User talk:Raine Valen/Archive 27

Feedback_talk:Regina_Buenaobra#The_Charr_Prisoner

"Please don't troll the wiki, especially not on dev talkpages. Thanks."
Disagrement do not equal troll. I really do think that plot should be changed to match the new non-torture policy. I find inconsistency unsettling. Thank you and happy new year. --Bob 16:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that it's difficult to take you seriously when you suggest things like Gwen "Goremonger" Thackeray (the GOREMONGER, ffs) petting the thing she hates most, these cat monsters that Anet designed to be horrible (y'know, with the Searing and all that jazz), until they... purr... like kittens.

There are some things that straddle the line between "troll post" and "horribly misguided post", but there is no way that anyone can be as misguided as you claim to be there. — Raine Valen 16:49, 1 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Dunno if this is the right page

I have a proposal. Instead of tagging 100 pages for deletion and having you go through them all and deleting them and then bawwing about it. Any chance I can become sysop for like 1 hour and deleting the crap myself. and if I do anything bad, you can ban me for idk 3 months or something. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 04:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on my iPod, so I wouldn't be doing them, anyway. Banning Bob on this thing was a trip to hell and back.

That being said, I do like that idea much better than the idea of you tagging a few hundred pages, but I can't make you a sysop. Even for an hour. I think this would be worth bringing up someplace else, though (GWW:RFC?), and I'll support the motion, if you want to get the process started.

Also consder requesting a bot run; Wikichu is a beast sysop. — Raine Valen 4:34, 3 Jan 2011 (UTC)

I've done this kind of thing on other wikis. Instead of going through their list of double redirects and dealing with the headaches of protected pages, misspelled pages, and all that other crap, I just asked the bureaucrat if I could be a sysop for a bit to deal with it. He was fine with it as long as I promised to be quick and let him know when I was done so he could de-op me. (Of course, this was the old d&d wiki, so even working quickly it took me a good two and a half days to deal with it all.) I guess my point is, don't bother with GWW:RFC, just ask a bureaucrat directly. It's not like you're me, I don't see why people would object. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually although he idea is sound, i wouldnt just ask the a BC. they don't have those inherent powers and it would just cause a shitstorm in the unlikely event any did promote you. I think unfortunately the way forward is a shitty policy discussion. sigh. -- Salome 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Feh, I didn't really think Wikichu was even still around nor usable. And yeah, I figure it wasn't really going to be that easy. It was just worth a try. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So did we get this sorted somehow? I still support the TempOp proposal. — Raine Valen 5:19, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just went ahead and tagged everything because nobody said anything, then got bitched at. So, you don't have to worry. I think I got every page, for now. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA Deletion

You would probably be better off poking a bcrat to have it resolved than to make a big fuss over deleting it. --JonTheMon 00:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Having it deleted establishes a precedent that I'd like to have around for reference. — Raine Valen 4:03, 5 Jan 2011 (UTC)

What precedent are you trying to establish? I mean, it has already been established that troll(bait) RfAs are closed awfully quick. [1], [2], [3] (though that last one went on for a while, IIRC). --Riddle 04:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A much more general precedent, Riddle. I'd like to be able to say with confidence that the wiki recognizes bullshit and doesn't have a problem with it being shitcanned. — Raine Valen 4:27, 5 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Although the RFA is clearly a trolling RFA, it's existence does no harm to the wiki and we already have a procedure which will allow idiotic RFA's to be shot down in flames like this one. People will vote, it takes all of 4 seconds. Even if people don't vote, BC's will still recognise its some shitter. Therefore I don't see the need of setting a precedent for RFA deletion by Sysops. Not that I think it will be abused, just that I think it will cause wiki drama with trolls moaning about how sysops are stopping them from running, etc... IMHO let the trolls run and let the community show their disdain, much better than giving sysops another administrative task. Just my 2 cents though Raine. I don't feel strongly enough about it to oppose the deletion though, so if you want to, go ahead. :) -- Salome 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we run every troll incident through the gears of our bureaucracy? Or should obvious trolling just get axed? I believe the latter is better than the former. — Raine Valen 20:39, 6 Jan 2011 (UTC)

You make it sound like a lengthy process Raine. We let the page sit there, people who are interested vote on it and then the BC's archive it. It causes 0 wiki drama and no one cares and everyone who wants to, gets to tell the troll hes being a troll. It works well. Deleting RFA's however because we believe them to be trolling attempts (and i'm not doubting that this isn't one) will just generate alot more wiki drama than is needed. As when this precedent is followed later on with more established trolls making troll election attempts (see every BC election ever), it will just generate a mass of "but i was being serious!" and "Help help!!! I'm being oppressed!". To be honest Raine I can't be arsed with the needless drama and the faux-indignation it will generate and the lengthy debates on freedom of speech, IRC cabal etc... The current way we have allows the community to express their opinions on troll RFA's in a way which guarantees the person knows he's a numpty without any help from us, the sysop team. I don't understand why you want to rock that particular boat and bring in a level of subjective decision making for permitting the existence of an RFA's on the sysops teams behalf. I'm all for nipping trolling in the bud, this however isn't needed and will just create undue drama in the future. The way to deal with trolls is to not give them things they can shout and moan about, letting the community shoot down the RFA, does this. Deleting their RFA just plays into what any troll wants, an event which they can use to cause drama. Also as a general rule, i'm opposed to devolving more discretionary powers to the sysop team, especially things that are in the current remit of our very able BC's. -- Salome 21:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"You make it sound like a lengthy process Raine. We let the page sit there, people who are interested vote on it and then the BC's archive it."

