one, whether mods can act individually or are supposed to come to a collective agreement before acting should be decided upon. If I'm reading the general feeling correctly, it seems we're leaning towards moderators being able to act unilaterally for short term, cool-things-down-before-they-get-out-of-hand solutions, while they act as a group when judging larger results, after interpreting what comes closest to a community consensus. I also think the moderators' job should be thought of more as duties and obligations rather than rights and privileges. DickTurpis (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we are decided on 7 moderators, right? That was suggested by Trent and no one seemed to object, and it was far and away the most popular number when we were discussing redoing crats a while back (tied with "keep things as they are", but that appears to have been trumped by the newer proposal, the support for which is as close to unanimous as I've seen at RW). DickTurpis (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 7 is the number for this election. Тy^Talk. 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Seven is the number the RationalWiki Jacobins wanted! Vive la revolution!--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that we have had a debate on a number of points but I'm not sure that we reached agreement on all of them. I know it's a horrible suggestion but shouldn't we have a series of votes to give all the open points legitimacy? Or are we going to accept the entire proposal "as is" given that in principle it has already been given overwhelming support?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Only a handful of individuals complained. Opening it up for elections will just delay the process and stick us in a limbo of deciding what gets put on the ballot.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mods are given the tools and authority to take temporary action as they see fit". OK, but that's not how everyone sees it. Some of those standing for election have said that they would like mods to settle disputes & abuse cases rather than them being handled by the mob. Some have said they would like to see Community Standards "enforced" by mods, as rules rather than standards of behaviour. Voting in a selection of mods with differing ideas about what their remit & authority is could lead to trouble. "The minutiae of the day-to-day can be decided over time" - decided by whom? Mods or the mob? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see some sort of proposal that isn't Wikipedia-style wikilawyering of minutiae, but also is a bit more than "mods will figure out what their job is as they go". As I said before elsewhere, I would like to see part of the job of mods to be to take the decision of the mob, figure out what it is as well as they, as a group, can, and put that into action. The reason things such as the coop can be so ineffective is because a few dozen people come around, voice a wide range of opinions, and then everyone collectively looks at one another and nodding "yep, there's a lot a comments there", and nothing happens. Maybe someone will step forward and declare some result, but that gives authority to whoever is the first to grab it, which doesn't exactly have "Effective Dispute Resolution" written all over it. It would be the job of the mods to collectively turn a chorus of voices from the mob into an actionable result (or no action, if that is decided). Sometimes this will be easy and straightforward, sometimes it will be difficult, but I see the mods as being the ones to make that call as a group. DickTurpis (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the paragraph headed "Permanent removal of rights or censure" not disambiguate this point sufficiently? ListenerX^TalkerX 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, not really, no. It still lacks specifics. It deals only with permanent removal of rights, when there are others actions which may be taken that are not permanent. Likewise it again leaves decisions up to the community, which is fine, but it doesn't give a distinction from how it works now, and what the role, if any, of moderators will be. What happens when someone is brought before the mob and half the mob votes "goat" and the other half are pretty evenly split among "crucify him", "Give him a medal", and "give a minor punishment/rebuke/etc."? As it stands now, random guy comes along and decides for everyone what the outcome is. That role, in my mind, should fall to the moderators as a group. DickTurpis (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I sorta have the feeling that we should be entirely clear about these points before we launch the system. Failure to do may result in chaos and HCM the very first time that we attempt to use it. The original proposal page seems to still have some open issues. I do not feel that the best solution is "We will sort these issues out by using the system".·--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

this is all actually very clear. some people just don't want change--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the general proposal is first-class and I have supported it from the first. I just feel that we should have the rights and responsibilities clear from the beginning. I fully understand that this will take longer but it would be better to go through the pain of working through any outstanding points while everyone is feeling fairly relaxed then it would be to try and create policies in the middle of a potential debate.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete

This makes no sense. ħuman 05:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the moderator election page, as discussed here and here. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there seem to be discussions. It seems that there there are few decisions.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but that certainly doesn't mean this page should be deleted. Blue (is useful) 20:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to me to be only a handful of people unsure of what's going on. Moderators will have all the powers of bureaucrats, in addition to being responsible for dispute moderation. No more of the mob letting HCM fizzle out only to have the same issue be resurrected again a few months later.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say, as a noob to your newest politics, and an "outsider" of these elections, Brxbrs, nothing seems very clear. from the out side, it looks like one or two people have something quite concrete in mind, others are sniffing around the "well yeah, i know" sense of touchy feely "it aught to be something important", others have ideas, but no one is listening, and others worry about a very banham happy set of rules that give someone right to be judges. I really think that from the outside, it sounds very much like you are all not nearly ready to really choose people to actually do this job. but that's just my two cents, watching this all unfold.En attendant Godot 20:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not nearly as much of a noob as Brxbrx is. PS: I am nominating you. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He meant noob in terms of site politics. I threw myself in quite early on and he was not active at the time--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"being responsible for dispute moderation" is one of the most divisive issues. Trent's proposal does not explicitly put mods in charge of arbitrating disputes, but many users seem to be interpreting it this way. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mods are given the tools and authority to take temporary action as they see fit to curtail behavior that they view as destructive or counter-productive to the community or site. As well as the additional responsiblity to help boot strap policy initiatives that need it. The minutiae of the day-to-day can be decided over time, prcedent takes actions to develop. —tmtoulouse

^{— Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs}

Brxbrx, purly fyi, "he" is a she. :-) And while I love the honor, Weasleoid, I am really just barely reacquainting myself with the much improved sense of mission here. Had it been 1 or 2 months == hell, one or two weeks, lol, I'd maybe say yes. -- that said, i really think Weasel stated what i was hearing. the kind of dual views of what a mod can and should be doing. To me - it just seems that you should straighten out the level of banham (as it were), the level of "ok, i'm deciding it will be X" that is going to happen, and then look at what each person who wants to be a mod, can / does bring to the table. En attendant Godot 21:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

to be clear, tmt did in fact say that. see the above section.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WfG, if you don't want to stand, you can decline the nomination by crossing yourself out on election page. I agree with you that there should be a better consensus about the role before elections, but unfortunately that doesn't look likely to happen the way things are going. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And that's good enough for government work, I guess. Although it's a bit embarrassing. ħuman 07:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Techs

I know this isn't really the place for it, but I think there needs to be discussion on some sort of election, or at least community input, on the tech position. I'm not really in favor of straight up elections, as this position, more than any other, requires specific skills, and a general vote could go along the lines of "he seems a pretty nice guy, I'll vote for him" could yield some pretty ineffective results. Maybe a Supreme Court-style nomination and confirmation process? I don't care about the specifics much, but I'm in favor of some sort of community involvement. It might be sort of useless, as they may only be a handful of people who can do the job anyway. I don't know (I sure as fuck ain't one of them). Or things can stay as they are; I think it at least deserves some focused discussion. DickTurpis (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the Board of Trustees is in discussions about oversight of people with the "Tech" position. Specifically, we are discussing the responsibilities of "Techs" and what rules that people entrusted with the "Tech" positions should adhere to. Any community feedback would most certainly be welcome in that regard. The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Great. Is there a designated place for this feedback? (I don't have any myself now; I just would like the community to be given the opportunity to give their 2 cents.) DickTurpis (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Right here works for me. Elsewise, I have also put forth an agenda item proposed by Human that would develop a system where RationalWiki can give much needed feedback to the Board of Trustees when and where appropriate. But this is still in the works, so until then, this will have to suffice. The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 14:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Techs are users who can rape your ass and steal your account. They're also the people who can do stuff like edit the mediawiki namespace, for example to add new block reasons or change the interface or whatever. So there should be a couple of them, but only if they're trusted users (on wp, sysops can do this, but due to our policy of handing out sysop rights like candy, we can't let them do that here). Btw, techs are not the same as people with server access. -- Nx / talk 15:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So we'd be deciding who gets to rape us in the ass? I'm gonna need some pictures any candidates. DickTurpis (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Techs are not the same as people with server access". How come? If we only require a very small number of techs, & of people with server access, couldn't this be the same role? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Because "tech" is a user right group on the wiki. The worst they can do is modify common.js and inject some malicious javascript to, for example, steal your account. But they can't, for example, checkuser someone or permanently delete content. Users with server access can. -- Nx / talk 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, this probably isn't really the best place to talk about techs (being the discussion page for moderators). Should we make another page? Or maybe shelf this until we at least have a bit more figured out on the moderators? DickTurpis (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

