FANDOM


A very interesting conversation between me and some users in chat today, one I think the public should see. The general summary of the conversation was an argument between me an SuperSajuuk on how this wikia should be run. The actual chat is longered than what will be showed here but the following is pretty lengthy, and I want everyone to come up with their own opinion about what should be done. It's a lot to read, but I urge you to see it through. I will refrain from supporting my own view in the comments and I would kindly ask SuperSajuul and anyone else involved from supporting their own as well to keep it unbiased.


  • Ahem. So as I was going to say, what were all of you guys talking about?
  • 1:11SuperSajuukdid you see my previous message CCC?
  • and we were just talking about a redirect title
  • as well as the people Tim thinks should be sysop
  • 1:12Madman97Oh really? Who are these candidates?
  • 1:12SuperSajuukone candidate is CCC, if he's still interested in being one
  • 1:12Atvelonistest
  • 1:12CheatcodechampI see you.
  • 1:13Madman97Are you interested, CCC?
  • 1:13SuperSajuukthe other one has been implied as myself
  • 1:13CheatcodechampAs for Sysop rights, If the community thinks I can do it I will, I was worried my inactivity in the past would be a problem.
  • 1:13Madman97As well as you, Sajuuk, if given the chance?
  • 1:13SuperSajuukofc Madman lol
  • and CCC, I don't think this will go with a public vote
  • there's not enough users, I think Tim just plans on directly promoting
  • but could be wrong
  • 1:14Madman97Hmm, something tells me that could be a bad idea.
  • 1:14SuperSajuuk95% of people won't care
  • and the people who do won't oppose it either lol
  • 1:15Madman97But there are people I think would feel alienated at their lack of choice in the matter. I only hope you two meet the requirements I had mentioned in my previous blog.
  • 1:15CheatcodechampThere should be a vote IMO
  • 1:15Madman97With enough time to spare, strong ties to the community, and superb editing skills and what-not.
  • But if you two are to be the next generation of Admins, I only hope it works out.
  • 1:16SuperSajuuk@Madman: I've had experienced of being sysop, I would fix a lot of the problems on the wiki and make it more community orientated
  • 1:16Atvelonishold on
  • Atvelonis has joined the chat. 
  • 1:17Atvelonistest
  • ok good
  • 1:17SuperSajuukI don't like the voting system for rights, that is just plain bad. it should be a community discussion and you give good reasons why the user should get a right
  • NORTH PONY has joined the chat. 
  • 1:17SuperSajuukwhen it comes to patroller, there's nothing remotely dangerous imo
  • 1:18NORTH PONYYo
  • 1:18Madman97Im glad you have confidence in your editing skills. I certainly do. And you seem to have been active on the community of late. If you have ample free time, by all means, I think you meet my standards. I agree that rights should be a heavily discussed subject, but after this discussion ends, a vote should be taken to solidify the consensus of the people.
  • It may sound tedious, but it's for the benefit of the entire website.
  • 1:19CheatcodechampThe Admins and Patrolers need to be trusted, the community needs a say in those matters.
  • 1:19Madman97Exactly.
  • 1:19SuperSajuukthe problem is
  • if we have a vote, it makes it a popularity contest
  • 1:20Atvelonissort of
  • 1:20SuperSajuukand seriously, this shouldn't be a trust exercise
  • 1:20Madman97That is why a discussion should be put into place before we vote instead of just hopping right to it.
  • 1:20SuperSajuukit should be "assume good faith when giving rights"
  • 1:20AtvelonisTimeoin should definitely have a say in this
  • 1:20SuperSajuukassume the user will use it properly until they abuse it
  • 1:20Madman97It doesn't hurt to have a little insurance however.
  • 1:20CheatcodechampSometimes that is better then promoting somebody who nobody trusts or respects.
  • 1:21SuperSajuukI disagree but I respect what you are saying
  • 1:21Madman97A discussion would allow someone to present their case, and then people can feel either comfortable or uncomfortable about voting. It wouldn't be a popularity contest.
  • 1:21SuperSajuukthe thing is, I understand doing a discussion for sysop
