TLP Community Issues

What makes calling someone out publicly for poor TLP behavior any different than calling them out on poor editing behavior?

Nothing. No one should feel personally called out either way. Thanks for pointing that out, that should also change if that’s a thing like this thread was without guidelines on how to report properly.

All public websites have toxicity issues with arguments and egos. We all have read the threads of arguments between users. Having a system that publicly calls anyone out in a personal way is breading toxic behavior. As I said, Reports should be standardized, sent to the person and void of any mentions of the persons name or your opinion of their actions, only what their edit or draft did or didn’t do.

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 7:38:45 AM

I mean that's like... the majority of the purpose Ask The Tropers serves, so if that's an issue then that's a whole new thread to start. Personally I know there's a popcorning problem but it is pretty helpful to simply identify pages that were edited by problematic tropers so the community can help restore them and learn what not to do.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:31:43 AM

There's precedent here too (we've done reports this way pretty much forever), unless the administration wants to change that.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:36:27 AM

The moderation and the site relies on public reporting on Ask The Tropers for wiki issues and I do think it's helpful for the most part despite its flaws. Me and the other mods also try our best to make sure things are civil.

However, if the admins do not want users to be publicly reported anymore on Ask The Tropers or elsewhere, that's a larger discussion that we'll have to have in another thread/elsewhere. Of course, I know I don't have actual authority in this matter but it is something that's larger than the scope of this thread.

Edited by MacronNotes on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:44:32 AM

I never said to stop public reporting. I said to standardize it and make sure the user gets an immediate link to it. As well as always avoiding using the person username and avoiding opinions of their person. Only the facts about the edit or TLP draft.

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 3:45:00 AM

But you can see their username on the edit and draft anyway? And having their username is how we can see their edit history and fix repeated mistakes. It also makes it easier to search for past reports, whether it's someone else's name you're looking up to reference repeated offenses or your own to see if you were called out for something in the past.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:47:13 AM

This is probably better for a different discussion as Macron said, but I think usernames are incredibly important—both in case someone creates similar/identical problems in the future after a previous report, and also if a user ban-evades—knowing usernames sometimes helps catch sockpuppet accounts.

I'm going to drop this topic though for a different discussion—I just wanted to get this out.

EDIT: Partially d by Mew's comment

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:47:21 AM

Everyone can already see their username on the draft or edit. There seems to serve no purpose in using it, everyone will know the second they click the link. You shouldn’t be commenting if you haven’t clicked said link. Using their name seems to only serve to piss someone off because it sounds personal and a thread putting them, not just their work, on public display.

If they have a bunch of issues you can link to their history or individual drafts/edits and point them out. Still, not needing to specifically mention their name in your words or about them as a person. You should also be sending the link of your query to said person so they aren’t blind-sided and discover it.

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 7:40:01 AM

This needs to be its own thread—this would be a massive change in how we approach reports.

If everyone's OK with it I can try to draft an OP for such a thread, although admittedly I'm having a little trouble thinking of a good synopsis of the existing discussion for it as I'm a little confused as to what specifically is now wanted of us in reports vs. before.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:52:04 AM

I'd rather let the mods decide how far to take this suggestion as this would significantly affect their job and workload.

So, an internal mod discussion then?

I'm good with that. Let the mods and Kory figure it out internally.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:58:37 AM

Oh I’m not a moderator I’m an admin. So these things I’m saying are the eventual changes coming but nothing is finalized yet. If you want to help shape the new standardization please give some feedback. But no usernames or personal opinions of the person will be used in AT Ts once we post the new rules besides certain cases until pinging is added. I can make a bulletin and a thread stating these changes once they are finalized and change the header on ATT.

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 7:41:36 AM

I didn't say you were a mod, I meant you and the mods have an internal discussion.

I'm not going to argue anymore, I'm too tired, but I will say that this is going to be a massive change for the site. At least a bulletin IMO.

It’ll be announced. But no, it won’t be that big of a change. It’s just not using the persons name in the main report (unless to ping them when available) or giving your personal opinion about that person to avoid personal attacks and arguments.

It’s not like someone will be punished for using someone else’s username. It’ll just be the policy hopefully most will eventually follow and the mods won’t have to do as much. I’m sure it’ll take some time getting used to it. It’s just an effort to avoid some arguments like the one that just happened in this thread.

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 5:41:19 AM

Question: what about ban evasion cases where saying who is suspected of ban evasion is kind of important? Especially for tracking future sockpuppet accounts, especially if it’s a serial ban evader?

My main question actually pertains to giving the person in question a link to the thread about them. In the past this has resulted in massive flameouts where the user(s) would engage in a flurry of everything from insults to suicidal threats, and these reports were never anything more offensive than merely stating that this user had, say, treated someone rudely or was breaking the ROCEJ in their editing. These incidents have made it hard for me and others to feel comfortable always informing a troper about their ATT thread, because the last thing anyone wants is for a meltdown in an area where the mods can't respond as easily. Now, nothing like this has happened in a while and it may very well not happen again, especially if the standardization of the reports works out... However, is there any plan for what we could do if such a thing does happen, especially if sending links to people becomes standard practice?

