Superconsensus in crowners discussion

Exactly. One heated argument isn't worth leaving permanently over. People are only getting upset because we all care so much and want to make good decisions here — but nobody wants to see either of you disappear for good. I just want ya'll to take care of yourselves for a bit.

I’m not leaving permanently I’ve decided. I may just take a break for tonight. I’ll be back in the morning—I just need to detox tonight if that’s ok.

Detox away, I've found myself taking numerous breaks here and a few long bike rides.

To clarify, I don't think anyone is arguing in bad faith. The main issue is that we all have very different ideas about what constitutes a) a problem and b) how to fix said problem.

Right, a detox is the best thing to do right now. My advice for every too-heated wiki discussion is to just walk away and find something fun and relaxing to do. It's just hard because this wiki is a soul-sucking Lotus-Eater Machine where issues like NRLEP sections are suddenly massive deals. It's all good.

I should be leaving this thread too since I'm not done with work but procrastination is my drug of choice.

Agreed. No one here is arguing in bad faith. Believe me, I've been part of discussions where people were (anyone who was around for the discussion where we solidified our ZCE policy will know what I'm talking about). I vote that we change the thread name so everyone knows that we're now discussing drive-by voting, wait a day to give everyone a chance to cool down, and resume the discussion tomorrow.

here's an attempt to collate the suggestions made thus far, including the rejected ones for the sake of easy viewing:

• add selectable pre-defined messages with frequently chosen reasons for voting. admin-level change.
• add to crowner entries links to posts where those crowner actions are suggested so people can easily find the discussion. mod-level change.
• link to prior posts in the discussion you are continuing so that people can trace back the conversation path. user-level change.
• de-anonymize crowner votes to mods only. this one got some pushback in the general hooraw, but i would like to revisit it. admin-level change.
• reduce consensus majority required from 2:1 to 1.5:1. user-level change. rejected.
• remove undefended crowner votes from the final vote tally. user-level change. rejected.
• de-anonymize crowner votes to all users. admin-level change. rejected.

i think that's what we've got so far. what do yall think?

e: if folks would rather continue tomorrow instead of today, that's fine with me. ill leave this post up for contemplation in the meantime.

Edited by ChloeJessica on Sep 4th 2022 at 5:37:25 AM

We're all discussing the RL cleanup thread here, correct? This thread was to see about lowering the voting requirement for crowners, which consensus seems to be against.

Maybe we should take all this back to the NRLEP thread, and close this one out.

Maybe, yeah. This one was meant to be more general, but since nobody's really interested in changing the entire site's crowner mechanic...

We could also rename the thread to discuss encouraging editors to engage with TRS and Cleanup and all more generally.

So, we actually had a thread for the TRS version of this issue back when "getting more engagement" was a hot topic over there. It's sunken into the depths, though.

people did express concerns with crowners in other places having similar problems with unexplained downvotes. it might be worth making this more widely applicable.