How do we prevent non-mod staff from using mod actions inappropriately? April 1, 2025 11:01 AM Subscribe
If a user is a member of staff, and is not a moderator, should they have mod powers? Are there situations where it would be appropriate for them to use mod powers? If not, should they have mod powers at all? If they must have mod powers, what policies are/should be in place to prevent misuse? If they do misuse mod powers, how should this community deal with it?
(Going to describe the inciting incident here as gently as I can below the fold)
In this thread, user kirkaracha made an ill-advised comment (reproduced here) on religious conflict in the Middle East, and received replies criticising it. Not ideal, but unsurprising.
There was apparently some confusion about the presence of a mod-note border around his comment and/or the language he used to indicate that he had not, in fact, meant the comment to be an official staff comment. Unfortunate, but understandable.
He then used moderator actions to delete his original comment, and a reply, and (probably) to edit his comment text out of another reply, leaving behind a comment without a mod-note border to acknowledge the first two actions, which does not appear on the Recent Mod Actions page. This is a wholly different issue from the original ill-advised comment, and has drawn a lot of backlash.
Firstly, the types of moderator actions performed (self-deletion of comments with replies, editing others' comments) are considered objectionable by many members, and were performed without giving any good reason.
Secondly, and most importantly, my understanding is that kirkaracha is a member of staff hired specifically for web development on the new website, and not a moderator, and should not be performing mod actions for non-technical reasons at all, especially on other people's comments. Ideally he should not even be able to, but it's understandable on this rickety old site why that's not a simple switch to set for a staff account.
Side note: I believe (but can't find the citations right now) that he and 1adam12 have also very justly emphasised their non-moderator status in recent MeTas where people's animosity towards the mod team got directed towards them. Being both able and willing to misuse mod powers weakens this defence.
He has since apologised for the original post, which is great, but this separate issue remains unaddressed.
So, where do we go from here?
In this thread, user kirkaracha made an ill-advised comment (reproduced here) on religious conflict in the Middle East, and received replies criticising it. Not ideal, but unsurprising.
There was apparently some confusion about the presence of a mod-note border around his comment and/or the language he used to indicate that he had not, in fact, meant the comment to be an official staff comment. Unfortunate, but understandable.
He then used moderator actions to delete his original comment, and a reply, and (probably) to edit his comment text out of another reply, leaving behind a comment without a mod-note border to acknowledge the first two actions, which does not appear on the Recent Mod Actions page. This is a wholly different issue from the original ill-advised comment, and has drawn a lot of backlash.
Firstly, the types of moderator actions performed (self-deletion of comments with replies, editing others' comments) are considered objectionable by many members, and were performed without giving any good reason.
Secondly, and most importantly, my understanding is that kirkaracha is a member of staff hired specifically for web development on the new website, and not a moderator, and should not be performing mod actions for non-technical reasons at all, especially on other people's comments. Ideally he should not even be able to, but it's understandable on this rickety old site why that's not a simple switch to set for a staff account.
Side note: I believe (but can't find the citations right now) that he and 1adam12 have also very justly emphasised their non-moderator status in recent MeTas where people's animosity towards the mod team got directed towards them. Being both able and willing to misuse mod powers weakens this defence.
He has since apologised for the original post, which is great, but this separate issue remains unaddressed.
So, where do we go from here?
is the only way to give the "staff" badge right now to make someone a moderator/administrator? is there permission leveling in the back end right now of any kind?
I really think that in the future we should have more granular badges, but still simple ones, e.g.:
- mod
- board
- dev
- volunteer
- etc.
(the "retired" tag should function as a sort of adjective to append to any of these.) each of these can both imply scope of authority in conversations and convey the user's role vis. access to back-end functionality. (volunteers wouldn't get any mod buttons but might have access to committee-specific private subsites, for example.)
I will say that there is a reasonable cause to have given kirk proper administrative access -- seeing how any features or UI function would be critical for him replicating them in the new site -- but it seems like this was done without a proper top-down discussion of how to use or not use that (and more importantly where and when that role might cause weirdness, e.g. a very authoritative box appears around your comment when you did not intend it).
when roles are about usage conventions rather than formal controls ("you have access to X but you shouldn't actually use it") you need clear and findable documentation for any users who potentially fall into that user category. I have run into this in the past in situations where a CMS might not allow us to be as granular as we want in permission structures, so users have access to publish stuff to a live site when they absolutely shouldn't actually do it. the solution is to a) have a clear monitor of actions and b) be very clear to those users about what buttons not to push and what would happen if they pushed them.
but really the best solution is to have a granular enough system to avoid that conversation, so planning for this sort of permission structure in the new site seems like a straightforward path.
posted by Kybard at 11:13 AM on April 1 [7 favorites]
I really think that in the future we should have more granular badges, but still simple ones, e.g.:
- mod
- board
- dev
- volunteer
- etc.
(the "retired" tag should function as a sort of adjective to append to any of these.) each of these can both imply scope of authority in conversations and convey the user's role vis. access to back-end functionality. (volunteers wouldn't get any mod buttons but might have access to committee-specific private subsites, for example.)