In some cases I can imagine it would be best to make a private report, especially if we have concerns that the troper has bigoted views or is purposefully trolling people. Not every case can be so easily predicted, however.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 2nd 2023 at 8:57:38 AM

If it’s already a public discussion, yes they should get a link to it. They can easily find it anyways, it’s not private and it pertains to their work. I def wouldn’t want to find any discussions regarding my work without my knowledge. Either make them all private or they should get a link.

And if someone responds that way by just a link to a discussion regarding their work not following the guidelines when explicitly told to do so, obviously they need to be banned and would eventually explode.

Ban evasions and other serious cases should be reported to mods and isn’t a job for regular users to discuss.

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:39:24 AM

But do we really want that to be public? Jay mentioned suicide threats—I can back that up too, I was in I think two now-private ATT queries where someone did that. I know of at least one where someone gave death threats as well. I'd rather not risk it personally.

Also, I still haven't gotten an answer on my ban evasion question. How will not saying people's usernames affect our ability to track down ban evaders, especially serial ones? Apologies if you know this already Kory, but we have a policy of reverting all edits made by sockpuppet accounts of banned users—and there's even a thread for doing so. Even mods use the thread to announce ban evaders they caught whose edits need reversion. This is done, IIRC, as a way to Unperson ban evaders, to ensure they don't come back and others don't attempt ban evasion—ban evasion results in an instant bounce.

If we can't mention anyone's usernames publicly, how will we catch sockpuppet accounts? Would we say something like "this account", potholed to the edits of the possible sock? Would we have to make private reports? If so, will that make it harder to track down future sock accounts if it's someone who makes a lot?

Sorry if I seem frantic, I'm not. I just would like to know what we will do going forward.

EDIT: d, but now I have another question.

If ban evasion cases aren't public, wouldn't that make it harder to track serial ban evaders' future accounts?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 2nd 2023 at 9:41:08 AM

How are ban evasion cases the job of regular users? Maybe I’m misunderstanding but I thought dealing with ban evaders was a mod duty, not something any regular users have to deal with?

Want what to be public? The discussion is already public. If you don’t want to “risk it”, then make a private ATT query for the mods attention. But if the discussion is already public you aren’t avoiding anything as it is.

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:48:01 AM

Regular users are the ones who catch many ban evaders through noticing similar patterns of behavior, and we're also the ones often asked to revert the mess ban evaders make. It's a mod's job to confirm it, however it has always been the community as a whole working to spot ban evaders and reports on ATT are a dime a dozen.

And I think Mayor was referring to the meltdowns being public. The users in question all eventually got banned, however the mods could not step in fast enough to prevent things from getting out of control; users would try desperately to reason with these people and calm them down, to no avail.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 2nd 2023 at 9:46:44 AM

The way reports work on ATT, someone does something wrong, a troper spots it, and they make a report. The mods see the report, and act accordingly. Mods aren't the only ones who can track down problem users—if they were, their workload would more than quadruple.

In the case of ban evasion, there are some ban evaders who have a habit of editing the same pages and making the same mistakes on multiple accounts. The mods wouldn't be able to catch all these people alone, so regular users often catch them and report them. And I can confirm that there are some very, very dedicated ban evaders—I believe one of the more infamous has been attempting it to this day since 2015.

Regular users don't actually ban these people, but they do help catch/report them if/when they show up. This system is how ATT reports have worked for years, not just for ban evaders but for anyone who breaks rules. The input of regular users is important because often regular users are the ones who spot someone doing something wrong.

Am I being clear enough? Do you have other questions?

EDIT: d

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 2nd 2023 at 9:47:23 AM

Interesting, thanks for the breakdown. If that’s how ban evaders are caught then those could be the exceptional cases. Any other cases to consider?

Edited by kory on Sep 2nd 2023 at 6:50:07 AM

I'll let other users take over. I'd think of some but it's getting late where I am and I have to eventually go to sleep.

This is kind of a case and a general statement regarding not being able to name users in reports, which is that a lot of what eventually leads to mod action relies on community identification of a problem. The site is just too big with too many users for mods to 1) be able to identify every infracture of a policy and 2) to remember each policy infracture by a particular user to see if this warrants mod intervention or just a notifier. A lot of what eventually leads to mod action relies on the community stumbling on an issue, verifying with others on ATT that it is a policy violation of some sort, and checking to see if this is a patterned behavior that may need to be addressed with something more than just a notifier sent. Especially for that last part, naming users is important for searching up past issues.

Here's a good example of this that I personally was involved in:

• Here I make an ATT about alphabetization b/c of the actions of a particular user [1]
• Months later, I post another unrelated formatting question because of a particular user that I realize later was the same user from last time [2]. You can see here, that I start to wonder about whether this is patterned behavior, so I end up searching the user's name on the ATT search bar which leads to...
• ...me finding several reports about them, all about formatting issues and wonks. I collected them and made a more specific and formal report [3] that led to them being temporarily banned while this was sorted through

That is not an uncommon chain of events and I think is a crucial part of site moderation since it takes some of the work off of moderators and helps address what may first seem like one-off issues

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 2nd 2023 at 7:10:58 AM