Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki talk:Community Standards"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 632868, I am merely expressing this appears to detract from the page, and should be somewhere else, not that Gerard hath sinned or has no valid point/demonstration.Revert if you disagree)
(It is a direct comment on your bilge, and you and Human are quite aware of this)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 300: Line 300:
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Textbox-right|Proposed new policy|
 
{{Textbox-right|Proposed new policy|
Ways bureaucrats may loose their cratship:
+
Ways bureaucrats may lose their cratship:
 
*Risking mis-identification when blocking/deleting: Blocking editors who are not certainly identified, or deleting their edits with the only reason given, that they appear to be a known "troll".
 
*Risking mis-identification when blocking/deleting: Blocking editors who are not certainly identified, or deleting their edits with the only reason given, that they appear to be a known "troll".
 
*Deleting comments without citing a popular policy, in the edit history, when comment is deleted (unless it is a privacy issue, in which case comments "should" be oversighted, although this may result in [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect] anyway, so it is not necessarily recommended).
 
*Deleting comments without citing a popular policy, in the edit history, when comment is deleted (unless it is a privacy issue, in which case comments "should" be oversighted, although this may result in [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect] anyway, so it is not necessarily recommended).
Line 308: Line 308:
  
 
Pi claims RW mostly votes on bureaucrats and Human claims that they only pretend to. I propose we vote on bureaucrats, leave polls open always, in a location where they can be easily found, so that editors may add or change their votes at any time. ~ [[user:Lumenos|Lumenos (talk)]] (other talk pages: [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/User_talk:Lumenos LI1], [http://editthis.info/lumeniki/User_talk:Lumenos LI2], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Lumenos WP]) 22:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 
Pi claims RW mostly votes on bureaucrats and Human claims that they only pretend to. I propose we vote on bureaucrats, leave polls open always, in a location where they can be easily found, so that editors may add or change their votes at any time. ~ [[user:Lumenos|Lumenos (talk)]] (other talk pages: [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/User_talk:Lumenos LI1], [http://editthis.info/lumeniki/User_talk:Lumenos LI2], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Lumenos WP]) 22:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Proposal: Vote on votes ==
 +
 +
The vote to vote is voted upon by voting. The voting is then refactored to vote more vote-liciously. This involves, of course, a vote. In this vote, we demonstrate that voting for votes votes votes in. Example votes are voted on and, in Soviet Russia, vote on ''you''. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
:True! 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) [[File:TerrySmall.png|alt=SusanG|text-bottom|20px|link=User:SusanG]] [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 +
 +
== Proposal: Proposal for proposal ==
 +
 +
An abandoned talk page suffers a breach of subreality.  William S. Burroughs  is seen walking along the quayside, and the original linear footage has been rearranged into a mathematically precise cutting ratio at 12 frames (or two cuts per second). Following this brief exposition, the writing is reinterpreted as a pure cinematic technique. Participants in the process of meaning-mincing use a suffocating blanket of words to stupefy all rational thought. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
:Veracity indeed. 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) [[File:TerrySmall.png|alt=SusanG|text-bottom|20px|link=User:SusanG]] [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 +
::Corrected. Still veracious - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
==Proposal: How to form proposals==
 +
A state of insufficient rules shall be corrected by instigating top-heavy generalisations from single cases. Animosity should be invoked in their writing as far as possible. Particular chicken beheadings should be sought out and, if RationalWiki's law of doublings is to be realised, induced to compensate for the participation level compared to Wikipedia. Such a thicket of rules is the best way to protect free speech and encourage participation - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Proposal: Stop me before I kill again ==
 +
 +
Lean customer engagement value justification social media benchmarking personalized interconnected sincere voice user-directed market identity. Strategic promotainment visibility 'wow'-factor network actionable content optimisation wiki analytics B2E brandstorming corporate DNA semantic mapping please dear Lord stop me before I kill again Obama effect synergy ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn research embedding. I sing the song that ends the Earth. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
:So accurate. 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) [[File:TerrySmall.png|alt=SusanG|text-bottom|20px|link=User:SusanG]] [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

Revision as of 20:24, 9 August 2010

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Revision history

Please do not archive this section

For guidelines and their discussions that passed see Passed1 .

For guidelines and their discussions that did not pass see Superseded1.

For the rewrites and their discussions during January 2009, see the revamp and its talk page and archive, an early draft here, and further discussions here, plus the voting discussion.

Revamp, June 2010

Following the mess of conversation here, I have decided to try an forge some kind of consensus on the major issues by doing a mini-revamp of the sections in contention.

The discussion is divided by subject, to allow for individual issues to be addressed one at a time.

Because the revamped version on the right is being constantly revised, to avoid confusion please make a note that you have changed the text in the relevant discussion section.

Happy fighting. - π 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandal bin

Old community standards

RationalWiki has a special feature called the vandal bin. Sysops and bureaucrats can put vandals into a special list which limits the frequency of edits they can make to once every half hour. Users in the vandal bin also lose the ability to relocate pages. This allows RationalWiki to restrict the abilities of vandals, while still allowing them the opportunity to protest their punishment (something blocks, by their very nature, do not allow).