are techs really a concern. Do they have a role in any policing of the community, or just to keep a smooth running wiki ? If the latter then maybe some rules about what is needed for stuff like liquid threads but is that even a community issue or a Board decision ? Lets not complicate stuff Hamster (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people are concerned about the powers techs have, and who gets them. I'm not particularly among them for the moment, but if they're abused that could change. I just think it would be in the spirit of the site, at least, if the community had some say (binding, non-binding, whatever) in who gets them. But, again, this isn't really the place for it. I brought it up here because it was somewhat related to what was being discussed here, but it is really a separate issue. DickTurpis (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we have a rule where techs can't be moderators? Because I think Ty should be a tech. He's got techy knowledge stuff and we can trust him not to go berserk, right (it's always the quiet ones...)? ^{— Unsigned, by: Brxbrx / talk / contribs}

The problem there is this. Does Ty want or need to be a tech? The answer: No. Тy^talk 18:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't an election, any election, be sorta like electing your City's Coroner? (and yes, we do elect them in colorado - sighs). I mean, you all know what things techs need to be able to do; what they need to know to do it. I'd think you'd much rather want someone who can actually fix things cause they know what's going on (rather than a Tanya style, push buttons randomlly till you get it teh way it should look). And why are these "powers", TY (as in , educate me, not as in, i'm doubting you) vs. just "jobs"?En attendant Godot 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one is suggesting elections for the Tech position, but there seems to be some grumblings of concern about how this position is handed out. Some semblance of input from the community is probably not completely irrational, or at least discussion of some semblance of input. How is the position currently filled? If it's by decree of Trent that's fine with me for now, but isn't really a long term solution, particularly as Trent has been trying to take less of a hands-on role of late. The issue I bring up is one of powers vs. jobs because presently the Techs have the ability to do certain things the rest of us don't. I think. You know, I really don't know much about this; I'm not a tech guy. It seems to me to be another thing that could use some clearer definition. DickTurpis (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Our current de facto "tech" guy is a bit of a dick, and has recently used his non-tech guy server access to further his wiki political goals. Also, Trent is lazy and such. Personally, I think the RWF should HIRE one person to run the wiki infrastructure. Someone not engaged in the wiki and its politics. Nx is clearly incompetent, and Trent is heading that way, too, in my humble opinion (based on this ridiculous page). ħuman 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Incompetent? Guess who fixed your fucking wiki. And after what Trent has done to keep this wiki going for all these years, this is the thanks he gets? Fuck you, you ungrateful jerk. -- Nx / talk 05:34, 23 June 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 05:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Nx, you did good. You also unilaterally desysopped everyone. Is there a balance there? I'd prefer to hire a professional rather than rely on a dilettante. ħuman 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And I bet if you contributed your whiskey money to the cause the site could afford one! Vandal (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so Nx de-sysopped everyone a little while back. Was it a misguided action? Sure. Was it even dickish? Possibly, though I prefer to believe he thought he was helping, though it really should have been clear it was going to do more harm than good. In any case, it was quickly undone, we all have our powers back, and really no long term harm was done. Can we please get over this? If people honestly think this should disqualify Nx from being a Tech, then we probably should have some sort of forum in which people can express this. But in the meantime, it's getting old. DickTurpis (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Have we decided when voting will begin? I, for one, would still like to see a few specifics hammered out before that happens. I'd also like for there to be a bit of time for "campaigning" (though I really don't like how that sounds), in that once candidates are finalized they should be able to make their case (which is already happening I see) and have time for questions and whatnot. (Also I'm about to leave for rural Maine for 5 days in a few minutes, and will have little internet access; not that this is really an issue for anyone but me, but I'm hoping not to miss everything.) DickTurpis (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, voting will start after nominations finish using the system used in the Board elections. Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 12:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean voting starts at around 2 AM Greenwich Time on Tuesday? Like I said, I think it would be beneficial for a little more time between when candidacies are finalized and when voting begins. Is there a hurry? DickTurpis (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not for me, on Monday I start a 2 week backpacking trip, so we're in the same boat here. Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 13:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that electioneering/Q&A needs to be a separate phase between nomination & voting, when it can be carried out on at the same time as either. Ideally I'd still like to see a bit more clarity or consensus re how much authority mods will have in decision-making before nominations are finalised & voting begins. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"The period for nomination ends on June 21, 2:43 A.M. UTC." That's laughably anal. Can't we at least round it up to 3am, if not later? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a joke. Or do you know that and are making another joke? It's hard for me to tell at times--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Trent didn't write in stone any week long nomination period followed by voting and, given the number of concerns about the duties of and limitations on the mod position I'd be sorely fucking disappointed if this community plowed forward with yet another unfinished idea just because some someone slapped up a vote section and people want this to be over. 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No one emailed me that I was nom nom nommed, I only saw it (Thanks Viesel!) when I popped in today/tonight. So I probably accepted too late. More borken procedure, kids. Much more and this will just be ridiculous. ħuman 08:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