I will say that there is a reasonable cause to have given kirk proper administrative access -- seeing how any features or UI function would be critical for him replicating them in the new site -- but it seems like this was done without a proper top-down discussion of how to use or not use that (and more importantly where and when that role might cause weirdness, e.g. a very authoritative box appears around your comment when you did not intend it).
when roles are about usage conventions rather than formal controls ("you have access to X but you shouldn't actually use it") you need clear and findable documentation for any users who potentially fall into that user category. I have run into this in the past in situations where a CMS might not allow us to be as granular as we want in permission structures, so users have access to publish stuff to a live site when they absolutely shouldn't actually do it. the solution is to a) have a clear monitor of actions and b) be very clear to those users about what buttons not to push and what would happen if they pushed them.
but really the best solution is to have a granular enough system to avoid that conversation, so planning for this sort of permission structure in the new site seems like a straightforward path.
posted by Kybard at 11:13 AM on April 1 [7 favorites]
How about two accounts for kirkaracha, one as a tech and one as a regular user?
Further, anybody who has access to the back end but is not a mod should perhaps also have separate accounts.
Last, a log that automatically registers all mod-type actions. I realize that we already have a log but I’m unsure of its scope.
posted by ashbury at 11:14 AM on April 1 [7 favorites]
Further, anybody who has access to the back end but is not a mod should perhaps also have separate accounts.
Last, a log that automatically registers all mod-type actions. I realize that we already have a log but I’m unsure of its scope.
posted by ashbury at 11:14 AM on April 1 [7 favorites]
I've been wondering for a while why there isn't just a Moderator account that has all of the mod powers. I understand that the old guard liked to have that personal touch, but I don't think we really lose anything by having mod comments delivered from a single entity that isn't linked to any one person's account. It would mean that staff have a necessary personal distance between them and the work, and would also provide a form of moderation log (users can just check the posted comments on the Moderator account to see what they've been doing).
If there needs to be tags, I agree with Kybard that there should be levels of permissions, with contractors/volunteers/temporary staff having the lowest level of access, essentially just a normal user with a badge (or whatever the staff decide).
I do think that this incident was an unfortunate and serious breach of user trust, especially the fact that a user's comment was edited to remove the offending text, and I hope the mod team are addressing that behind the scenes.
I also think that this brings up another question in regards to users being given the ability to delete their own comments: will there be a process of accountability if, for example, someone decides to post some really hideous shit (i.e. slurs, offensive language) aimed at someone who might be viewing the thread in the moment (say, in the middle of an argument where emotions have gotten kind of heated), and then quickly deletes it? Will mods have the ability to see deleted comments (one would assume so) and take action based on something like that? Just something to think about.
posted by fight or flight at 11:29 AM on April 1 [3 favorites]
If there needs to be tags, I agree with Kybard that there should be levels of permissions, with contractors/volunteers/temporary staff having the lowest level of access, essentially just a normal user with a badge (or whatever the staff decide).
I do think that this incident was an unfortunate and serious breach of user trust, especially the fact that a user's comment was edited to remove the offending text, and I hope the mod team are addressing that behind the scenes.
I also think that this brings up another question in regards to users being given the ability to delete their own comments: will there be a process of accountability if, for example, someone decides to post some really hideous shit (i.e. slurs, offensive language) aimed at someone who might be viewing the thread in the moment (say, in the middle of an argument where emotions have gotten kind of heated), and then quickly deletes it? Will mods have the ability to see deleted comments (one would assume so) and take action based on something like that? Just something to think about.
posted by fight or flight at 11:29 AM on April 1 [3 favorites]
His actions seem like a misstep and he should leave the modding to the mods but I don't think this is a big deal.
posted by Diskeater at 11:30 AM on April 1 [27 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 11:30 AM on April 1 [27 favorites]
It may be a big deal to others, I can appreciate that
For me:
- it's not a pattern, but (from what I can tell) a one-off
- we might weigh that against the history of the MeFite and the fact that they are currently working on the site rebuild
- it sounds like they are done with MeTa, and I think their engagement with Site Updates has been beneficial
posted by ginger.beef at 11:56 AM on April 1 [9 favorites]
For me:
- it's not a pattern, but (from what I can tell) a one-off
- we might weigh that against the history of the MeFite and the fact that they are currently working on the site rebuild
- it sounds like they are done with MeTa, and I think their engagement with Site Updates has been beneficial
posted by ginger.beef at 11:56 AM on April 1 [9 favorites]
I think this was a mistake kirkaracha won't repeat. And frimble doesn't participate on the site as a user.