  • but rollback? hardly discussion worthy
  • 1:22Madman97Im sorry, Im unfamiliar with the term.
  • 1:22SuperSajuukrollback is just an improved undo, which anyone can do without rollback at all
  • @Madman: Special:ListGroupRights#rollback < that
  • just gives you one extra button to quickly revert vandalism, but anyone can do it with just the page history
  • and the undo button
  • so for me, I shouldn't need to go through a vote just for one extra button that is hardly dangerous
  • 1:24Madman97That's not what I mean when it comes to having a discussion though. Allow me to explain further. I'm not an advocate of principle, and I hold circumstance higher. I agree that a rollback is unworthy of discussion, and I don't mean to say that we need a discussion for anything. The only thing we would even need a discussion for is policy changes or voting for a position.
  • 1:24SuperSajuukI know
  • it's just that, right now, every single flag needs a vote, which is sill
  • silly
  • I mean it makes sense for things like sysop and bureaucrat flags
  • but not rollback or menial rights like that
  • 1:24AtvelonisIMO we should hold votes for patroller
  • 1:24Madman97A position for someone should be voted for. I agree patrollers are not as important but it is still granting extra rights to a user.
  • 1:25CheatcodechampWe also have the patrolled button, and are supposed to be a buffer, who give out warning and report Vandals, If we are giving out any short of power, we need to at the VERY least, make sure the person is trusted and responsible
  • 1:25Madman97A normal user should be comfortable with their choice of patroller. Discussions are meant to ease their worries and keep peace in the community.
  • A vote will solidify their choice, and if it doesn't turn out as well as they thought, a simple vote can be their undo button.
  • 1:26SuperSajuukbut patrolling edits ain't that much dangerous at all
  • it's just a single little button, how can someone abuse that? o.O
  • 1:26Madman97No, but it is still a position that gives them extra rights, like before. They have powers a normal user doesn't (Albeit not much), but its still there.
  • 1:27SuperSajuukI'd be more worried about people adding JS to the site wide js code to get someone's passwords into a file than someone hitting the "Mark this edit as patrolled"
  • NORTH PONY has left the chat. 
  • 1:27SuperSajuukand no, a patroller is a regular user who just happens to have a couple extra tools to help the wiki
  • 1:27Madman97Are we talking page patroller or mods?
  • 1:27SuperSajuukProject:Patrollers< those peeps lol
  • I just think we're making the flags sound more "dangerous" than they are
  • this is why I like MediaWiki. Everything abusable can be "undone"
  • 1:28CheatcodechampAny power, how ever small, can be abused. It doesn't matter how damaging it is. If we are giving somebody rights, we need to know they won't just push the button because they can.
  • 1:29SuperSajuukdude, not to be insulting, but that's really not a good mindset. This isn't like some internet forum which is much harder to undo abuse
  • I respect what you are saying
  • but flags are not "powers", they are flags that give some extra rights, but they do not make that user any more different
  • it's also why I don't like the colour hierarchy either
  • 1:30Madman97Perhaps not for patrollers of pages, if an Admin has enough confidence in them. Like I said, circumstance is All in my book. I don't mind the color heirarchy much though.
  • Bronymon has joined the chat. 
  • 1:30Madman97I feel that any user who has power over another should be subjected to voting however.
  • 1:30BronymonRather then bothering with googling or searchingthis wiki.
  • How do I turn the potions of damage health and such into weapons?
  • 1:31SuperSajuukbut Madman
  • nobody has any power over others
  • 1:31Madman97You select the potion and it tells you what weapon you want to assign it to.
  • 1:31SuperSajuukit's a collaboration project of users
  • 1:31BronymonOOOH
  • DUH
  • Thanks bro.
  • I can't read very well so sometimes stuff like this goes past me (derp)
  • 1:32Madman97@SuperSajuuk. We have had "Wars" because of unnecessary bannishments. You have been unnecessarily banned I have heard.