PROTIP: "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" -- Nx / talk 08:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nx, you are just being a jerk now. I know how that works, and to avoid 27 emails a day, I turned it off ages ago. Your response is childish and trivial. PROTIP (dumbfuck): Please email nominated users. ħuman 04:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody will complain about that. There's no point in shutting down nominations when all that follows is a period of idleness. Besides, nominations are just about putting names forward, and the nominees should have time to accept or decline up until the voting actually starts. Röstigraben (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of a Big Deal, isn't it? Shouldn't this be one of those things we announce with a banner across the top of pages? DickTurpis (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When voting is ready, yeah. It might be nice to give a day or two warning to allow for last minute nominations or acceptances, but that's only worth announcing when we know that we're in a position to move forward with voting. & I guess that means waiting on Trent, or whoever is managing the voting extension, to confirm whether it's ready. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

platforms

So before election time, could nominees elaborate on their platforms? Obviously, everybody has a different perception of the issue. Nutty and ListenerX have already done so, and it'd be nice to know who we're voting for exactly. Not everybody's known everybody since creation day.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that there does not seem to be an agreed position in regard of the rights and responsibilities of the nominees it is understandably difficult for them to present their platforms.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the platform is interpreting any "vagueness." See ListenerX's excellent campaign thingie--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a "bug" but more of a "feature" then? :-)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I campaign on a platform of curing Asperger's Syndrome on the wiki? ħuman 04:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You'd be far more relevant here--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