And to reiterate, assume good faith, and if and when that faith is betrayed, don't panic. A few edits by vandals does not a crisis make, so don't flip out and rampage over anyone who strikes you as maybe being a vandal. Wait until they make an edit or two, and if they are clearly vandalism, then put them in the vandal bin. Additionally, if an edit by a new user is questionable but not blatant vandalism, ask them about it on their talk page before assuming they are a vandal and vandal binning them.

Proposed revamp


Vandal bin discussion

The main point of contention with the vandal bin seems to be the fact that we are indefinitely binning people, including non-vandals, and they still shit all over the place twice an hour. Are we better off just blocking for short times like before? Is the bin working? Or is this system all good? - π 08:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The vandal bin is for vandals. People damaging my wiki - not your ego. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the vandal bin is only useful with accounts. With IPs, as the troll said, we end up imposing an odd limit on the poor random guy who may be picking up the IP address in six months time. 1-9 hours block for trolls/spammers, vandal bin only for accounts? ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
That seems fairly reasonable. - π 10:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
So the bin will be used if and only if the vandal has an account? Seems pointless. Just make a new account or don't log in. Vandalism should be responded to with IP bans of increasing lengths. Fuck the bin. Maybe keep it around as an historical artifact, but never use it. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Bin is good. It gives supposed vandals a way to appeal against being called vandals without letting them wreck the place. Only the most determined people will bother to keep making new accounts, and there's probably no way to get rid of them anyway except waiting for them to grow up. Don't indefinitely bin IPs though - a short block might be better.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe binned IPs could see a message saying 'if you're binned and don't know why, someone else might have vandalised from your IP. Please post in such and such a place to get this sorted out'.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
How often does that happen? How hard is it to make a case that you're just a noob and not a vandals whether or not you're blocked or in the bin? I think the bin is pointless and infuriating. It fails to address the 2x per hour shits that persistent people take on the wiki, which are enough to send some of us into hysterics, and I'm otherwise unaware of a single good faith editor contesting being binned (I'm not saying it doesn't happen). IP blocks are fine as long as email isn't disabled and the blockees can edit their IP talk pages. ÑR/Señor Admin/Hablar 18:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The bin seems like a way of saying "see we don't block", but achieving a similar effect. The problem it is less effective way of dealing with persistent trouble makers. - π 01:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it's more or less effective, it's about the same. If someone is keen to piss us about, they'll find ways around it. If it's a spam bot, there's thousands more that will replace them. Therefore both methods kind of suck, and are at best damage limitation. I don't think either solution is particularly effective long-term. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 01:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I vote "damage limitation" become our motto. Seems the best way to sum up a system that can never work perfectly without losing its meaning yet can't be allowed to fall apart. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 02:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't remember, is there a time limit on the vandal bin? - π 02:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is. I checked someone I know has been in there a while, and it's at least four months based on them. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That is the problem, we might as well be handing out indefinite blocks for all the difference it makes. Once in, unless paroled, there they remain. At least blocks expire. - π 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to reconfigure the bandal vin so that you can pick a timeframe like with blocking? E.g. bandal vinning a BoN for a month would negate the problem of leaving of that IP - which might later be somebody else's - permanently in the bin. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be the obvious thing to do ... but Nx has no interest in extending the vandal bin extension to do this. (I'd like to see it too, I think a timed vandal bin is a great idea and I'd like to see it used on Wikipedia instead of blanket blocks of e.g. schools and universities.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see two things added to the vandal bin, the time out and a variable edit rate. I don't know how keen Nx is to do this; I think it would require widespread support first. - π 04:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
These are great ideas, and I thoroughly approve of both. What do we have to do to get Nx to care? What sacrifice or offerings does he require? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
He is usually fairly good about doing these things, if he thinks the consensus is there. - π 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Then let us petition the Lugubrious Jerboas to ask him to make it so? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Or we could just suggest it in the Saloon bar, find out what people think and email him about it if he does not respond. - π 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
That might work. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
SB would be best. The Lion Jugglers should only come in to this if there's a stalemate. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 08:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The vandal bin works! Keep using it. Although maybe randomize it to make it more annoying to the binned user. E.g., cause it to allow his next edit at some random period between 0 minutes and 60 minutes after the last edit, and don't tell him how much time is left. That way, he'll have to stay at the computer continuing to hit "Edit" every few moments to test it out (or else running a bot to do it, if he's technically inclined), which will waste his time and cause frustration. Tisane (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

Old community standards

Blocking is generally only used on known vandals. Sysops should limit most blocks to an hour or two. Blocks longer than this should be discussed first before implementing.

Some sysops issue "joke blocks" on their fellow sysops, lasting a few seconds to a couple minutes in length (although overuse of two-minute-plus blocks, or blocks against sysops in the middle of editing, are not always appreciated by the blockee).

Other times, a user may request that their IP be blocked to force them to log in, or simply block it themselves.

Sysops should exercise caution when issuing blocks. The purpose of the vandal bin is to avoid the problems of blocking (specifically, that if the blockee is not a sysop, they have no way of protesting it), and it is especially important to avoid mistakenly blocking innocent non-vandal editors, particularly if they're newcomers.