  • People have had problems with mods.
  • There wouldn't be such problems if there wasn't an abuse of power there.
  • 1:32SuperSajuukthat was the past though
  • 1:32BronymonIt's not that I can't read BTW, it's just tiny words
  • 1:32SuperSajuukI can't deny the past admins may have done things wrongly
  • 1:33BronymonAnyways thanks for the help and I'll be going now.
  • 1:33Madman97Just because those things happened in the past doesn't mean those powers are no longer in an Admin's arsenal.
  • 1:33SuperSajuukbut we should look to the future and not think about what the past had
  • the thing is
  • 1:33CheatcodechampNo problem, have fin Brony
  • 1:33BronymonHave a nice day
  • 1:33Cheatcodechamp
  • fun
  • 1:33Madman97You to Brony
  • 1:33SuperSajuukthe admins in the past treated everything as though they were status symbols.
  • that's my point, the past admins made everything difficult unnecessarily
  • and yeah I was banned in the past for no reason
  • but while the loss of 4 sysops is a bad thing, it just means that the new generation of sysops can improve the wiki and take it in another direction
  • 1:35Madman97I agree, and I am an advocate of changing these things for the better. I have faith in your vision of the wikia's future where everyone is equal. But no matter what, SOME users are going to have to have certain privileges others do not have if they are crat, Admins, mods, patrollers, ect. Just because we have wishful thinking doesn't mean their powers can change unless you want to have a consensus thread discussing revocation of certain rights of the position.
  • Bronymon has left the chat. 
  • 1:36SuperSajuukOf course, but the way I'm planning out rights is that people should get flags without silly requirements
  • by that
  • 1:36Madman97Well then, I would be glad to join you in the discussion if you are planning on making a thread. CCC, Atvelonis, what do you make of this?
  • 1:37SuperSajuukI mean that it should not be up to staff to do a nomination, it should be about making a judgement call and assuming good faith
  • 1:38AtvelonisNo, I think the staff should still have to make the nomination
  • 1:38SuperSajuukbut why should someone need to go through a nomination though ?
  • that's what I'm not getting here
  • 1:39AtvelonisThey're the ones with the most experience. People like Tim have seen many, many admins come and go, and obviously know what's best for the wiki.
  • 1:40Madman97I think we have made the point crystal clear Sajuuk. Good faith is not insurance, it is wishful thinking. Without a set structure, this place could fall to pieces. Voting provides structure, therefore order.
  • 1:40AtvelonisIf you want the community to make a nomination, IMO that is a really bad idea
  • 1:40SuperSajuukMadman, a wiki is about good faith
  • if we won't assume good faith, this wiki might as well stop right here and not bother
  • 1:40AtvelonisIf that happens it just becomes a thing about popularity, not editing skills
  • 1:40SuperSajuukNo, I just don't think nominations or voting or any of that should happen
  • 1:41Madman97And what good faith could we recieve by just taking someone's word for it that they will do well? GhostAnubis said he would do well. Look where that ended.
  • I know a vote could be tedious.
  • But it is necessary.
  • 1:41SuperSajuukbut it's the wrong method
  • no it isn't
  • 1:41AtvelonisWhat, so the staff should just instantly make people they like into staff?
  • 1:41SuperSajuukNo
  • 1:41AtvelonisI don't see what you're trying to say
  • 1:42SuperSajuuklet me explain.
  • 1:42Madman97Please.
  • 1:42SuperSajuukon other wiki's I manage and contribute to, I see it like this:
  • let's say I'm looking for a sysop
  • if I was looking for a sysop, I would look for one or more of these:
  • 1) does the user regularly request users to be blocked ? are they making sure to be diplomatic and warn first before requesting?
  • 2) does the user regularly make requests for editing protected pages (MediaWiki namespace, sysop locked articles and templates etc) ?
  • 3) does the user regularly tag articles to be deleted to clean up the wiki?
  • there's another factor, but I can't remember it offhand
