RationalWiki talk:Sysop guide/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 20 October 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Please?

I wonder, if it isn't judged too inhumane, perhaps some don't recognize the word, and therefore it really isn't il-liberal to use absolutes at times? --TK_/MyTalk 04:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

To what do you refer? I am guessing a place in the guide where an "order" should be phrased as a "request"? human 15:20, 22 December 2007 (EST)

It looks as if someone else changed it, from the more general and not mandatory please to the more specific don't and do not. Of course I am partial to guides for idiots, not being able to know the capacities of future management to understand, and that is why it sometimes pays, like in the example I sent to you, and posted on my page, to state the obvious. Sometimes what is obvious to us, here and know, isn't so much in a matter of months to those who have not been here from the start. ;-) -- --TK_/MyTalk 16:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

OK... what section, or where? Or what's the difflink of the edit so I can see what you mean? Thanks... human 18:32, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I guess you found the difs (BobM's and Researcher's), as you have "softened" the tone once again. No biggie. Just was giving my observations, which I don't expect anyone to agree with. --TK_/MyTalk 18:39, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I thought I might have. I just kind of proofread it some more, keeping what you were saying in mind. I, at least, agreed with your observations, apparently. human 19:55, 22 December 2007 (EST)

"Softening" the language is the complete opposite of my observation. Some rules, procedures should not be softened, but be absolutes. After all, regulations are not conversation, and are the precise spot for exactness and being blunt to a fault, IMO. --TK_/MyTalk 20:50, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Ah, ok, I got you backwards then. One of the founding principles of RW, is to have "guidelines", not absolute, blunt, exact regulations. Anyway, thanks for pointing out where this guide departed from that tradition. human 21:44, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Well, maybe you didn't, as one of the very few areas where the general guideline shouldn't apply is in setting rules for those who rule, eh? --TK_/MyTalk 21:47, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Removed line

I have removed the line: There are three things you will see now that are different. from the introduction section as I couldn't quite figure out what it meant.--Bob^{bing up} 03:44, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, Bob...it made "sense" before I inserted the bulleted parts, and I didn't know quite what to do with it....... --TK_/MyTalk 03:46, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I've also changed the bit which says that a sysop must spend more time editing. I think the only extra thing our sysops do is knock back vandals.--Bob^{bing up} 03:47, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I've also removed: A good skill in a Sysop is the ability to combine the strengths of others in a single coherent task, to motivate and include users, draw them out. While this might well be something which we might wish to suggest to our sysops, there has not been - as far as I am aware - any suggestion that this is a usual part of an RW sysop's duties. Are they team managers?--Bob^{bing up} 13:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I'm putting that "three" line back in by rearranging slightly. The first section tells the new sysop what those exclamation marks are and describes the two new "powerz". human 15:01, 23 December 2007 (EST)

And I changed it to "four". I forgot about page protection. human 15:11, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Update

This should be updated to reflect changes in block policy and the "vandal" user group. tmtoulouse ^oppress 00:25, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Yup, and it should also be automated ;) so anyone who is sysopped gets a talk page link to this file. Hehe. ħuman 02:04, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Vandal group

Just curious, but would it make sense to have another group for those who are a bit nastier than your average vandal? Since Fall Down's arrival, there's been a lot of direct attacks on individuals, so maybe some setup that restricted the person to their own talk/user page while they're assigned to it? It would leave a line of communication open in the unlikely case they repent, and would avoid long bans, which some people here seem to be allergic to. --Kels 20:22, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Interesting idea... Trent will be sober back in a few days, perhaps we should bounce it off him? Although, considering that anyone on the internet can do anything (tor), maybe reversion is all we have. Heck, My user page has been wandalized umpteen times, but I never saw what was written there, since other people reverted before I woke up... ħuman 21:58, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Well, there's no point doing anything much to IPs other than a block for an hour or day or whatever, but I've started putting Fall Down's socks and the like into the Vandal group for safekeeping. I dunno, just doing what I can. --Kels 22:09, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Incidentally, I've noticed some bureaucrats putting users into Vandal group as a user rights change, which shows up on Recent Changes. Is this any different (in terms of what it does) than putting them in the vandal bin via the block menu (which doesn't show on RC)? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:19, 1 January 2009 (EST)

I dunno, I never realized that option was there. Huh, that'd be a lot easier. --Kels 22:42, 1 January 2009 (EST)