Proposed revamp


Blocking discussion

There is no mention of the new talk page block feature. Also do we still support the blocking of your own IP address as that seems to get reverted these days? - π 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with blocking one's own IP is that when it changes now someone else is blocked. So perhaps it would be ok if people note when it is a static IP (say, editing from workplace). ħumanUser talk:Human 00:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Ceiling Cat is a pretty effective reminder to log in. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Just as an instance: I was just blocked elsewhere for being AssaSom even though I'm not. IP addresses shouldn't be blocked. 11:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I'd say leave the IP able to edit it's own talk page except in highly exceptional cases. E.g. TK and people who persist in posting spam or stuff that we would never allow on the site (abusive or illegal things). Blocking IPs as a remnder to log in seems iffy. I agree the ceiling cat is hard to miss. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 11:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sidenote: What is the risk an IP will be reused? I wonder if ISP's ever look at activity to decide what IP address to get someone. Lumenos (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga

Old community standards
Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.
Proposed revamp


Loya Jirga discussion

What is the deal with this institution, there are no rules for it, it is unused. Should we just sweep it under the carpet and pretend this fascist organisation never existed? - π 08:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It worked out okay last time it was used, and the rules behind it seem fairly clear. It takes some of the drama and makes it something that a small number of people have to deal with - as opposed to a larger group fighting over what should be done. It's just never going to be everything to everyone. It shouldn't become a shadow government, and it shouldn't be used to solve every little dispute that comes up. I see it as being more an arbiter used to avoid HCM, and I think that's how it's been operating so far. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There are still no community standards regarding it. - π 10:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
We have it written up in various places, but yeah, it's missing from here. I can collect it all together this weekend and post it here. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
We have the basics written up at RationalWiki:Role of the Loya Jirga. I've started a discussion there to finalise things, but we could move that discussion here if it makes more sense. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice when writing articles

Old community standards
  • Please do your best to watch for and correct spelling and grammar mistakes.
  • Please list categories at the very bottom of the article, not spread among various paragraphs and sections.
  • Articles should be put in the most specific categories possible; avoid placing an article in numerous broad categories. For example, Richard Dawkins should be in category:atheists and category:biologists, not in category:people, category:atheism, category:biology, and category:scientists. Doing so aids the use of categories as a navigating tool and prevents the broader "parent" categories from becoming too inclusive and unwieldy to be useful.
  • Internal links should lead directly to the article, not a redirect.
  • Redirects are used to direct someone using the search function to the proper article. For example, someone searching for "Scientology" should be immediately redirected to the properly-named article, Church of Scientology.
  • When referencing another wiki (or any other collaborative website), please use static or diff links. Links to the more volatile "live" versions are likely to become outdated soon after linking. Diff links which are likely to be deleted, or web pages which are likely to change permanently, are best preserved by taking a screenshot.
  • [Already removed:] External links to websites purely devoted to hate (Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, Metapedia and so on) should be avoided per longstanding community consensus.
Proposed revamp

[Move and link to manual of style]

Advice discussion

The main point of contention here is the fact that Forum:Should we link to hate sites? seems to be against final dot point. - π 07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That point was only added on 31st May 2010, by a user who did not discuss its inclusion beforehand, who was wrong about the reasons for such a policy, who may well have been wrong about how widely supported such a standard is, based on subsequent discussion, & might even have changed his/her own mind about it since, based on comments here. Hence I'm removing it for now. If there's enough support for such a statement, it can be added back in later. Discuss first, then make changes, is how it should work with the CS, not add things on the fly & then discuss whether or not they're supported. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we need to put something in the revamp since it is already removed? ~ That blind moron (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of these things should be in the manual of style rather than CS. & I vehemently disagree that linking to redirects is always bad. A lot of redirects are placeholders for articles that haven't been written yet, redirecting to another article or location that's related. E.g. see Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:Elements - most element names are redirected straight to the category. But somebody might one day want to write an article about, say, silicon, replacing the redirect. So if you mention silicon in an article, it's better to link to silicon, which is currently a redirect but might sometime become a relevant article, rather than link straight to the elements category, since this link would then become the long way round to the relevant article if a silicon article ever got written. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

True but if it's just say GrauniadThe Guardian, it's rather pointless, specially if the redirect is specifically created to take the link. 13:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Indeed. But there are plenty of cases where linking to a redirect is justified, so a blunt "don't link to redirects" message is inadequate. There should be an explanation on what to consider when linking to a redirect, but it should be in the manual of style &/or the linking guide, not CS, as it's more to do with editing conventions than community conduct. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Please author new version. Lumenos (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose moving to manual of style and leaving a link. - π 11:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Old community standards

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page.

Please sign all talk page comments, by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). This will leave your signature and a timestamp. Please also indent your comment using colons (:) at the beginning (one more than the comment above) as this makes discussions much easier to read.

Occasionally discussions may be moved from one talk page to a more appropriate location, by copying and deleting it from the original page and pasting it at the new page. It is important to provide a link to the new location, which can be done using the "movedfrom" and "movedto" templates.

Proposed revamp

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, nor protected, although they can be archived periodically. Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments on a talk or discussion page, obvious spam or vandalism excepted.