  • but, if a user fits one or more of those, that's someone that's probably who would have a use of the sysop flag
  • 1:44Madman97So you have standards. So?
  • 1:44SuperSajuukthose aren't standards.
  • someone could be a not-so-decent editor, but they show a need for extra rights.
  • 1:45AtvelonisEh
  • IMO they should really show good editing skills
  • 1:45Madman97Those are things you are looking for in an Admin or something. Those are Standards.
  • 1:45AtvelonisLet's be honest here; the staff is the face of the community
  • 1:46Madman97And I still don't see why this makes voting out to be unneccesary.
  • 1:46SuperSajuukwhy should some user be subjected to community vote? we've already proven that support/oppose creates camps of users and it causes massive wars in threads
  • because voting is NOT a consensus, it should not be the primary method of granting anything
  • yeah, voting might be a consensus, but it's not the primary method
  • discussion is the primary method, not a vote
  • 1:47Madman97It's called Democracy, and we should be held accountable to the people we govern.
  • 1:47SuperSajuuk x 1000
  • no, a wiki is NOT a democracy!
  • this isn't an internet forum where people with additional rights can do pretty hefty damaged
  • this is what I see as a fundamental problem. the wiki believes too much in it being a democracy
  • it isn't
  • 1:47Madman97Discussion is well and good. By all means, discuss away. But a vote makes it official in the eyes of the people. They have a choice in who they want to govern them. You can't just appoint yourselves because people say you should.
  • 1:47SuperSajuukit's a collaboration project
  • 1:48AtvelonisAren't we a bureaucracy
  • 1:48SuperSajuukeveryone here is equal
  • in fact, Wikia makes it clear that you should not go around acting like your opinion means more than everyone else.
  • 1:48Madman97Well appointing yourself out of "good faith" doesn't seem very equal to me.
  • A vote means every opinion counts.
  • 1:48SuperSajuukNo it doesn't
  • I can just type Voting-support Support — in a thread with NO REASON and that's useless
  • not to be an ass here, but there is a reason many wiki's follow Wikipedia's line of reasoning for running a wiki
  • that's not to say I'm trying to turn this place into Wikipedia
  • 1:50Madman97And also not to be an ass, but I find my support for your candidacy waning if this is the form of government you wish to take.
  • 1:50SuperSajuukno offence
  • 1:50Madman97Where everyone is equal but not equal.
  • 1:51SuperSajuukbut a wiki isn't a fucking government
  • 1:51Madman97The management then.
  • 1:51SuperSajuuksorry for swearing, but I'm getting tired of people proving to me that they don't know how to run a wiki.
  • 1:51AtvelonisJanitors
  • staff are janitors
  • 1:52Madman97Im not trying to start a fight, but I am just expressing my opinion, and as you say, no one's opinion is above the other, and I shall have it heard.
  • 1:52SuperSajuukI know that
  • I just think you are looking at things in a method that goes against the normal wiki way
  • 1:53Madman97The normal wiki way for this wiki has been to vote for our management.
  • 1:53SuperSajuukand I understand that
  • 1:53Madman97We have always done that since I came on here.
  • 1:53SuperSajuukbut you fail to understand that the future shows a change
  • 1:53AtvelonisOur system works well
  • We don't need to change it
  • 1:53SuperSajuukwhich is your opinion and I respect it
  • but I completely disagree with the current system
  • it's not helping the wiki at all with all these restrictions
  • why should a user have to jump through hoops and things just to get a basic flag like rollback?
  • someone please explain to me why they should
  • 1:55AtvelonisThey need to show that they're capable of using it correctly
  • 1:55SuperSajuuk...
  • why?
  • 1:55AtvelonisBelieve it or not, you can cause a lot of damage with the rollback tool.
  • 1:55SuperSajuukNo, you can't
  • 1:55AtvelonisYes, you can.
  • 1:55SuperSajuukhow?
  • it's just a freaking undo button!
  • or are you suggesting that undo for normal users is dangerous?