Deleting it is even faster. We don't end up with walls of "oppose" (i.e. successful trolling!), either.

"It causes 0 wiki drama and no one cares and everyone who wants to, gets to tell the troll hes being a troll."

The troll already knows that they're being a troll. This isn't news to them: once again, the walls of "oppose", the attention, are the goal of the troll attempt.

"It works well."

I don't think that's ideal, at all.

"Deleting RFA's however because we believe them to be trolling attempts (and i'm not doubting that this isn't one) will just generate alot more wiki drama than is needed. As when this precedent is followed later on with more established trolls making troll election attempts (see every BC election ever), it will just generate a mass of "but i was being serious!" and "Help help!!! I'm being oppressed!"."

There will be drama. There's always drama when something changes. Trolls won't like it, and they'll make up bs complaints to squeeze more attention out of the situation (which is, again, trolling). I think we know how to deal with that by now.

"To be honest Raine I can't be arsed with the needless drama and the faux-indignation it will generate and the lengthy debates on freedom of speech, IRC cabal etc..."

Then you don't have to deal with the drama. That's perfectly fine with me – there are plenty of things that I don't want to be involved with, so I'm simply not. As far as faux-indignation goes, why do we care about it if it's false? Trolls whining that their playthings have been taken away does not make me sad. There is no freedom of speech here; this is the internet. People are free to level accusations against some "IRC Cabal", we've seen it in the past. Will said accusations (still) be ridiculous? Yes.

"The current way we have allows the community to express their opinions on troll RFA's in a way which guarantees the person knows he's a numpty without any help from us, the sysop team."

Again, trolls know that they're trolls. They don't need RFAs to confirm this.

"I don't understand why you want to rock that particular boat and bring in a level of subjective decision making for permitting the existence of an RFA's on the sysops teams behalf. I'm all for nipping trolling in the bud, this however isn't needed and will just create undue drama in the future."

Because allowing them is negligence (we're supposed to be using our tools to do what's best for the wiki, right?). Oh, yes, there will be drama; it's part of making an omelette.

"The way to deal with trolls is to not give them things they can shout and moan about, letting the community shoot down the RFA, does this. Deleting their RFA just plays into what any troll wants, an event which they can use to cause drama."

This is how we deal with trolls, no? If I recall, there was a great deal of bitching and moaning, but was the end result not desirable? Personally, I think that case made a good point: it's better to plow through a shitstorm into the clear than to stand where you are and get rained on.

"Also as a general rule, i'm opposed to devolving more discretionary powers to the sysop team, especially things that are in the current remit of our very able BC's."

I feel the opposite way about it: I feel that sysops should have more discretionary power, because discretion isn't inhibited by wikilawyering. Whenever there are strict laws, there will be loopholes, and people will find them. Trolls will find them. And then we end up with nonsense like RFAs for users who've existed for a day. — Raine Valen 21:50, 6 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Salome: [1]. I'm of the mind that sysops should control the situation before the bcrats have to. If it's an obvious troll RfA, and the bcrats have to delete + ban, the sysops have failed in their duties. Is there potential for troll drama? Yes, and there always will be. The only thing we can do is make the drama less painful. --Riddle 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Raine (and Riddle), I think you would be right if this were a clear-cut case of trolling, or if it were a grey-area case of trolling that was producing drama. As it stands, in this particular case, I think it's fair to simply assume cluelessness over trolling. The precedent of deleting disruptive troll RFAs is already set, and I'm specifically opposed to the precedent of sysops deleting RFAs solely based on expected outcome or suitability, for slippery slope reasons. It should've quietly been closed and wikilife move on. If I'd been thinking, I would've pinged Aii about it when I added it to the main RFA page, but I think I was overestimating the bcrats' activeness in general, especially during holidaytime. - Tanetris 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You mean like just letting people oppose and having the RfA close on its own? k. Furthermore, this discussion is way more feeding trolling than just typing ~~~~ under oppose-- it wasn't an issue until you made it one. Also 10 votes isn't a wall. – Emmett 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

10 is 10 more than should need to be there. In order for 10 votes not to happen in the future, we're having this discussion. — Raine Valen 23:06, 6 Jan 2011 (UTC)

I know your intentions are sound Raine but I still think it's causing more drama than just letting it closer naturally. -- Salome 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"23:16 (Deletion log) . . Aiiane (Talk " — contribs

Would doing that, say, when the RfA was created have caused any net loss? — Raine Valen 5:21, 9 Jan 2011 (UTC)

Numbutt

You protected the page against being created by anon, and then created it. elix Omni 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Derp. — Raine Valen 1:51, 7 Jan 2011 (UTC)