I've got a bookmark on my toolbar to RationalWiki:Vandal, that's my favourite way. Toast 22:50, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Hide revisions: Apply these restrictions to sysops as well as others

If I check this option, who will be able to unhide the revision? -- Nx ^talk 17:41, 15 January 2009 (EST)

If you check that option, the only way to unhide it later is to delete the entire page history and resurrect that revision along with all of the others. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:13, 15 January 2009 (EST)

What about 'crats? ħuman 18:17, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Not even bureaucrats, as far as I can tell. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:15, 16 January 2009 (EST)

So this would in fact have an effect something like ToP's deletion but without the consekwenses?  ^{(with butter!)} _{talk to Toast} 02:22, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Functionally, yes. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:25, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Hide revision "only used whenever someone posts personal information"

Are we sure we want to confine it strictly to breaches of privacy? Obviously we shouldn't overuse it, but I think it could be useful for erasing some of the more disgusting troll/vandal edits. If nothing else it prevents the vandal from reverting back to their version next time they come around.

Also we need to agree on some boundaries about personal information if we're making a rule about using this, but that should probably be discussed at the community standards revamp page. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:31, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I see no need to hide "disgusting" vandalism, really. And I think this "power" needs to be limited very tightly. And, yeah, as far as "what" constitutes personal info, it would be nice to define it (although most of us think we know it when we see it ;) - like Kara's home info that popped up on talk:WIGO CP). Actually, I think the "privacy" guideline at RWW comes pretty close to defining it well. ħuman 17:54, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Purpose and use of vandal break

The guidelines suggest the vandal break is used only to curb vandalism. It seems to me that the name itself ought not constrain its use so narrowly, as there is at least one person who comes here solely to troll whose success really does depend on the number of edits he's able to make an hour. What is the consensus on use of the vandal break on trolls like MC if this hasn't already been discussed. 22:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be all for vandal braking MC. He is just a dick. And you know he'd go ape shit and use his every 30 minute edit to tell us what hypocrites we are before slinking back to his super-sexy secret forum. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision delete & IP addresses

Yeah, I know edit warring a project page is fun & all, but what say you discuss it here & then make any necessary changes? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Accidental posting of personal information should be cause for revision delete. Seems pretty fucking simple to me. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether you post personal information without permission accidentally or intentionally. It should be deleted in both cases. Revealing your IP by posting logged out is not accidentally posting information without permission. -- Nx / talk 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

without permissions is what is irrelevant, as I am talking about the accidental posting of personal information. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So if I accidentally call Human Huw should that be deleted? -- Nx / talk 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is information that Huw has given intentionally and with permission... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So if you permissively post a screenshot that accidentally reveals your identity, should that be deleted? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a different scenario. When you edit as IP you get a big warning telling you that your IP will be revealed. -- Nx / talk 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

But in that scenario, when you accidentally post personal information, should it be deleted? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- Nx / talk 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you warned him, did user MNA accidentally post his IP? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That I don't know, but given that he continued to post logged out, I suspect it wasn't accidental. -- Nx / talk 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from asking (which I feel we will inevitably have to do) here are some hints about whether or not that user intended to post their IP. Also, given that the "cat was out of the bag" and you were insistent on his IP address staying revealed, there wasn't much point, was there? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why did they continue editing anonymously? And I unhid the revisions after the user realized they were logged out and yet continued to post anonymously.

I don't particularly care whether that user's IP is revealed or not. I've given my reasons in the saloon bar thread. -- Nx / talk 21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that is somehow relevant, ask them (maybe it's because I immediately told them you would make sure it remained exposed?). All I am talking about is their initial, accidental posting of their IP. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Accidentally posting as an IP is not why we have revision delete. ħuman 21:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What about hiding revisions in which personal information is accidentally exposed are you opposed to, Human? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Revealing personal information about oneself is not "exposing", and if one gets past the image I've just added, they are what I'd call "accident prone". ħuman 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's actually how I lost my first block of 65k IPs. User MNA apparently just did it to. Human, if you had accidentally not removed your IP in that photo, would you have deleted it? Regardless, why punish someone by leaving public information that was accidentally posted just for being "accident prone". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the new warning message went live, I don't think there's a need for such an extreme measure. Just this morning I was logged out for some reason but the big red box brought that to my attention before I even got close to posting. Before the new message... maybe - the old one wasn't so clear. Now, I really don't think you can miss it. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean this wasn't clear? -- Nx / talk 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have proof by example earlier. I think I've done it before, too. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it was clear, but there are several cases where people managed to miss it. The new version seems to stand out much more, for some reason. Possibly the higher contrast. I dunno. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 22:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't see any difference in standoutishness -- Nx / talk 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the new version stands out more, it can and will inevitably be "missed". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not 100% fool-proof. Nothing will be, except disabling IP editing completely. -- Nx / talk 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I agree that disabling IP editing is a 100% solution to this problem, however, it introduces bigger problems than it solves. Allowing the nominal deletion of revisions containing accidentally revealed IP addresses addresses the problem, and while not completely fixing it, it does not create others. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision delete: ACCIDENTALLY OR without the subject's permission