  • 1:56Madman97I have already explained this a million times. Circumstaces say that a user needs to be comfortable with the management. And if someone decides to undo changes for no reason, that is abuse. You are not taking account of the smallest things, which can in turn be the most dangerous. SuperSajuuk, if you feel this strongly about it, then I would kindly request that you present your case to the rest of the wikia on a general consensus and see how they feel about taking away voting, as well as the other Admins, before your position is solidified. Then we will see if the wikia will place good faith in you or not.
  • 1:56AtvelonisThe regular undo button is slow and frankly can't be used effectively to vandalize anything
  • The rollback tool is surprisingly quick, and one could hypothetically revert an entire day's worth of changes with it in a matter of minutes
  • 1:56SuperSajuukso?
  • it can be undone
  • 1:56CheatcodechampIt happened before I showed up.
  • 1:56SuperSajuukso what's the big deal about it?
  • 1:57Madman97Do you not see the problem? Someone has to fix it.
  • 1:57SuperSajuukThat isn't a fucking problem.
  • 1:57Madman97It's called common courtesy.
  • 1:57CheatcodechampThats not the point, the point is it can be abused, it dosn't matter if if it can be fuxed
  • fixed
  • 1:57SuperSajuukSo?
  • if it's abused, the user loses it AFTER it happened!
  • 1:57AtvelonisIt is in no way worth causing vandalism to make the process speed up
  • 1:57SuperSajuukwe do NOT assume that a user will abuse it before they've even had the damn button!
  • this is proof of a lack of good faith
  • 1:58Madman97That's why voting is what I like to call, "Insurance."
  • 1:58SuperSajuukand that's not meant to put people down
  • No it isn't, it is a popularity contest
  • 1:58Madman97Just because you don't mean to hit someone with a car doesn't mean it can't happen.
  • 1:58AtvelonisIt's still important to keep the fact that users are capable of vandalism in the back of your mind
  • 1:58SuperSajuukAtvelonis
  • 1:59CheatcodechampI assume good faith until either you prove otherwise. By the time you are up for being a mod or Sysop, you should have had the time to show who you are, at this point we have an idea who they can and will behave.
  • 1:59SuperSajuukthat is bad faith
  • 1:59AtvelonisNo, it isn't. It's being cautious.
  • 1:59SuperSajuukbeing over cautious about rollback ?
  • 2:00AtvelonisWhen someone makes an edit, I am never expecting vandalism.
  • All the same, you can't ignore the fact that vandalism is a real thing.
  • We wouldn't have the patroller position in the first place if vandalism didn't exist.
  • 2:01SuperSajuukyes, vandalism happens
  • but patroller wasn't created from vandalism. The wiki has ALWAYS had rollback but it just decided to have a custom group made.
  • a user can easily revert vandalism just by having rollback and NO custodian tools
  • 2:02AtvelonisRollback wouldn't exist if there was no vandalism.
  • 2:02SuperSajuukRollback is a core MediaWiki flag.
  • 2:02Madman97You are not getting that it can still happen. Shouldn't we try to prevent it?
  • Instead of going off of a hunch?
  • 2:02SuperSajuukNo, you make a judgement call and assume good faith. If the user abuses the tool AFTER they get it, they lose it
  • 2:02Madman97How many times do they abuse it before they get ousted?
  • 2:02SuperSajuukI should not need to go through a pointless vote for one extra button that I can replicate with the history page
  • you would get a single warning and then it would be lost.
  • in fact, rollback is generally only meant to be used for vandalism, nothing more.
  • 2:03Madman97And from who would you get the warning?
  • 2:03AtvelonisSajuuk, with that logic everyone should have sysop powers.
  • 2:03SuperSajuukNo.
  • 2:04Atvelonis"Well, they haven't done anything bad YET, so of course it's safe to make them administrators"
  • 2:04Madman97Well guess what Sajuuk. I NOMINATE MYSELF, because in good faith, I think I have what it takes to be an Admin.
  • 2:04SuperSajuuk@Madman: anyone? if a user sees another abusing a tool, he/she should have every right to call them up on it. Why do you think Erik the Mad has a long talkpage history of users complaining about abuse of undo?
  • way to take the whole thing out of context