There seems to be a concern among several users that the moderator position is not defined clearly enough, and elections should be postponed until some of these details are worked out. The problem is that there is no process in place for specifying these roles, nor even for delaying elections. There is no process for establishing a process, which is a pretty good summation of what doesn’t work about this site. Putting things to the mob is great for certain issues, but having a sitewide vote on when we should have our sitewide vote isn’t terribly effective. The one and only reason we got as far as we did is because Trent took the bull by the horns and made a single sweeping proposal, which was fortunately quite well received. Now we do need some details worked out, and myself and several others have made some suggestions, receiving some feedback, but in the end feeling like we’re talking to nobody because nobody really has the authority to make these decisions. As of now, Trent seems to be the only one who has the “moral authority” to make a decision for the site, such as setting aside a date for when voting begins. I would like to appeal for a delay so we have time to at least try to address the concerns of several editors (some of whom are current candidates), perhaps until July 1 or so? Can this be done? DickTurpis (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"several users" is not an amount warranting a delay of the process. Most of this group of "several" just don't want the site to change period and are fine with the trolling and cyclical HCM's--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Several users have voiced significant concerns. One, by my count, has decided these are meritless. Now what makes you so sure of their intent? Has your time at Encyclopedia Dramatica given you keen insight into the human psyche? Delaying process shouldn't be a terribly large concern when there is hardly any process to delay. If you're so certain you know exactly how the moderator position is going to work would you care to explain it to the rest of us in significant detail? DickTurpis (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To support Dick on this - the problem is that if we don't have these issues clear at the beginning then we will have to sort them out in the middle of a period of HCM. What will then happen is that the moderator definitions will themselves become another cause of extended debate in the middle of a period of HCM. We could even have moderators debating with each other over the moderation decisions they have taken while at the same time they are trying to moderate the site. In my opinion it is a recipe for disaster.

Hand-waving by Brxbrx does not resolve this issue.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

BrXbrx, can you be more specific about who you think are fine with trolling & cyclical HCMs? Maybe then they can tell you whether or not that's the case. Otherwise this argument just looks like a false dilemma. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Three people above this post said very intelligent things. ħuman 08:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I've named names in the past, and I've only succeeded in pissing people off. I don't know how much better I'm doing by omitting names and making implications, but I don't think it'd be wise of me to return to directly calling people out. As for any lack of clarity over the powers and rules of moderators, I believe (and I may be wrong. I'm pretty sure trent is the final arbiter on what this all means) that the moderators once elected would make their own judgements on how they'll do things. Look, for example, at people's platforms beneath the campaigning section. Each candidate has their own interpretation of the matter, and we get to vote, don't we?--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Trent is not the final arbiter of anything. He was the founder of the site, but he has no more power than any other user as to its future. The site is now owned and run by the RW Foundation. ħuman 03:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The only people I see pointing out that the proposal is incomplete are respected members of the site. For my part if I were a troll/vandal I would be arguing the opposite - that we implement the proposals "as is" because I would then be able to exploit its weaknesses. I'm doing my best to interpret your comments in good faith but exactly why you feel that "trolls those interested in HCM" would be arguing for clear and explicit guidelines is unclear to me. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):But see, that's the problem. Elected or not, each person cannot run things "his own way", unless he or she is the ultimate arbitrator of all that is good and holy in the world. I am to understand there will not be one, but several mods. If you and I were the mods, you would nuke all trolls (or so it sounds like), and I would nuke virtually none. You would decided by fiat (?) when in the middle of an edit war, and i would sit back and let it run amock until or unless virtual blood was shed. Without knowing what is expected BY THE COMMUNITY of the position, you cannot even begin to decide who would fit well into that position, and who would not. By the way, not one person has addressed what happens (and it WILL happen, as is the way of these things) when a mod is him or herself, part of the edit war or other conflit. this idea of "we'll wing it and decide it as it goes along" seems a rather haphazard, and destined to fail style of resolving issues.En attendant Godot 15:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with the two comments above. Brxbrx, you seem to think the role of the moderator is established, and that it is "they'll make it up as they go along!" To some of us, that does not sound like a resolution, and resent being grouped with trolls for believing this. DickTurpis (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@godot-what the community expects is what the community votes for.