The new site should distinguish between mod and dev roles. A sole(ish) dev on a small site needs "superuser" access to all the site's features, including mod powers, to be able to develop and debug them, but it would be sensible if any "delete this comment" and "edit this comment" shortcuts in the UI were not enabled for devs (I'm thinking here of an old screenshot cortex posted years ago of mod shortcuts appended to every comment byline). Ultimately you can't stop a sysadmin from issuing a
posted by Klipspringer at 12:00 PM on April 1 [8 favorites]
The new site should distinguish between mod and dev roles. A sole(ish) dev on a small site needs "superuser" access to all the site's features, including mod powers, to be able to develop and debug them, but it would be sensible if any "delete this comment" and "edit this comment" shortcuts in the UI were not enabled for devs (I'm thinking here of an old screenshot cortex posted years ago of mod shortcuts appended to every comment byline). Ultimately you can't stop a sysadmin from issuing a
`DELETE FROM posts` SQL statement so it is about agreeing sensible norms.posted by Klipspringer at 12:00 PM on April 1 [8 favorites]
I agree that more granular badges in MeTa would be helpful, especially because we have more roles than just mods and devs now. (And because we may well prefer to have clear lines between "paid staff" and "volunteers".) A very clear policy for how to handle the mod styling would also be great for everyone in that position. (It's not easy to do accidentally on desktop, but I can't remember how it works on mobile and it may be pretty easy to hit inadvertently.)
Historically the badges haven't been optional per-comment like the mod styling is, but it may be worth thinking through whether that should change for some roles. We may want badging for certain volunteer positions that aren't moderation- or policy-related but want to allow them to participate in MeTa in threads unrelated to their position, where the badges might give them inappropriate rhetorical weight.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 12:19 PM on April 1 [8 favorites]
Historically the badges haven't been optional per-comment like the mod styling is, but it may be worth thinking through whether that should change for some roles. We may want badging for certain volunteer positions that aren't moderation- or policy-related but want to allow them to participate in MeTa in threads unrelated to their position, where the badges might give them inappropriate rhetorical weight.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 12:19 PM on April 1 [8 favorites]
Historically the badges haven't been optional per-comment like the mod styling is, but it may be worth thinking through whether that should change for some roles.
One hundred percent should, in my opinion, at least on a per-role basis. It'd be nice to let, for example, volunteer committee folks to easily post in an "official" capacity without being locked into appearing authoritative when jumping into a MetaTalk gift card exchange or somesuch.
posted by Kybard at 12:24 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
One hundred percent should, in my opinion, at least on a per-role basis. It'd be nice to let, for example, volunteer committee folks to easily post in an "official" capacity without being locked into appearing authoritative when jumping into a MetaTalk gift card exchange or somesuch.
posted by Kybard at 12:24 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
Broadly agreeing with all the above, and "Ultimately you can't stop a sysadmin from issuing a `DELETE FROM posts` SQL statement so it is about agreeing sensible norms." brings us to "how do we ensure the staff onboarding process from now on includes setting sensible norms around these powers?"
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 12:29 PM on April 1 [2 favorites]
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 12:29 PM on April 1 [2 favorites]
Agree with almost all. what were the administrative access parameters that PB and frimble had/ have, could be helpful in helping establish a more cohesive structure.
posted by clavdivs at 12:39 PM on April 1
posted by clavdivs at 12:39 PM on April 1
I've been wondering for a while why there isn't just a Moderator account that has all of the mod powers.
Because there's a history of moderators on this site closing ranks and not accepting responsibility when they have acted unprofessionallly toward members
posted by qi at 12:41 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
Because there's a history of moderators on this site closing ranks and not accepting responsibility when they have acted unprofessionallly toward members
posted by qi at 12:41 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
i think a good first step would be restoring knucklebones' deleted comment.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:46 PM on April 1 [7 favorites]
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:46 PM on April 1 [7 favorites]
I would write off kirkaracha’s actions with a “sucks, don’t do that again ever” were it not for the incredibly uncalled for “there’s your fucking explanation” response to fight or flight’s “Would any of the mods or staff care to explain this?”.
I get that the mods threw him to the wolves by not handling communications about his work better, and therefore MeTa has been unpleasant for him, but holy shit that was out of line.
posted by donnagirl at 12:57 PM on April 1 [16 favorites]
I get that the mods threw him to the wolves by not handling communications about his work better, and therefore MeTa has been unpleasant for him, but holy shit that was out of line.
posted by donnagirl at 12:57 PM on April 1 [16 favorites]
i think a good first step would be restoring knucklebones' deleted comment.
A good second step would be an apology. First apology was only for saying "invisible sky friend" and the eye rolling claim it wasn't itended to belittle or insult anyone.
Apologizing for saying "There's your fucking explanation" when fight or flight asked for one would be nice.
posted by qi at 1:00 PM on April 1 [9 favorites]
A good second step would be an apology. First apology was only for saying "invisible sky friend" and the eye rolling claim it wasn't itended to belittle or insult anyone.
Apologizing for saying "There's your fucking explanation" when fight or flight asked for one would be nice.
posted by qi at 1:00 PM on April 1 [9 favorites]
qi: "A good second step would be an apology. "
He did.
posted by pdb at 1:05 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
He did.
posted by pdb at 1:05 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
I've worked in places where admin access to production data was highly controlled for various reasons, so here's some examples of controls that I've seen:
- "Principle of least access" means that nobody has access to anything unless they need it for their job.