  • @Atvelonis: how on earth is someone meant to prove they will NOT abuse the additional access tools of sysop until they've GOTTEN the flag?!
  • seriously.
  • how can I abuse delete pages until after I have it?! only sysops can delete pages!
  • so how am I meant to prove I won't abuse it if I don't have it?!
  • 2:05Madman97(That wasn't my point Sajuuk) The point was that just because someone maybe could make a mistake once or twice by accident and then having them getting their post taken from them without voting on it seems like even more of a waste of time than voting itself.
  • And one more thing, in response to your last question.
  • Insurance. Voting gives people confidence and, as you might say it, "Good faith", reinforced by the fact that you played by the systems rules.
  • 2:07SuperSajuukand as I have said a lot of times recently
  • rules are not the law
  • 2:07AtvelonisSajuuk, you prove it by making good edits and showing that you are responsible.
  • 2:07SuperSajuukthey are simply guidelines that determine best practice
  • 2:07AtvelonisIf they're not laws, then why do we ban people for breaking them?
  • 2:07Madman97Exactly.
  • Took the words right out of my mouth.
  • 2:07SuperSajuukpeople get blocked based on a JUDGEMENT CALL by the sysops
  • 2:07Madman97Mods ban people from chat.
  • 2:08SuperSajuukbecause the policies are written to make them laws
  • when they are not
  • because
  • the previous administration who wrote them were more interested in restricting what people could do when it's not about restricting user's ability to do things
  • a wiki is about a collaboration, this isn't some democracy where sysops make rules and everyone bends over like servants to do what they want.
  • 2:09Madman97Or they could have just wanted the chat mods to keep order and things got out of hand.
  • 2:09SuperSajuukNo, the policies for chat were written by Jimeee who wanted everyone to stop having fun, I was here when that happened
  • you couldn't say anything without stupid warnings
  • 2:09Madman97Literally, that was the only reason he created those rules?
  • 2:10SuperSajuukthe chat was not a welcoming place as anything you say could be used to get you kicked
  • 2:10Madman97Just because you couldn't say the word "C*nt" in capital letters doesn't make the chat an unwelcoming place.
  • 2:10AtvelonisIf we take a "meh" approach to policies rather than treating them like laws, the wiki is actually going to deteriorate
  • 2:10SuperSajuukJimeee, for all he claimed, did nothing to improve the wiki in the last year. All he did was go around telling people off for policy violations, when maybe he should have realised that the policy should have been changed, but he just kept adding policy after policy to give himself more reasons to block people for one violation.
  • No, it won't.
  • because if the wiki has sysops who actually know what they're doing and not incompetents (no offence meant towards CCC, I assume you to be a competent sysop based on your experience elsewhere), we won't have a police state where one bad edit equals a block
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_Can't_Follow_All_The_Rules,_All_The_Time< read the "Nutshell" bit
  • yes, it's Wikipedia, but completely relevant to any wiki on the entire internet.
  • 2:12Madman97But you just told me that anyone who calls out a bad edit for a patroller or something would get One warning and then a ban, one more mistake before they get sh*tcanned. How is that not a police state?
  • 2:12SuperSajuukNo, I didn't say that Madman, you took me out of context
  • I said that if a rollback was abusing the tool, it's fine for him to be warned by anyone about it
  • and if he ignores another editor, it shows he has no interest in taking on board advice from the editors of the wiki.
  • which makes him liable to lose the flag
  • patroller and rollback are two different things completely, something this wiki decided to merge and confuse the meanings of
  • 2:14Madman97"@Madman: anyone? if a user sees another abusing a tool, he/she should have every right to call them up on it. Why do you think Erik the Mad has a long talkpage history of users complaining about abuse of undo?" Your exact words when I asked you who would give the warnings if someone made a bad edit with their tools.
  • 2:14SuperSajuukAnd where do I see the words "they'd get one warning and then a ban" ?
  • and why the fuck would someone be blocked for abusing a rollback button? they'd just lose the flag and continue editing as though they didn't have the flag
  • 2:15Madman97You said anyone, and previously, you said "I should not need to go through a pointless vote for one extra button that I can replicate with the history page you would get a single warning and then it would be lost." One warning? How ridiculous.
  • 2:15SuperSajuukNo, it's obvious you are taking what I am saying out of context and using them in the wrong context.
  • I did not say that at all
  • 2:15Madman97I asked you how many warnings a person would get! I literally copy and pasted what you said!
  • 2:16SuperSajuukbut where, in these copy/pastes, have I even alluded to what you are claiming?
  • you are saying one thing and pasting evidence that doesn't even prove it!
  • 2:16Madman97SuperSajuuk No, you make a judgement call and assume good faith. If the user abuses the tool AFTER they get it, they lose it 2:02 Madman97 How many times do they abuse it before they get ousted? 2:02 SuperSajuuk I should not need to go through a pointless vote for one extra button that I can replicate with the history page you would get a single warning and then it would be lost. in fact, rollback is generally only meant to be used for vandalism, nothing more
  • 2:16SuperSajuukthanks for copying IN CONTEXT >_<
  • MisterSir has joined the chat. 
  • 2:17SuperSajuukand I mean that a user would receive a warning and that would be a reminder for them that rollback is only for reverting vandalism, not just every edit you do not like
  • if a user continues to get requests for explaining rollback reverted edits on non-vandalism, that shows they believe the rollback to be a button to revert any edits they don't like, and they'd lose the flag
  • that's how it works everywhere else.
  • this is like one of the very few wiki's with a warped idea on actually how to run one, no offence.
  • 2:18MisterSirI think
  • 2:18Madman97Ugh, this is the right context! Your point towards CCC is that we shouldn't have a police state where one bad edit equals a block. I simply brought up the fact that you had previously said that a person would get one warning and then they would lose the tool.
  • 2:18SuperSajuukbut you are making it sound like that if a user loses a flag, they can't continue contributing!
  • just because a user LOSES a flag doesn't mean he can't get it back.
  • if he showed he knows how to use it properly, he can get it back.
  • 2:19Madman97Loses his position I mean, but how can someone spawn good faith for themselves if they had failed previously? Who wants that as their patroller?
  • 2:19SuperSajuukbecause people change?
  • they work on their flaws?
  • 2:20Madman97Discussion is just words if no one officially agrees to anything. Thats why voting is necessary.
  • 2:20SuperSajuukNo Madman
  • voting is NOT NECESSARY
  • 2:20Madman97I agree people can change, but that doesn't change the fact that they can always make another mistake.
  • 2:20SuperSajuukand we punish for one mistake? no.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_Can't_Follow_All_The_Rules,_All_The_Time< read this
  • read it in full
  • 2:21Madman97That's what you were insinuating with your past comments. I apologize if that's not what you meant, but that's what it sounded like.
  • 2:21MisterSir
  • MisterSir watches attentively
  • 2:21SuperSajuukthat wasn't what I was trying to insinuate in any way
  • I just think we are being way too harsh, too restrictive and being overall overprotective over a bunch of user rights that don't make a user any more important than others
  • if I were to become a sysop, I wouldn't start just making changes just because I can.
  • I would do it the REAL wiki way, which is to gather a consensus through discussion.
  • as I have said previously
  • policies don't dictate the proper way, they're just the communities consensus on best practice, every case is different.
  • that is why I keep explaining this.
  • 2:23AtvelonisSo, you want us to stop using voting and just use discussions?
  • 2:23Madman97It's anarchy, is what it is by definition.