I propose the wording be changed to allow for the revision deletion of personal information permissively, but accidentally posted.

A good example would be: Copypasta not properly redacted. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. -- Nx / talk 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "without the subject's permission" still covers that scenario. - π 00:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If people start using revision delete willy-nilly to protect fools from themselves (and this really is only about CP in "reality") I move we disable it completely. ħuman 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I move we restrict it to bureaucrats. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

From previous misunderstandings, it certainly does not cover currently cover the accidental posting of personal info. In Nx's reading, the act of posting is the act of giving permission, even if accidental. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the example you have given would've been oversighted. The real issue here is whether we should oversight IPs because of TK. -- Nx / talk 14:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is whether we should oversight IPs because of privacy issues. Do you believe an IP constitutes personal information? Assuming you're going to say no, why not? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If we believed IPs were such a big privacy issue, we wouldn't have IP editing. -- Nx / talk 14:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're free to give out your own information. Why prevent people from doing that? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevance to Conservapedia

We get people posting anonymously here (& thus revealing their IP addresses) all the time, intentionally or not. Let's be honest about this: the controversy today was nothing to do with a user revealing their location or compromising their real life identity - it was an attempt to prevent their sock being blocked at Conservapedia.

This is a different issue alltogether. Obviously CP has a policy of blocking known RW editors from editing there. By & large, most of us disagree with their policy, but as a site I don't think we should have any sort of commitment to protecting users' ability to edit both sites. That would just be reinforcing the old "sock draw" cliche view of this site. We don't mention Conservapedia in the Community Standards, because it has nothing to do with how we do things on our site. For the same reason, we shouldn't rewrite standards & guidelines just to make loopholes in response to what CP does. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And for the record, Neveruse's first use of RevisionDelete today was not to hide an IP edit, it was to hide this (username, content, summary), which is completely inappropriate. -- Nx / talk 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not about CP. CP is just one of many organizations that make exposed IPs a privacy issue. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 23:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Name one that has ever been an issue to RW IP editors? ħuman 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if Proxima is to be believed: In some Moslim if it comes out that a person isan atheist that can mean a death sentence, therfore users need a warning that their privacy isn't safe at RationalWiki. - π 00:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. We should add that to the anoneditwarning template. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If IP privacy is such an issue we should just disable IP editing altogether. - π 00:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the numerical entity. Is there a compelling reason to have IP editing, if it's such a privacy issue (and I'm not convinced it actually is)? However, if it really is a serious issue, what does the much larger WP do about it? Obviously they'd have the same problem, in spades, so they must have a policy, yes? --Kels 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose disabling IP-editing. Making RW a members-only club would be unfriendly & we'd probably see a decline in new editors. This issue would seem a fairly weak justification for doing so as well. Sites only usually disable anon editing if they have major vandal problems or similar. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this is all over one person obviously trolling us at talk wigo cp. ħuman 01:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me this started because Neveruse hid MarcusCicero's IP address ?!? Fuck dammit, you people let him troll this place when he isn't even here!! - π 01:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're every bit as free to tell give your IP address as you are your name. Both are personal information. Both should be hidden if unintentionally revealed. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So we should ask every BoN who posts whether they meant to reveal their IP or whether they'd prefer us to remove it? No. We should only take action if the user requests removal of the edit & gives a damn good reason (getting banhammerded at CP isn't one). It's important to remember the distinction between real world & internet personas here - a genuine privacy issue is something that breaches that gap & compromises a user's real life identity. Something that potentially compromises them on another forum or wiki is not a privacy issue in the same sense. This is why I think revision delete should be restricted to bureaucrats: it's something that should be rarely used, & when it is used it will be something of a judgement call as to whether there's a good reason for it. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon request, yes. I wouldn't think anything other than citing "privacy concerns" would be necessary. Any further questioning may violate the user's...privacy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)