- Everything is audited (i.e. there is a record of everything that people have done in the production environment).
- Users default to a small set of permissions and can invoke some magic to get whatever higher permissions they are entitled to, for a defined time period, during which their UI is a funky colour so they don't forget that they're in God mode
- Any personal data is corralled in its own database tables and access to that is more highly restricted than other data.
- Developers have admin access to development databases but have no special permissions in production.
- Making code changes to production can only be done through a version controlled deployment pipeline that has various checks, for example, requiring review and passing tests.
All of these things are intended to prevent mistakes, not necessarily anything actively malicious. But it can be pretty easy to make mistakes - delete the production database thinking it's your test data, forget that there's some policy around the thing you're doing, or fat finger a SQL command.
posted by quacks like a duck at 1:12 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
- "Principle of least access" means that nobody has access to anything unless they need it for their job.
- Everything is audited (i.e. there is a record of everything that people have done in the production environment).
- Users default to a small set of permissions and can invoke some magic to get whatever higher permissions they are entitled to, for a defined time period, during which their UI is a funky colour so they don't forget that they're in God mode
- Any personal data is corralled in its own database tables and access to that is more highly restricted than other data.
- Developers have admin access to development databases but have no special permissions in production.
- Making code changes to production can only be done through a version controlled deployment pipeline that has various checks, for example, requiring review and passing tests.
All of these things are intended to prevent mistakes, not necessarily anything actively malicious. But it can be pretty easy to make mistakes - delete the production database thinking it's your test data, forget that there's some policy around the thing you're doing, or fat finger a SQL command.
posted by quacks like a duck at 1:12 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
Re badges and borders theology. I think badges should be role indicators and should always be on. A role is a property of you as a user. You are a mod, or a dev, or a board member, or a retired variant of one the above, all the time, whether you're performing those duties right now or not. This is important for user signposting, as a new or casual user I want to pick up who does what around the place. And is consistent with how other apps e.g. Discord handle roles.
And then comment status indicators should be a visually separate system, and apply per comment. The current "1-pixel gray border = moderation action" is a mystery to anyone not well versed in site lore, so I'd like to see a more obvious system e.g. putting the literal words "mod note" at the START of the comment e.g. very rough mockup here (NOT in the byline, where role indicators go).
Re volunteer roles, my feeling is having a "volunteer" badge would make me less keen to volunteer for things, it could put a target on your back in MetaTalk and is opaque in what it actually refers to.
When we have elected board members it should be part of the deal that they carry a "board" badge (and board gun...) for the duration of their term.
quacks like a duck: "I've worked in places where admin access to production data was highly controlled for various reasons"
Definitely possible but I'm less certain how practical or effective it is on a site which (for most of its history) has had one combined developer-and-sysadmin at a time.
posted by Klipspringer at 1:21 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
And then comment status indicators should be a visually separate system, and apply per comment. The current "1-pixel gray border = moderation action" is a mystery to anyone not well versed in site lore, so I'd like to see a more obvious system e.g. putting the literal words "mod note" at the START of the comment e.g. very rough mockup here (NOT in the byline, where role indicators go).
Re volunteer roles, my feeling is having a "volunteer" badge would make me less keen to volunteer for things, it could put a target on your back in MetaTalk and is opaque in what it actually refers to.
When we have elected board members it should be part of the deal that they carry a "board" badge (and board gun...) for the duration of their term.
quacks like a duck: "I've worked in places where admin access to production data was highly controlled for various reasons"
Definitely possible but I'm less certain how practical or effective it is on a site which (for most of its history) has had one combined developer-and-sysadmin at a time.
posted by Klipspringer at 1:21 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
He did.
No. He apologized for his comment about religion /religious people. Nothing more.
He should apologize for abusing his access and deleting knucklebones comment. Deleting his own comment is understandable. It was as fight or flight said, a shitty comment. But kirkaracha is not a mod and had no business deleting someone else's comment especially one critical of what he had written.
posted by qi at 1:25 PM on April 1 [10 favorites]
No. He apologized for his comment about religion /religious people. Nothing more.
He should apologize for abusing his access and deleting knucklebones comment. Deleting his own comment is understandable. It was as fight or flight said, a shitty comment. But kirkaracha is not a mod and had no business deleting someone else's comment especially one critical of what he had written.
posted by qi at 1:25 PM on April 1 [10 favorites]
Acknowledging that it should not have happened rather that saying "there's your fucking explanation" when called out would be appropriate.
posted by qi at 1:28 PM on April 1 [7 favorites]
posted by qi at 1:28 PM on April 1 [7 favorites]
Klipspringer: "Definitely possible but I'm less certain how practical or effective it is on a site which (for most of its history) has had one combined developer-and-sysadmin at a time."