Update: Thanks to patroller, user: Cheatcodechamp, the rest of the surviving records before the chat crashed are here.

SuperSajuuk

No it isn't anarchy is where one user just makes all the changes he wants without a consensus @Atvelonis: I already suggested this and the community agreed to it months ago 5:24

 Madman97

Well Sajuuk, I really hope then you will put forth this idea to the rest of the community to see how it goes. 5:24 

SuperSajuuk

no shit >_> no offence but I'm not like other sysops I don't go around acting like I get to do whatever I want just because I have sysop I do things the diplomatic and APPROPRIATE way I do things the way the community wants it I do not go around saying "well I'm a sysop so I don't give a fuck what you say, changing" >_> 5:25 

Madman97

Clearly its what we want, since not one of us have agreed with you.

5:26 

SuperSajuuk

because you are stuck in the past, no offence. that isn't intended to be insulting or anything

5:26

 Madman97

And you, my dear boy, I think have gone absolutely bonkers. No offense.  ;) 

5:26 

SuperSajuuk

but, you don't seem open to any change, you just want to keep things as they are because it's convenient for you.

5:27 

Atvelonis 

I see absolutely no reason to stop voting and only use discussions. They're almost the same thing, but the final results of discussions are harder to keep track of than votes.

5:27

 SuperSajuuk

the thing is I don't have a problem with votes but I do have a problem when it's the only thing being used to achieve consensus discussion first, votes second if a vote is needed, it can be done after a discussion

5:27 

Madman97

That was my whole point to begin with! 

5:27 

SuperSajuuk 

have any of you looked through the old consensus track threads? the ones with lots of posts?

5:27 

Atvelonis 

Wait Sheesh

5:28

 SuperSajuuk

I invite you all to look through the Ct board and see how much tempers were frayed in votes to change things. 

5:28

 Atvelonis

I thought you wanted us to stop using voting altogether 

5:28 

SuperSajuuk

No lol 

5:28 

Atvelonis

Discussion then voting makes sense I guess 5:28

 Madman97

?

5:28

 SuperSajuuk

I just feel the community should prioritise a discussion first before making the vote 

5:28 

Madman97

But I already said that. In the very beginning of this discussion.

5:29 

SuperSajuuk 

a vote can be used if the discussion is very hard to determine a consensus but it should not be the be-all-and-end-all for consensus consensus can be reached via discussion look at all the ct's to remove rights that should show exactly why bypassing discussions and using only votes is bad. 

5:30

 Madman97

I said that voting should involved a discussion first and then voting second in matters of importance. But voting I think is still necessary to promoting users to positions or policy changes. 

5:30 

SuperSajuuk

a vote can be done after a discussion. IMO, I believe that granting a flag should be based on rationales (aka reasons), not how many support / oppose a user has if you are promoted only based on a count of support/oppose, that is just a pure and simple popularity contest 

5:31

Madman97

the problem is if we have a vote, it makes it a popularity contest

1:20

 Atvelonis

sort of 

1:20 

SuperSajuuk 

and seriously, this shouldn't be a trust exercise 1:20 

Madman97 

That is why a discussion should be put into place before we vote instead of just hopping right to it. 

1:20

 SuperSajuuk

it should be "assume good faith when giving rights"

1:20

 Atvelonis

Timeoin should definitely have a say in this 1:20 

SuperSajuuk

assume the user will use it properly until they abuse it 

1:20 

Madman97

It doesn't hurt to have a little insurance however.

1:20

 Cheatcodechamp

Sometimes that is better then promoting somebody who nobody trusts or respects. 

1:21 

SuperSajuuk

I disagree but I respect what you are saying  :) 5:31

 ScholarOfTheScrolls 

ded

ScholarOfTheScrolls has joined the chat. 

5:31

 Madman97 

This was the entire discussion we had previously. 

5:31

 SuperSajuuk 

Skolr, it ain't dead lol 

5:31 

ScholarOfTheScrolls

Yh my chat froze

:P

5:31

 SuperSajuuk

lol @Madman: I must have missed it, sorry  :/ 

5:31 

Madman97

You made it sound as if voting was unnecessary altogether.

5:31 

SuperSajuuk

however, discussion over votes is my philosophy and it works most of the time 95% of the time, you don't need to vote on wiki things  :) there is a 5% where a vote may be necessary

5:32 

Madman97 


On promotions and policy changes you do. Anything else that seems trivial, like a minor edit change, sure, no vote needed.

This is the final record before everything was wiped. I urge you to consider which side you would take and list it below in the comments. Good day.