Please sign all talk page comments, by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). This will leave your signature and a timestamp. Please also indent your comment using colons (:) at the beginning (one more than the comment above) as this makes discussions much easier to read.

Occasionally discussions may be moved from one talk page to a more appropriate location, by copying and deleting it from the original page and pasting it at the new page. It is important to provide a link to the new location, which can be done using the "movedfrom" and "movedto" templates.

Talk discussion

Also I have noticed that everyone is reverting talkpage comments. Has the community standards changed regarding this? - π 10:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The LJ decision allowed, in the case of trolls, reversion of talk pages for articles and our own talk pages, but not talk pages belonging to other people except in cases where existing guidelines allowed it. I'm not able to write this up now, but I can suggest some text here tomorrow. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The only real decision they've made and it was a horrible one. Trolling is so subjective. Apparently, harsh criticism is also trolling. User you don't like? Trolling. Things you don't feel like responding to - trolling. The LJ gave you fascists a hammer and, surprise, everything is starting to look like a nail. This moved us more closer to CP-style censorship than ever before. You should all be ashamed. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
When did this happen? - π 14:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
RationalWiki:Loya_Jirga#Case_closed SusanG Toast 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Trolling is only subjective when you're an idiot. It's well defined as being 1) repetitive 2) needless and 3) direct. If I was to call, right now, Neveruse an idiotic moron (you forgot to proxy up and sign in as MC there), that wouldn't be trolling. If I did it repeatedly on this discussion and multiple pages, it would be trolling. If I directly called someone a "fat-fuck-cunt-of-a-cock-whore" on their userpage, unprovoked, it would be trolling. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a non-issue. If you're taking offence at having one of your precious comments deleted, your priorities have gone mental. It just means that that person doesn't want to talk to you. It's still there in the logs for anyone who looks for it, so it hasn't been censored.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
But in practice this new ruling has meant recent changes being flooded with endless reversion loops on multiple occasions. This isn't a good thing. If trolling is repetitive and needless, then how much more so is revert-warring against a troll for an hour or two? Also, if we really are adopting this, we need to decide whether users get their own choice of whether or not to revert troll comments on their user talk page (as some editors have suggested they should) or whether anybody can revert trolls on anybody else's talk page. If we leave this up to the editor whose page it is, then we need to rethink or rephrase the clause about user talk pages being community property, since we'd be giving users extra jurisdiction over their own talk page. But if we don't, it could get very annoying for an editor who is trying to get on with something elsewhere on site but bothered by constant "new messages" flash-ups because their user talk page is being used as a troll/revert battleground by other users. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
CR's summary of the LJ decision seems pretty functional as such: troll spam can be reverted everywhere except other people's talk pages, where you can leave it to them to revert (or condone reversion, so people can help them avoid the hassle). If it's spam, i.e. posting crap on various talk pages for attention or as a loophole, it's probably fine to revert it all (though I don't know whether sny rules agree). As for revert wars with trolls, there really isn't a way to stop this other than range-banning 86.40.0.0/16 them. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
But it takes (at least) two to revert war. If you can ignore a troll's comment, it will soon get forgotten among other edits. But if you get into a revert war, it will swamp the rc & generate more attention, which exactly what the troll wants. Despite the good intentions, it's just another form of feeding the troll. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
True, but letting them sit around and insult people seems roughly as annoying. (Granted, I haven't been around for most of the troll fights, so maybe I'm misreading things.) (Edit for clarity: Some people seem genuinely offended by some of the stuff, i.e. personal info/insults, so ignoring it is unlikely. As for the little things, I agree it's best not to start a war.) ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Weaseloid: "But if you get into a revert war, it will swamp the rc & generate more attention, which exactly what the troll wants." Nx wrote, "Then I got wikilawyered by a concern troll whose only joy in life seems to be arguing the exact opposite of everything I say"[1]. I think that is in reference to me, since Proxima didn't do much arguing from what I could see. Nx seems to be pretty important here since s/he has magical powers[2]. So I just wanted to say that if I am a "troll", "trolls" don't always want to generate negative attention. If it happens, I might think it funny (at first) but that doesn't mean that is the reaction I expected or desired. Lumenos (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what your reply has to do with my comment, but intentionally generating negative attention is pretty much the core definition of a troll, so your argument fails, whatever it is. Stop trying to derail community policy discussions into petty personal feuds. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Is that the core definition of a troll? I posted some evidence there that I am called a "troll" and so is one of your high ranking community members, and I know that I am not trying to generate negative attention. One of your other high ranking community members mentioned the problems with attempting to judge someone's intentions. This is why I am against labeling people as "troll" and favor instead policies that define what is good or bad behaviour. Lumenos (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
"If I directly called someone a "fat-fuck-cunt-of-a-cock-whore" on their userpage, unprovoked, it would be trolling." Well it actually depends on who's giving and whose the recipient. These vulgarities are much appreciated, whenever and whereevar you do them. ;-) Lumenos (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Weasel, yeah, it pretty much came down to us responding in the natural way, which was to reply to correct or respond, but it was a bit messed up. It's feeding the troll to even talk about this kind of stuff but it's better than what we did before. Trolls will never be clearly defined but there are enough eyes here to hopefully avoid it being used in a way that stifles legitimate speech. Neveruse confuses me, since the wish to show good faith is strained by what what appears to be a choice between breathtaking inanity and innocence that would make the virgin Mary jealous, or perhaps a pot stirrer. We're kind of lucky to not be the target of many serious and sustained trolls. The current reverting thing is not ideal but it works and I've enough faith in the people here that they'll have the sense and self-respect to fuck off elsewhere if it becomes anything near what its painted to be. It's only worth being here while it works. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 22:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The Recent Changes issue: (1) It is possible to not display talk page comments in RC if they are clogging it up and (2) You should NEVER get into a revert war with a troll as that is as clear a case of feeding them as you can get. Any instant reaction to troll behaviour is exactly what they want and will encourage them. Just put up with the comment for an hour or two and then revert it later if you want to.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sysops can mark their rollbacks as a bot edit, hiding both the original post and the rollback from normal view (unless you set the RC menu to view bots that is). - π 02:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
We can? How? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
By putting &bot=1 into the address bar when you are doing the rollback. Nx also wrote a javascript function that adds it to the history menu next to the normal rollback. I'll add it to the gadget list. - π 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So I shouldn't be reverting things like this? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to fix the conflict we have in the standards. Right now the standards would say that you were wrong to do it, but it's reasonable to expect that few people want to visit their talk page to find it obviously vandalised.The rules should be there to protect free speech and transparency - not the fun of spammers and vandals. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 23:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought there was something there about spam, but there appears not be anymore. As for trolling, I would say common sense exception, but that is hard to define. I wouldn't say that you can rollback comments based on consensus, because that would indicate group think. The problem was as Neveruse said, that people often call harsh criticism trolling. He that will not be named leaving a few hundred word comment with 100 fucks in it is trolling. Saying "that was a fucking shit idea of yours" is harsh criticism. It would be more easy to define trolling if people were more respectful to each other in normal wiki interactions. - π 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's saying we shouldn't revert vandalism to talk pages, so I don't know how y'all are coming to the conclusion that CS says Crundy was wrong to revert a page-blanking/fuck-bomb. That's a completely different situation to somebody posting a talk page comment, somebody else reverting because they dislike the comment or the comment-poster, and then both parties doing repeat rollbacks for the next hour. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have made a tweak. - π 12:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the stuff about indenting and signing necessary? It is going to be redundant if we ever go to liquid threads. - π 12:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