All of the things in my list work fine in the case of a single dev/sysadmin, excepting probably "even devs have zero access to production". Although, with the source on GitHub now, it seems more likely that there will be multiple contributing devs in the future, in which case they should certainly not all have access to production.
posted by quacks like a duck at 1:33 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
All of the things in my list work fine in the case of a single dev/sysadmin, excepting probably "even devs have zero access to production". Although, with the source on GitHub now, it seems more likely that there will be multiple contributing devs in the future, in which case they should certainly not all have access to production.
posted by quacks like a duck at 1:33 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
I had a long post kinda ready to go but quacks like a duck covered most of it, I will just say that I work in IT security, and am a Workday security admin for most of my working hours, so would be happy to lend my opinion to any potential security model that needs building, no matter how small or broad-stroke this one is. Memail me if help is needed.
posted by pdb at 1:37 PM on April 1 [6 favorites]
posted by pdb at 1:37 PM on April 1 [6 favorites]
He should apologize for abusing his access and deleting knucklebones comment. Deleting his own comment is understandable. It was as fight or flight said, a shitty comment. But kirkaracha is not a mod and had no business deleting someone else's comment especially one critical of what he had written.
Acknowledging that it should not have happened rather that saying "there's your fucking explanation" when called out would be appropriate.
I do think there should be some confirmation that going forward, the only staff engaging in comment deletion will be mods. For that to happen seems like a real slippery slope, no?
posted by kensington314 at 1:38 PM on April 1 [4 favorites]
Acknowledging that it should not have happened rather that saying "there's your fucking explanation" when called out would be appropriate.
I do think there should be some confirmation that going forward, the only staff engaging in comment deletion will be mods. For that to happen seems like a real slippery slope, no?
posted by kensington314 at 1:38 PM on April 1 [4 favorites]
I fucked up, it immediately caused a derail, I fucked up again by trying to address the harm, and it became an even bigger derail. I apologize for abusing my powers and deleting knucklebones comment and will restrict any future MetaTalk comments to the site rebuild.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 1:59 PM on April 1 [21 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 1:59 PM on April 1 [21 favorites]
I apologize for abusing my powers and deleting knucklebones comment
Was it or was it not you who edited my comment, as well? Since that seems to not have been addressed here at any point.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:11 PM on April 1 [4 favorites]
Was it or was it not you who edited my comment, as well? Since that seems to not have been addressed here at any point.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:11 PM on April 1 [4 favorites]
Was it or was it not you who edited my comment, as well? Since that seems to not have been addressed here at any point.
Yes, and I apologize.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 2:12 PM on April 1 [9 favorites]
Yes, and I apologize.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 2:12 PM on April 1 [9 favorites]
I'd like to see a more obvious system e.g. putting the literal words "mod note" at the START of the comment e.g. very rough mockup here (NOT in the byline, where role indicators go).
That looks good to me.
Although, with the source on GitHub now, it seems more likely that there will be multiple contributing devs in the future
Isn't it pretty to think so? The code has been open source for weeks, and there have been three pull requests, two of which are helpful but very minor.
I know I've said I'm writing developer documentation, and I have a draft. (Kybard will be PM for the rebuild, and we're working on a communication plan.) But most developers should be able to figure things out and are welcome to ask if they have questions.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 2:14 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
That looks good to me.
Although, with the source on GitHub now, it seems more likely that there will be multiple contributing devs in the future
Isn't it pretty to think so? The code has been open source for weeks, and there have been three pull requests, two of which are helpful but very minor.
I know I've said I'm writing developer documentation, and I have a draft. (Kybard will be PM for the rebuild, and we're working on a communication plan.) But most developers should be able to figure things out and are welcome to ask if they have questions.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 2:14 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
Thank you, kirkaracha.
For many years now, watching & participating in metatalk has been never-ending frustration. We have been subjected to broken promises, lies, gaslighting, contempt & worse. We now have a change in ownership. We need the rest to change too.
Thank you.
posted by qi at 2:28 PM on April 1 [8 favorites]
For many years now, watching & participating in metatalk has been never-ending frustration. We have been subjected to broken promises, lies, gaslighting, contempt & worse. We now have a change in ownership. We need the rest to change too.
Thank you.
posted by qi at 2:28 PM on April 1 [8 favorites]
kirkaracha: "Isn't it pretty to think so? The code has been open source for weeks, and there have been three pull requests, two of which are helpful but very minor.
"
There really are several things i want to do to help in the codebase, i've just been dealing with all kinds of Life Stuff myself. Things are hopefully settling down and i'm going to try to dig in asap.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:39 PM on April 1 [6 favorites]
"
There really are several things i want to do to help in the codebase, i've just been dealing with all kinds of Life Stuff myself. Things are hopefully settling down and i'm going to try to dig in asap.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:39 PM on April 1 [6 favorites]
Kirkaracha is solely responsible for the rebuild, from which more and more of MetaFilter’s existential hope has been hung. His helpfulness and willingness to answer questions has drawn him more and more into metatalk. Historically, the people who answer Metatalk questions on behalf of the site flame out, some dramatically and some quietly.
I am impressed at how quickly he got to the point of saying goodbye to metatalk and I hope he stops being so responsive, for the existential good of the site.
posted by Vatnesine at 2:39 PM on April 1 [11 favorites]
I am impressed at how quickly he got to the point of saying goodbye to metatalk and I hope he stops being so responsive, for the existential good of the site.
posted by Vatnesine at 2:39 PM on April 1 [11 favorites]
More directly to team mod: I am guessing that kirkaracha does not want to go in to mod controls again, even for undeletion (which is understandable), and so cannot be the person to restore knucklebones' comment. This is maybe a good time to think about a general procedure for restoring improperly or accidentally deleted comments, possibly in conjunction with the Mod Oversight Team.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 2:39 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 2:39 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
How about two accounts for kirkaracha, one as a tech and one as a regular user?
There is an argument to be made for giving all staff user accounts that are completely separate from their non working presence on the site.
That way, when they leave, their work account can be disabled and there is no possibility of them accidentally retaining any elevated permissions.
It would also make it possible for future ex-staff to button their personal account without deleting all the mod comments on their staff account.
Also when mods leave comments as a personal opinion and not as an official "staff" response, they are in a strange middle ground where they are not mods, but not really regular users either. I think many people reading a comment from one of the mods will think of it as a 'mod comment' with or without the staff badge.
That said I don't think we would want mods having non-staff user accounts which are impossible to identify as being the same person (effectively a sock account), so I don't know, it's something to consider for the new site.
posted by Lanark at 2:51 PM on April 1 [4 favorites]
There is an argument to be made for giving all staff user accounts that are completely separate from their non working presence on the site.
That way, when they leave, their work account can be disabled and there is no possibility of them accidentally retaining any elevated permissions.
It would also make it possible for future ex-staff to button their personal account without deleting all the mod comments on their staff account.
Also when mods leave comments as a personal opinion and not as an official "staff" response, they are in a strange middle ground where they are not mods, but not really regular users either. I think many people reading a comment from one of the mods will think of it as a 'mod comment' with or without the staff badge.
That said I don't think we would want mods having non-staff user accounts which are impossible to identify as being the same person (effectively a sock account), so I don't know, it's something to consider for the new site.
posted by Lanark at 2:51 PM on April 1 [4 favorites]
There is an argument to be made for giving all staff user accounts that are completely separate from their non working presence on the site.
That said I don't think we would want mods having non-staff user accounts which are impossible to identify as being the same person
The way we do this at my work is that admins have two nearly-identically-named accounts:
- pdb (normal user account, the one I do my regular everyday work with)
- pdb! (admin account, the one with elevated permissions, where I am not supposed to do general work, only things for which those elevated permissions are required)
The "bang account" with the elevated permissions also, as someone mentioned upthread, logs me in to many of the apps I'm an admin to with a shockingly different color scheme, so I am instantly/constantly aware I am not working in the normal production environment. These are all fairly simple things to set up if the system allows it (and user names that are similar like that are allowed pretty much everywhere).
posted by pdb at 3:04 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
That said I don't think we would want mods having non-staff user accounts which are impossible to identify as being the same person
The way we do this at my work is that admins have two nearly-identically-named accounts:
- pdb (normal user account, the one I do my regular everyday work with)
- pdb! (admin account, the one with elevated permissions, where I am not supposed to do general work, only things for which those elevated permissions are required)
The "bang account" with the elevated permissions also, as someone mentioned upthread, logs me in to many of the apps I'm an admin to with a shockingly different color scheme, so I am instantly/constantly aware I am not working in the normal production environment. These are all fairly simple things to set up if the system allows it (and user names that are similar like that are allowed pretty much everywhere).
posted by pdb at 3:04 PM on April 1 [5 favorites]
shockingly different color scheme
this is something I've seen implemented in e.g. different server environments so you don't accidentally hit publish on production when you're multitasking on beta, and something I think we maybe should do regardless of where we land with permissions and accounts -- making all the "special permission" buttons very notably not in the style of the standard-user UI, so that even if you use them all the time you're less likely to forget that they are not normal SOP.
posted by Kybard at 3:09 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
this is something I've seen implemented in e.g. different server environments so you don't accidentally hit publish on production when you're multitasking on beta, and something I think we maybe should do regardless of where we land with permissions and accounts -- making all the "special permission" buttons very notably not in the style of the standard-user UI, so that even if you use them all the time you're less likely to forget that they are not normal SOP.
posted by Kybard at 3:09 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
Kybard: "making all the "special permission" buttons very notably not in the style of the standard-user UI, so that even if you use them all the time you're less likely to forget that they are not normal SOP."
If we're pony-ing, put 'em in different locations, as well, so muscle memory can't override having to look at the screen.
posted by pdb at 3:43 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
If we're pony-ing, put 'em in different locations, as well, so muscle memory can't override having to look at the screen.
posted by pdb at 3:43 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
There is an argument to be made for giving all staff user accounts that are completely separate from their non working presence on the site.