@bobm-it's clear you haven't followed my past shenanigans. I've created some HCM myslef by specifically calling out "respected members." And to be clear, I am not necessarily calling them trolls, I am saying that they have no problem with trolling and HCM. I fear an inevitable and ugly confrontation between me and the users I'm complaining about, though, because I've called them out in the past so there's little point being vague since I already made my accusations and they know who they are--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have little interest in your past shenanigans - though though your statement that you have caused HCM in the past is interesting. My interest is in improving the proposal so that it will be useful in preventing HCM. I am frankly beginning to doubt that you have the same objective.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@godot-what the community expects is what the community votes for.--I'm not convinced, reading all of this, that this is really a truism. The community will vote, as most communities do. But do they/we/anyone get what we are voting for? I guess that's why i'm confused. I was not here for the big "blowup" that seems to have set you all into a need to redefine how things are run, so i'm playing serious catch-up. But I see everyone saying such different things, it's like watching one guy run for mayor, another run for House, and another for a beauty contest all in the same election. I'm just pushing for a better discussion of what is wanted and expected of a Mod, so i can listen to each person who wants to be mod, and why they will fill that role.En attendant Godot 16:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Brx, making vague generalised accusations that some members of the community are troll-enablers, while not having the courage to point them out, is pretty weak. You could just admit that actually probably none of us are happy with trolling & cyclical HCM; we just have differing ideas about how to avoid and resolve them. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am confused on why there is so much confusing. I defined the moderators to have two basic functions, one is to step in when a discussion has become destructive (personal attacks, wheel warring, etc.) and curtail that behavior. They should take the bare minimum action needed to curtail it (start with asking a user to back off or take a voluntary break, lock a page for a little while, and block only as a last resort). Any action taken by the moderator should be for less than 24 hours, and more likely around 2 hours.

In addition moderators can help boot strap discussions by implementing voting procedures, or other structural policy issues needed to facilitate a change that the community has discussed and might want to implement.

What aspect of this is not clearly defined enough? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

All of it. You are pretty much "defining" a carte blanche, and as I have argued multiple times, it's unclear and poor management - not that you even have more than the right to create an RW:space page. I think this whole idea is deeply flawed, and as my evidence I present the "confusion" you claim is unjustified. ħuman 04:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Trent. Blue (pester) 18:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What isn't clearly defined is how dispute resolution will work & what authority or process will be used to determine when longer term actions such as blocking or de-sysoping/de-modding a user are required. I'm aware that you haven't mentioned this in the moderator proposal as you don't see it as one of their functions. However, this is where some users have a different idea of the moderator role to you, & have been saying things like the Chicken Coop should be abandoned & all abuse cases handled by mods. Whereas I favour the Coop, or something like it, still being used for these cases, with moderators officiating it only to the extent of assessing consensus, calling votes when appropriate, and taking actions decided by community. I think the dispute resolution issue needs to considered along with moderator's explicit duties, since most of the recent troubles have involved personality clashes between established editors rather than the kind of drive-by trolling or vandalism which can be dealt with by purely temporary action. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just glancing at the discussion pages we would also need to resolve.

1. Has the LJ been abandoned? (Presumably).
2. Moderators should not get involved in things in which they are one of the involved parties. (Presumably)
3. Do the moderators have the authority to act unilaterally or do they need a consensus? (Apparently unilaterally but I see some confusion.)
4. What process of appeal (if any) should there be against their decisions?
5. What process would be used if two moderators disagree?

I understand that the idea is that moderators would begin with a quiet word to those concerned but we also need to know what will happen in "worst case" situations.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

1. LJ is gone, it was gone before I proposed this.
2. Yes I mentioned this example specifically in my more detailed proposal as part of the larger point of using common sense and good judgement.
3. Yes, moderators are left to the own discretion to intervene when they see fit. Which is why we need to elect people we trust to do the job.
4. Considering that most moderator actions shouldn't last longer than 2 hours, and at most a day, appeal is not really needed.
5. Discussion, the first round of moderators will be establishing precedent for future mods. Disagreement then shouldn't be discouraged, but open, respectful dialog should be used to establish how best a given situation should have been dealt with. This will allow for better guidance in the future.
6. If a situation has gotten to the point where long term action needs to be taken, it should be brought before the community. Moderators can facilitate that conversation, keep it civil, and implement procedures to arrive at a decision after discussion has occured. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the moderators' role is defined clearly enough, that they are meant to intervene when discussions start becoming counter-productive. I also prefer common-law legal systems to the civil-law variety, and I think it would be better to bootstrap the moderator system and build a body of precedent than to define every single tiny point dogmatically before we even get started. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess we have a little more clarity; Trent's final point seems to address some things I was concerned about. If we have moderators work out the specifics based on Trent's synopsis I think we can have a workable solution. I just want some assurance that moderators cannot become the equivalent of CP senior admins, and should work multilaterally whenever possible. DickTurpis (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. :-) Thanks Trent.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"most moderator actions shouldn't last longer than 2 hours, and at most a day" That is ridiculous. "Yes, moderators are left to the own discretion to intervene when they see fit. Which is why we need to elect people we trust to do the job." That is frankly insane, Trent. As to most of the rest you typed in your six points, I respectfully must say that you are not being very smart here. Also, one more point. You are abusing the respect you get as "founder" to get people to agree with this strange and stupid idea you have. ħuman 04:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice reasoning you have there. --85.78.14.76 (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit button

How ever things shake out with the nominations/elections of the moderators, one thing is certain: no-one will like the results or how things are implemented. Still, I think it'll be swell, we will find out how we don't want it to be. The second round of elections will give us a result that will be both satisfying and worthwhile. It is a bit of a shame this is the case but it has to be done this way, (the other way would be to have some sort of constitution [or framework] but then that gets in the way of being able to discover something that which we were not looking [for], something amazing and wonderful. It'll get there, we'll get there but my timeline suggests Xmas or thereabouts. The children won't like it since Xmas seems ever so far off, but them's the breaks.) 03:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I agree mostly there crackhead. Xmas seems optimistic at the rate Trent is running this process into the ground. ħuman 04:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Election timeline adjustment

People seem to want some more time to talk about this and to talk to the nominees. I have no problem with that, but lets go ahead and close up nominations, and anyone that hasn't signified acceptence or rejection lets mark as rejected. Setup a clear list of which nominees have accepted and continue the discussion.

I will aim to have the vote start on monday the 27th. It will go for one week. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest 1 week starting Sunday 00:00 UTC, otherwise the Brits will have the upper hand with regards to late voters as the Yanks will all be drunk come the 4th of July. 04:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Keep in mind you are now running the election over a US holiday weekend. Bad idea. Run it for two weeks at least. ħuman 03:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No comment? Seriously? ħuman 08:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Nominations are closed"

They aren't. If the arrangements are loose enough to allow late acceptance, then late acceptance should be offered fairly. We have already had one editor accept their nomination after the allotted time period. If another prominent editor (like Kels, for example) were to accept their nomination in the next two minutes, I find it hard to believe anyone would challenge them -- and equally hard to believe that an unpopular editor would be allowed to do the same thing. Given that the deadline has been broken already without any fuss, I can see no sensible justification for assuming it still applies to everyone else.

I am about to unilaterally push the nomination deadline back 12 hours. Since a lot of the issues in the election -- including the formalities of voting and candidacy -- are still being worked out, I hope I can do this without any unneeded controversy. I think an extension of 12 hours is the fairest and most unobtrusive way of doing this.

I'm really sorry to disrupt everything yet again, but impartial process is sort of important to me.  Blue ve Neer^{WITH ALL THE STRENGTH I HAVE LEFT IN ME} (BIue With A Capital I) 07:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Compromise proposal: adding new names stops this afternoon, but candidates who haven't yet responded should be given time to do so until a few hours before voting begins. That should still leave enough time to enter the nominees' names into the voting application. BTW, I've sent Lumenos a message via his own Wiki, and if any of you have other means of contacting Kels, Mei and SirChuckB, maybe you could try to reach them that way. Röstigraben (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What timezone and what date is "this afternoon" in? ħuman 03:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Kels and Chuckie are both active on the ArseBook group. ħuman 04:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I've sent Lumenos a message via his own Wiki WHY????? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY??????????????????? -- Nx / talk 17:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this Wiki is sorely lacking in the annoying crank department. Hey, maybe we can introduce him to Jim and see if the two of them just neutralize each other. Röstigraben (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Self nominations?

I don't mean to be petty, but isn't that a bit odd?--En attendant Godot 02:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How so? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I could be missing something , of course, as she apparently has other names but the A bryant nominated herself. which seemed odd, but i don't know the rules you established, or who else she is.--En attendant Godot 03:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I specifically allowed for self-nominations. The point of nominations is to make sure we have a list of people that want the job. It would be silly to restrict that list based solely on a technicality of needing someone else to nominate an interested party. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominations and acceptances are closed for real now

It`s a technical cut off if nothing else. Need to start prepping for the vote so its closed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cut from article by tech group member

== Who is eligible to vote? ==

No-one knows the criterea. Not me anyway. Probably not you either. ^{— Unsigned, by: M.B.E / talk / contribs}

This is how to cut stuff removed that was posted in the wrong place, chief. ħuman 08:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't be bothered. -- Nx / talk 08:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Moderator blocks

Do we have a policy as yet against non-moderator users undoing moderator blocks? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My ignorant two cents is saying that if he really wanted you gone during it, he would have ensured that you couldn't. LOL The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That was kind of mean of P-Foster. Maybe if he hadn't also blocked your IP it would have seemed nicer.

I think that if a fun reason is given, you should be allowed to undo the block.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

EC I blocked you as a regular user, and forgot the IP thing. My bad there. Blocking you as a moderator could only happen if some sort of moderation process had been invoked. That said, we do not. Should it ever come to someone being blocked for reals because the mods got some sort of consensus from the community that a block was warranted, undoing said block would be a violation of the community's standards -- not of a moderators' ruling. Key difference, right? That said, I believe that a workable policy might be 1. undoing a block that came as the result of a moderation would result in a stiff warning. 2. repeating the undo after a stiff warning would be worth maybe a block of fixed duration (couple of weeks, maybe?) and a three-month (...or something) promotion to non-sysop? Discuss. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 03:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One could, of course, also argue that joke blocks are conduct unbecoming a moderator, who may have to issue pre-emptive blocks; but then one would probably be accused of having no sense of humor and/or attempting to make the Wiki into a place where laughter is frowned upon and smiling is permitted only on alternate Thursdays. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the block in question, is it not? (It's nice to have diffs so people know what's being discussed.) My two cents:

1. Joke blocks such as this should be for less than 5 minutes (preferably seconds, really).
2. Undoing blocks made as a moderator should not be undone, even by another moderator, without prior discussion and agreement. Else we have more wheel warring, which is what this whole rigmarole was trying to stop.
3. P-F's block was apparently not made in his role as a moderator, so the question is not relevant in this case.
4. We need some rules/standards of what moderators can and cannot do written down somewhere.

Undoing that particular block was fine. DickTurpis (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I was more concerned about my undoing of the block and any precedent that might set. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, we all seem to be in agreement that this was not a moderator action, so such a block by P-Foster today is no different than a block by P-Foster 72 hours ago. If it was a block meant to halt a wheel-war or brewing shitstorm it would be a different matter. Still, as a moderator, Foster should be extra careful with playful blocks and stuff. DickTurpis (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a sysop can undo a moderator block, which raises the question of whether Trent should add a box for Mods to be required to check when they're making joke blocks in order to avoid someone being hosed if the mod screws up. 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I undid P-Foster's block, which is what this section is about. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Go me for not reading carefully. 06:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A "this user is banned" template on the talkpage would show it was serious, and not a "fun" block that was accidentally too long. Also, you should really make it clear you're about to ban them for reason X first. ADK^{...I'll balkanize your bat!} 10:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)