The unwritten rule

Should be an unwritten rule. MC can go fuck himself - signed the community. Ace wins! Acei9 15:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I make joek: "86 the bastid!". Actually, I don't care, but apparently he really pisses some people off. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! 15:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I feel a duddn urge to support New Zealand in the world cup. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
A draw so far but I might go to bed, 3:11am on a Monday morning. Acei9 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a draw, which to NZ is a win, and to Italy a "oh my giddy aunt" ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The US beat the UK 1 to 1, after all. Humiliated them, in fact. 'Twas a conservative Christian landslide! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, he is violation of the RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Conduct section, he does not need his own set of rules. However that said, we have ways of dealing with administrative abuse, but have no rules for dealing with conduct breaches. - π 02:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What I recommend is changing Admin Abuse to something more general (I think it's just called Abuse Desk on Wikipedia & other wikis) so that the same process can be used to deal with any persistent troublemakers, regardless of whether they've technically abused admin abilities. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I also nominate adding Lumenos to Ace's OP. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me Sir, but am I speaking with a Dr. Heckle or a Mr. Jive? =) Lumenos (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Weasel's idea makes a lot of sense. Adminship isn't exactly what it would be at other sites, and arsing about is arsing about regardless as to the methods used. Yup, let's make a more general abuse desk thing. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean or if you are replying to me. Do you feel I have been abusive? Lumenos (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I was responding to Weasel. He rocks! ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 19:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad I asked! (elaborations) Lumenos (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

@CR and Die Wiesel, shall we hie on over to the admin abuse talk page and suggest moving it to something like abuse desk, or something more RationalWikian, ideally? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Make it so. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Damn I suck at being Poor Ed. Done as I suggested. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

We've had a tradition of not protecting any pages at all other than temporarily when they're a vandal target, but is this still viable? I think we now get more vandal & spambot attacks than we used to, so wouldn't it be wise to protect a few basic locations like the main page, rather than having to keep reverting vandalism to them? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case my recent attempt at following what appeared to be your example, I can tell you that it is difficult to imagine a reason I should ever want to edit that page again.
Mainpage was discussed in the copyright talk page. It could be protected because all the content was in unprotected templates. I suppose this would be a sort of security through obscurity; effective for the little tykes.
I guess I will have no compelling reason to fix your copyright anyway. I rather like it the way it is, at the moment.
~ That blind moron (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't see how you are entitled to change our copyright at all, especially without discussion. - π 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps a vote? (A copyright discussion.) Lumenos (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with the odd spammer, everyone has a rollback button and anyone who has made an edit in the last year or so has a delete button. I know we have the odd obsessive like Linuxian, who is butthurt over something nobody understands, but a revert his edit, block his IP for a few hours and it is done. We do seem to have a policy of protecting high use template, but that is because vandalism to those hurts the site in a real way; I think the community standards need to be updated to reflect that. I am generally of the opinion that we don't need hard and fast rule, but we need discussion. If the mob wants a page protected we will protect it, otherwise if there is no compelling reason leave it open. We (I think anyway) should however strive to keep as many pages unprotected as possible. - π 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are doing fine without page protection. If it ever becomes a real issue we can go there and re-discuss. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that temporary protection of pages that are targets is best practice. We have an army of sysops, if worst comes to worst, and rollback isn't too much of an inconvenience for such an army. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 21:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Keeping articles etc. unprotected for all to edit is laudable, but why do brand new users need to be able to edit things like our main page? €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Weasel. While the goal is good, there is no reason for something as vital as the main page to be left wide open for anyone who wants to vandalize. While it's not hard to revert, it is annoying when someone is persistent. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 21:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest Pending Changes for these pages instead of locking them. Pending Changes is being tested at en.Wikipedia and it seems to be reasonable useful. — Pietrow 11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Is that part of flagged revs? - π 11:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It's the same thing I think. — Pietrow 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the case?