This is something I actually requested when I started but was denied. I still think it's a much better practice and we should seriously consider it. Not for identity obfuscation reasons, but for clarity of roles and cleanness of separation. (And because I would have really preferred to have the ability to use my professional history on Metafilter as a resume point without it being directly tied to my personal history here, which is often not stuff I would discuss with an employer.)
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 3:52 PM on April 1 [18 favorites]
This is something I actually requested when I started but was denied. I still think it's a much better practice and we should seriously consider it. Not for identity obfuscation reasons, but for clarity of roles and cleanness of separation. (And because I would have really preferred to have the ability to use my professional history on Metafilter as a resume point without it being directly tied to my personal history here, which is often not stuff I would discuss with an employer.)
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 3:52 PM on April 1 [18 favorites]
1. I think we are discussing a one-off incident, kirkaracha has learned his lesson. I am not sure this needed a MeTa. I will miss kirkaracha's input on MeTa.
2. There is a difference between badges and access levels. They might correlate, but they might not. A badge is just an indication. I think what we're really talking about here is what people can access.
posted by NotLost at 4:03 PM on April 1 [10 favorites]
2. There is a difference between badges and access levels. They might correlate, but they might not. A badge is just an indication. I think what we're really talking about here is what people can access.
posted by NotLost at 4:03 PM on April 1 [10 favorites]
Just wanted to chime in to say that kirkaracha fucked up, and continued fucking up a little bit afterwards, but he seems to have course corrected well, acknowledging he'd fucked up, apologizing, and promising not to do it again. Better than we've gotten used to around here, definitely. As long as this doesn't happen again, I think it's fine, everyone gets to fuck up at least once and be forgiven. (And his work on the rewrite has not been anything but great, as far as I can tell.)
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:03 PM on April 1 [18 favorites]
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:03 PM on April 1 [18 favorites]
2. There is a difference between badges and access levels. They might correlate, but they might not. A badge is just an indication. I think what we're really talking about here is what people can access.
well yes but
a) part of the originating problem here is how things are currently not just correlated but inextricable, i.e. in order to give kirk the "staff" badge and view access to admin UI controls it appears to have been necessary to give him an admin-powered account; and
b) another problem involves the unintended appearance of an authoritative voice, a variation of which (the mod-box formatting) is the other big part of the problem that triggered this conversation.
these things are closely related enough now that we need to discuss them both in order to properly disentangle them for the website's future state.
If we're pony-ing, put 'em in different locations, as well, so muscle memory can't override having to look at the screen.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this and am curious, though at the moment I'm imagining a randomizer that places the buttons in entirely different locations on the page each time you load it, which is kind of funny (metafilter randomizer delete-the-entire-website any-% speedrun coming this ADGQ 2026) but not especially practical. I do like forcing maybe an extra click or two for each action on top of a color-coding.
but I know kirk has well-established code packages in mind for implementing all of this, so as we reach that stage in the site rebuild, it should be relatively easy to surface and discuss a full range of options for defining permissions and power-user UI.
posted by Kybard at 4:35 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
well yes but
a) part of the originating problem here is how things are currently not just correlated but inextricable, i.e. in order to give kirk the "staff" badge and view access to admin UI controls it appears to have been necessary to give him an admin-powered account; and
b) another problem involves the unintended appearance of an authoritative voice, a variation of which (the mod-box formatting) is the other big part of the problem that triggered this conversation.
these things are closely related enough now that we need to discuss them both in order to properly disentangle them for the website's future state.
If we're pony-ing, put 'em in different locations, as well, so muscle memory can't override having to look at the screen.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this and am curious, though at the moment I'm imagining a randomizer that places the buttons in entirely different locations on the page each time you load it, which is kind of funny (metafilter randomizer delete-the-entire-website any-% speedrun coming this ADGQ 2026) but not especially practical. I do like forcing maybe an extra click or two for each action on top of a color-coding.
but I know kirk has well-established code packages in mind for implementing all of this, so as we reach that stage in the site rebuild, it should be relatively easy to surface and discuss a full range of options for defining permissions and power-user UI.
posted by Kybard at 4:35 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
Kybard: "I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this and am curious, though at the moment I'm imagining a randomizer that places the buttons in entirely different locations on the page each time you load it"
Not really. It's more like (using this form from the user perspective as a guide): if the Post Comment and Preview buttons are at the bottom left of the comment box and ordered left to right, then in a sandbox or dev environment, put them at the bottom right of the comment box, and order them so that preview is on the left and post comment is on the right. If I'm both admin and user, I will still mostly use this form to Post Comment, so I don't even really have to orient myself on the screen to where Post Comment is; in a dev environment, though, if that button were located in a different spot, I have to pause to think about it.
It's just another way to force thinking about layout instead of relying on muscle memory.
posted by pdb at 5:01 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
Not really. It's more like (using this form from the user perspective as a guide): if the Post Comment and Preview buttons are at the bottom left of the comment box and ordered left to right, then in a sandbox or dev environment, put them at the bottom right of the comment box, and order them so that preview is on the left and post comment is on the right. If I'm both admin and user, I will still mostly use this form to Post Comment, so I don't even really have to orient myself on the screen to where Post Comment is; in a dev environment, though, if that button were located in a different spot, I have to pause to think about it.
It's just another way to force thinking about layout instead of relying on muscle memory.
posted by pdb at 5:01 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
aaah I see what you're saying. that's smart. I will withdraw my AGDQ submission
posted by Kybard at 5:24 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
posted by Kybard at 5:24 PM on April 1 [1 favorite]
kirkaracha: "Isn't it pretty to think so? The code has been open source for weeks, and there have been three pull requests, two of which are helpful but very minor. "
I'm looking to help as well. I use ddev for local development, just running into the database missing, to get my local up and running.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:10 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
I'm looking to help as well. I use ddev for local development, just running into the database missing, to get my local up and running.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:10 PM on April 1 [3 favorites]
So, while we're here, is there a policy on people reposting deleted content? This is kind of a low stakes example, but generally the practice should be discouraged, no? Especially if the content is described by the re-poster themselves as "shitty". Or do we just get to put stuff back as we like?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 5:03 AM on April 2
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 5:03 AM on April 2
Just wanted to chime in to say that kirkaracha fucked up, and continued fucking up a little bit afterwards, but he seems to have course corrected well, acknowledging he'd fucked up, apologizing, and promising not to do it again. Better than we've gotten used to around here, definitely. As long as this doesn't happen again, I think it's fine, everyone gets to fuck up at least once and be forgiven. (And his work on the rewrite has not been anything but great, as far as I can tell.)
Yes to all. This is a good outcome.
posted by bowmaniac at 6:35 AM on April 2 [3 favorites]
Yes to all. This is a good outcome.
posted by bowmaniac at 6:35 AM on April 2 [3 favorites]
So, while we're here, is there a policy on people reposting deleted content? This is kind of a low stakes example, but generally the practice should be discouraged, no?
It didn't feel "low stakes."
When it is a staff member's comment being rude or worse to member(s)? 100% we should be allowed to repost and discuss it. That's what metatalk is for.
Look at the context of this incident. The post was about anti-semitism on metafilter. Where a metafilter staff member posted a condescending comment mocking religion and religious people. Then got upset defensive when called out for it.
Yes, we should be able to discuss that here. Yes if it's something a staff person deleted we should be able to repost it and discuss it. Yes.
We got a thorough apology this time. Commendable.
This time.
But we all know this isn't the first time something like this has happened. In other contexts, on other topics. It's one major reason the BIPOC board exists and a big reason metafilter's staff were supposed to go through sensitivity training years ago.
posted by qi at 6:43 AM on April 2 [2 favorites]
It didn't feel "low stakes."
When it is a staff member's comment being rude or worse to member(s)? 100% we should be allowed to repost and discuss it. That's what metatalk is for.
Look at the context of this incident. The post was about anti-semitism on metafilter. Where a metafilter staff member posted a condescending comment mocking religion and religious people. Then got upset defensive when called out for it.
Yes, we should be able to discuss that here. Yes if it's something a staff person deleted we should be able to repost it and discuss it. Yes.
We got a thorough apology this time. Commendable.
This time.
But we all know this isn't the first time something like this has happened. In other contexts, on other topics. It's one major reason the BIPOC board exists and a big reason metafilter's staff were supposed to go through sensitivity training years ago.
posted by qi at 6:43 AM on April 2 [2 favorites]
What qi said.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's acceptable to repost deleted content from users in the general day-to-day. That can and should be handled by mods. I would never repost content from another user or support someone reposting that content.
But the site has an unfortunate history of staff obscuring or deleting their mistakes and relying on the short memory of users to let the matter slide. I think it was important to give users the benefit of the context of the original comment.
(And for what it's worth, I posted the comment while BB was active elsewhere on the site. If the mods had an issue with it being reposted, they could have taken it down again.)
posted by fight or flight at 6:57 AM on April 2 [6 favorites]
For what it's worth, I don't think it's acceptable to repost deleted content from users in the general day-to-day. That can and should be handled by mods. I would never repost content from another user or support someone reposting that content.
But the site has an unfortunate history of staff obscuring or deleting their mistakes and relying on the short memory of users to let the matter slide. I think it was important to give users the benefit of the context of the original comment.
(And for what it's worth, I posted the comment while BB was active elsewhere on the site. If the mods had an issue with it being reposted, they could have taken it down again.)
posted by fight or flight at 6:57 AM on April 2 [6 favorites]
I think whether something is okay to repost really depends on what it was, why it was deleted and the context in which it was reposted. I don't think there should be a presumption that it is not okay, especially in MetaTalk where the topic of conversation is often 'was this shitty comment worthy of deletion?' Nor should it always be allowed in MetaTalk, for example, if the original comment was deleted because it doxxed someone.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:15 AM on April 2 [2 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 7:15 AM on April 2 [2 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by loup (staff) at 11:05 AM on April 1 [1 favorite]