Hi, I haven't posted since I started the Libertarian debate but have been prowling about ever since, mainly keeping up with the WIGO pages and making the ocassional IP comment.

I'd be interested in knowing how far these Standards work, and how much they are followed. Let me premise my inquiry by stating that the spirit of this document is wonderfully Libertarian in every way, instead of a 'rulebook' you have a list of standards that members of the community consider to be the spirit of the law, as opposed to the law. In otherwords it is not a list of rules, but rather a set of aspirations. That is commendable.

What I've picked from this site is that it doesn't take itself terribly seriously. This of course is a positive, as there is nothing more irritating than a website filled with pretentious nonsense, aiming to 'change the world', as it were.

So I've decided to run through the relevent articles and enquire as to whether they actually apply, whether they actually work, and whether they are actually followed. This is merely an idle curiosity (Spurred by what I consider to be an essentially Libertarian value - placing aspiration above conformity) and I hope you may indulge me.

MISSION For a start your mission statement is admirable, but I don't see how this website refutes the anti science movement (Though i have read some decent articles to this effect) Furthermore, judging by the candour and behaviour of many of the users here, I find it hard to stomach that this website refutes and explores authoritarianism - my experiences from the Libertarian debate would seem to illustrate a decidely authoritarian tendancy amongst the users here, namely the belittling of opponents and an adversion to reasoned argument. In fact I would go so far as to say that childish sarcasm at times trumped the steady intellectual fervour of many of the users here. Another thing I've noted from the recent changes is a tendancy for excessive blocks, reversions and altering of edits - is there a particular reason/exception or is this the norm?

REPLY - The recent changes reverts is because of us dealing with a particularly persistent troll - User:MarcusCicero - who caused significant amounts of trouble for this site until we finally got our act together and blocked him. Because we make a point of not using range blocks, however, it's easy for him to circumvent this and carry on trolling. We respond to his trolling in the way we consider best - by reverting and ignoring. As for the authoritarian tendencies, one counter-example springs to mind; we lost a good user (who was ideologically in-line with this site) because we wouldn't let him block a anti-abortionist with whom he was arguing. EddyP (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
REPLY TO THE REPLY AS REPLIED - Well that makes sense. What makes him a troll out of interest? Is he a vandal? I think its perfectly acceptable to use knee jerk powers to deal with a persistent troublemaker. Does he vandal pages? Good for him that he's gone. There's no room for vandals, in a Libertarian system or otherwise. Libertarian1 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
REPLY TO THE REPLY AS REPLIED AS REPLIED (?) - I always made a point of not getting involved with MC, but I remember when he logged on as his 'brother' apologising for his troublemaking and stating that it was due to severe mental illness. That didn't go down too well. Then he just caused more arguments and eventually just started vandalising, and he was blocked for good. He should have been blocked much sooner, but he's had more chances than a cat has lives. EddyP (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get into something I don't know anything about, but I will say that grown adults should be able to handle a bit of abuse without violating all of their rules in the process. But then again, I'm a Libertarian, and you are not. Libertarian1 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
We're talking about a case in which someone adds nothing to the site and appears just to be a troll and a shithead. I don't think any site would put up with someone whose sole contribution is a constant "fuck you, dickheads!" People like that get banned. We probably kept the little fuck too long as it is, due to a "we're not CP" mentality, ignoring the fact that quite a few of CP's blocks actually are justified. DickTurpis (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

POINT OF VIEW I openly question the vitality and comic effect of 'snarky point of view', as often this fails to hit the mark, but most of the time it is most ungentlemanly and even verges to all out mockery of the opposition side, without even a hint of self deprecation (IE, the possibility you may be wrong) or open mindedness. I appreciate that this may not be the standard behaviour of users here, but from my personal experience, SPOV tends to mean bullying.

I admit sometimes the site goes too much to the mockery and not enough to the refutation. I try for the latter, in general, though there are plenty of times when we're dealing with such idiocy and shit which has been dealt with so many times before that mockery is about all you can do. DickTurpis (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I once read on a website that said "[a]s a psychic medium, I talked with a Reptilian alien who called himself Dilmun". What am I suppose to do with that? Refuting that is insulting to both me and the reader, I just used it as an example to show how stupid this woman was. - π 01:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
How would we know it isn't a metaphor or something otherwise non-literal? Lumenos (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

HOW RATIONALWIKI IS RUN I find it hard to believe that this place is a mobocracy. In fact, the creation of the Loya Jirga would seem to contradict this. How can something be a mobocracy if its governed by a council of 8? From much of what I've read there certainly is a mob mentality here, but that is certainly not a compliment! I would appreciate clarification on this matter.

REPLY RW is not run by the LJ, they will only step in on occasions where there is a HCM occurring that threatens to take over the site. They have no special powers unless they are specifically called upon. They have only been used once since their inception. --DamoHi 20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

CONDUCT Many members violate the good conduct standards as mentioned, and I wonder what the point is in having these guidelines if nobody follows them?

PRIVACY This is a good idea considering you are essentially here to mock and ridicule conservapedia. Its nice to have an aspiration to not bring public ridicule to private persecution. This is to be commended.

The bit here about Conservapedia is a common mistake; the site doesn't focus on CP much at all anymore, no less revolve around it. It's something a large, nostalgic sideshow now. (And anyway, it's a bit of a non-sequitur, though I see what you mean.) ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

USER RIGHTS Do they exist? I see no evidence to support any of the assertions made in this article.

They exist as written. Nobody has edited your userpage, nobody has renamed you. You were made a sysop and then promoted by request. Seems to cover the lot. - π 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This (I can't link it for some reason, but I found it on RC) would seem to contradict you. Seriously, it took me 5 seconds to find something which contradicts these rules. Libertarian1 (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't say in the user rights "don't make articles ridiculing users". Marcus tends to bring these things on himself. As a Libertarian I thought you would enjoy the lawlessness of this approach. To be honest you need balls of steal or titanium to edit here sometimes. All joking aside if you want to make a change to the community standards do one of those side-by-side things above, with the current text, your proposed text and we will discuss and edit. - π 00:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the article in question? Its talking about mucking about with his edits. Essentially thats deliberate misrepresentation and a particularly pernicious brand of censorship. But this is just an example. I don't wish to change the standards, I'm merely interrogating whether they are followed, in what cases they are followed, and if they are not followed, I'm curious to know why. Libertarian1 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want to change them this is not really the venue, unless you want to change them to put some enforcement mechanism in. In which case that brings us back to the Lost Jackelopes, which are essentially an enforcement mechanism. We are currently looking at whether to extended the RationalWiki:Admin Abuse to cover conduct violation. As for that article, it is in fun space rather than project space, meaning it is far from official policy. - π 00:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I was about to say basically the same thing. It isn't policy, it's sort of a joke, and it was just written today (with one edit). It is also controversial, and not widely accepted. DickTurpis (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
And it probably won't be there by tomorrow... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DEALING WITH VANDALISM The vandal bin to me doesn't seem like a good idea. Why not just use permanant blocks on vandals instead? Much more efficient.

The vandal bin gives them a chance add something, refute their block, etc. yet still prevents them from doing real damage. It's a little less harsh than a block, which we do in general try to avoid. DickTurpis (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So yeah, thats pretty much it. I enjoy lurking on rationalwiki and reading some of your WIGO pages. I feel that I have a good understanding about how this community operates. I would enjoy a good tempered discussion, and please don't take offence to my dissection of your primary site document :) Libertarian1 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir, if I may remind you, this is not a place to discuss improper behaviour. I believe this section has strayed severely from the stated mission of the revamp, and therefore I propose it be relocated to the gentleman's user space, or somewhere pertaining to abuse reporting. As to his allegations, I have politely replied on the talk page. ~Lumenos (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, he is not continuing arguing for an unpopular proposal the way you were. Normally we move long arguments to forums or debates anyway. - π 10:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Replying off wiki is so irrelevant as not to be even funny. Lumenos, please understand. Your Lumiwikinode is not a part of this site and no one cares what you write there. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Clearly the rule that talk page comments should not be removed is no longer valid. The standards should be updated to reflect the new rule that if you don't like a comment, you can just call the editor a troll and revert them. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the way to do it: make a comment on the talk page; don't run rampant on the RW page. Well done, you're learning. We'll have you up to primary school level soon. 15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I am 86..., NX is 89... Nx is right on the ball on this one. You allow the likes of David Gerard to completely ruin this site and then don't have the balls to do anything about it. Bigots like Jeeves and Susan enforce the new order. Absolutely disgusting what has happened this site. 86.40.219.238 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why, but David Gerard deleted the above comment. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You do know why. Because you let him get away with it. Time and time and time again. Its sickening. 86.40.99.162 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's fair to let people manage their own talk pages, since we have a paper trail in the form of history. Deletion is one thing, but changing the actual words of a person who posts on your talk page is a bit iffy, even if at times funny. Talk pages that belong to everyone are a different matter, and perhaps best left alone unless it breaks one of the existing rules (illegal, personal info, highly abusive). Eddy had a good point earlier in mentioning that trolling does push some people away from RW. Maybe we should first understand exactly what annoys people? i.e. is it the trolling, or the varied responses we have to it? Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 22:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you want to allow RobS to remove comments from his talk page as he pleases? Memory holing MC is one thing, but please let's not extend this to anyone we don't like, and let's especially not make it into a universal rule. -- Nx / talk 22:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think of something. Is it possible to destroy the edit history by deleting and recreating pages? If so, then yep that could be iffy. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, so deleting and recreating would be a no-no then - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pole: Editors get more control of their own talk pages

Editors should be "allowed" to have more control of their talk pages than other talk pages:

Yea:

Nay:

Undecided but leaning toward "nay":

  • ~ Lumenos 00:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Proposal: Vote on enforcement policies (for Gerard, etc)

David Gerard does a lot of mainspace editing. Me thinks you don't want to deter this behaviour. There are now disputes among the LJ about what to do about him:

  1. 05:56, 7 August 2010 Human (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:David Gerard from Bureaucrats and Sysops to (none) ? (Abuse. Will be returned to sysop in 24 hours, bureaucrat probably never.)
  2. (show/hide) 13:16, 7 August 2010 Ace McWicked (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:David Gerard from Sysops to Sysops and Bureaucrats ? (Human decratted unilaterally but David Gerard never abused said rights)
  3. (show/hide) 06:20, 7 August 2010 Ace McWicked (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:David Gerard from (none) to Sysops ?

Human's unilateral decision to undo a unilateral decision is met with a unilateral undoing. What I would suggest instead, is to use the energy of these sorts of conflicts to inspire discussion as to general principles, make policy proposals, vote on them and implement the popular ones. Is this sort of solution wildly unpopular among this community? What better way is there to resolve conflicts?

One of the "problems" is that when policies uses vague terms like "harassment", it could be abused. So avoid ambiguous terms like that and describe "trolling" using the most specific and accurate terms you can (ie not "trolling", "harassment", etc; unless these are linked to clear definitions). ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 22:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals: Policies for bureaucrats

Some proposals for ways bureaucrats may loose their cratship:

  • Claiming they know who anonymous editors are, without evidence. ~ Lumenos 22:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Deleting comments without citing a popular policy, in the edit history, when comment is deleted (unless it is a privacy issue, in which case comments "should" be oversighted, although this may result in Streisand effect anyway so I'm not really recommending it). ~ Lumenos 22:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd expand the first one to include "Blocking a user for using a shared IP or proxy." Which has to do with the Occasionaluse kerfuffle. Lyra § talk 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll use the revamp boxes so anyone can edit the contents.
It seems that policies for open proxies should not be the same as policies for other "shared IP's". A "shared IP" may be someone's only way of connecting to RW, but anonymous proxies such as Tor are different because anyone who uses these has the option of not using them.
"Shared IP" is ambiguous. I would guess most of us use Internet access providers that shuffle our IP addresses around. I guess that IAPs may assign the same IP address to two RationalWikians, but I would think this would be unlikely unless many RW use a small ISP or the ISP operators did so intentionally. I don't really know. Other types of "shared IP's" would be connection of a school, employer, open wireless router (of a home, cafe', mall, airport, etc). ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 03:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Old community standards


Proposed new policy

Ways bureaucrats may lose their cratship:

  • Risking mis-identification when blocking/deleting: Blocking editors who are not certainly identified, or deleting their edits with the only reason given, that they appear to be a known "troll".
  • Deleting comments without citing a popular policy, in the edit history, when comment is deleted (unless it is a privacy issue, in which case comments "should" be oversighted, although this may result in Streisand effect anyway, so it is not necessarily recommended).

Proposal: Vote on bureaucrats

Pi claims RW mostly votes on bureaucrats and Human claims that they only pretend to. I propose we vote on bureaucrats, leave polls open always, in a location where they can be easily found, so that editors may add or change their votes at any time. ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 22:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Vote on votes

The vote to vote is voted upon by voting. The voting is then refactored to vote more vote-liciously. This involves, of course, a vote. In this vote, we demonstrate that voting for votes votes votes in. Example votes are voted on and, in Soviet Russia, vote on you. - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

True! 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Proposal: Proposal for proposal

An abandoned talk page suffers a breach of subreality. William S. Burroughs is seen walking along the quayside, and the original linear footage has been rearranged into a mathematically precise cutting ratio at 12 frames (or two cuts per second). Following this brief exposition, the writing is reinterpreted as a pure cinematic technique. Participants in the process of meaning-mincing use a suffocating blanket of words to stupefy all rational thought. - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Veracity indeed. 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Corrected. Still veracious - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: How to form proposals

A state of insufficient rules shall be corrected by instigating top-heavy generalisations from single cases. Animosity should be invoked in their writing as far as possible. Particular chicken beheadings should be sought out and, if RationalWiki's law of doublings is to be realised, induced to compensate for the participation level compared to Wikipedia. Such a thicket of rules is the best way to protect free speech and encourage participation - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Stop me before I kill again

Lean customer engagement value justification social media benchmarking personalized interconnected sincere voice user-directed market identity. Strategic promotainment visibility 'wow'-factor network actionable content optimisation wiki analytics B2E brandstorming corporate DNA semantic mapping please dear Lord stop me before I kill again Obama effect synergy ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn research embedding. I sing the song that ends the Earth. - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So accurate. 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast