Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki talk:Community Standards"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 229: Line 229:
 
:I would rather just run a poll and that way he can't complain about his idea not being discussed (even though it is now the most discussed idea at the expense of the actual standards). This will probably go the way of CUR's idea that got his 2 for a about 10 or more against before it was voted that it was archived. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:I would rather just run a poll and that way he can't complain about his idea not being discussed (even though it is now the most discussed idea at the expense of the actual standards). This will probably go the way of CUR's idea that got his 2 for a about 10 or more against before it was voted that it was archived. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 
::But it's still humiliating for editors to have to express their objection to unnecessary polling by engaging in an unnecessary poll.  {{User:Weaseloid/sigred}} 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 
::But it's still humiliating for editors to have to express their objection to unnecessary polling by engaging in an unnecessary poll.  {{User:Weaseloid/sigred}} 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
::If you would like to post some evidence that I have ever "complained" about anything, this would be appreciated. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] ([[User talk:Lumenos|talk]]) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:::I am trying to drive home the point. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:::I am trying to drive home the point. {{User:Π/Sig|}} 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
:I think I agree with Weaseloid. I have a new proposal. That there be a footnote from the term "Community Standards" to say that these do not necessarily reflect the community at large (unless someone has some [[empirical verification]] of this). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] ([[User talk:Lumenos|talk]]) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
  
 
== The unwritten rule==
 
== The unwritten rule==

Revision as of 23:24, 23 June 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.pngpathetic 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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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 Loopy Jewels 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)

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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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)

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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:46, 18 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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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 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.pngpathetic 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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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)

Measuring consensus (with polls)

It is kinda looking like consensus isn't going to be possible. [3] Perhaps we could change the wording to say this is majority rule. Much like "troll" the term "consensus" is a cliche that has lost its meaning in wiki culture. Lumenos (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The nature of consensus & "majority rule" at RW is covered in RationalWiki:Community Standards#How RationalWiki is run. If you think it needs rewording, start a new section for it. If you have productive suggestions about the "advice when writing articles" section, put them here. Thanks. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was commenting on the phrase "per longstanding community consensus". I think I'm in agreement with this edit note, "(Advice when writing articles: This was not adequately discussed prior to inclusion & is not uncontroversial. It can be reinstated if there is widespread support.)" I think the best way to measure "widespread support" is by using polls (that are always open and linked from Community Standards). I'm not here to say that you should start using polls; I'm saying if you don't use polls, you probably don't have a good measure of "long-standing community consensus" or "widespread support", therefore this "standard" should not make this claim. Lumenos (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at the edit history of metapedia. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If we drop the "per longstanding community consensus" part, will you stop making long posts about it? - π 04:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Well of course, but unless you make me think you were doing it because you found it reasonable I will conclude that making meaningless long posts is just as "productive" as writing ones that seem to make sense. :-) Perhaps a better way to get me to shut up is to say, "I haven't found your posts all that helpful and you seem to be getting in the way of this process, could you limit your comments to about what others (besides Human) write?" ;-) Lumenos (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
God you are an idiot. - π 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I admire your humility in addressing me as God, har har! I will put my next comment in a new location if that will help. Lumenos (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC) This is no time for praying, we have work to do! Lumenos (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was not addressing you as God; if I did there would have been a comma. - π 02:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you but this time I didn't need the obvious spelled out. Lumenos (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Human, I am of the opinion that polls measure consensus, regardless of the history. Lumenos (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure you are. But you're wrong, when it comes to a wiki where people can edit as as many usernames as they want. Also, polling is less useful that intelligent commentary and arguments. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this also applies to larger issues, I replied here. Lumenos (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [It was moved from that location to right below. Lumenos (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)]
Socks can be used for writing just as for "voting". You have that problem either way. A new person might not know how active all these usernames are, so socks may be deceptive, but should be less deceptive to experienced users. Polling is better to measure consensus. How do you measure consensus with arguments? Do you pick the arguments you like and say consensus has been reached? Is the last comment assumed to reflect everyone's will unless someone disagrees? I'm not saying take a vote, count the pseudonyms, and write whatever the "majority" vote for, as policy. I'm saying if we have a list of nyms that anyone can add/subtract theirs to at any time, we would have a much better idea of the community's will. As new information comes out, old polls may become obsolete. But if we don't vote on the version that goes to the policy page how will we know there is consensus? And what about everyone who wasn't around at that time? The primary problem with your approach is that it favors people like you and I, who feel more "entitled" to "attention". Pi is giving me the feeling I shouldn't post. I think the more polite/timid among us would be more inclined to cast a vote rather than bring the issue out to the talk page or even comment here. A editor may see no reason to bring it up unless they can look at the poll and see that there is significant support for their position. Lumenos (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
When consensus is not apparent, we make no decision. Often, as it forms, people "outside" the developing consensus rethink their view and approve the decision. You might want to explore the archives of this talk page, which is where we did this quite successfully. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is a myth and does not exist. Usually it merely represents the wishes of the more forceful members of the community. 86.40.195.134 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you support polls, to correct or expose this? Lumenos (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't we normally poll issues, like delete/keep, merge/split and voting for crats? Although I have noticed in the later case people ignoring the vote and doing what they feel. Lumenous, it is not that I mind you posting, it is that you post some much and say so very little. I imagine that if we continue to follow your ideas we will get dragged down into a bureaucratic nightmare of endless polling over the smallest things. - π 02:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We've been down this road before (e.g. RationalWiki:Voting Procedure proposals). Excessive polling isn't helpful. We only need to vote in cases where it's otherwise hard to gauge consensus. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What teh mustelid said. 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

(Pi wrote) "I imagine that if we continue to follow your ideas we will get dragged down into a bureaucratic nightmare of endless polling over the smallest things." Anyone who finds a poll to be a nightmare could ignore it. If they ignore polls when writing "community standards" then maybe we should call them something other than "community standards".

If all Human and Weaseloid mean by "consensus" or "community standards" is what some little group like this, has in mind, then it may be easy to gauge without polls. But that didn't seem to work with the racism issue. I don't see the disadvantage of having polls, but I think I need to refocus what the issue is so I will try a new subsection.

Lumenos (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We are going to vote on the new standards before they are going to be adopted if that was the point of your latest wall of text. We will however venture to modify them to the point were nearly everyone is voting yes, or as few people as possible are voting no, so we will not be satisfied a simple majority. - π 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a start but it doesn't have most of the advantages I listed below. Lumenos (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
What advantage? It seems to me that all that is discussed these days is endless policy bickering and you want to make it a perpetual state. I just want to get some policies down and get back to the site's mission instead of constantly debating the site itself. Take that shit to RationalWikiWiki if you are that interested. - π 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well one curiously ironic advantage (which is listed below) is that you could put any issues that you are interested in on your watchlist and exclude this one. Lumenos (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Using subpages to show supporters/detractors of "Community Standards"

Forget about using voting to determine what to put on the community standards page. I propose anyone has the option of making a link from any of the "[Community Standards]", to a subpage containing evidence of supporters or detractors. This page may (or may not) contain:

  • Polls that are always open, and have various versions of the community standard for people to sign to indicate they support or detract.
  • Other evidence of community opinion such as diffs that show editors statements on the subject.
  • (Original) comments.

There are a few advantages of this:

  • Those who are interested in the subject can add it to their watchlist without getting alerts for everything they're not interested in.
  • Single issue subpages keep everything more organized and require less archiving.
  • (New) users can more easily find all discussions on the community standard and can comment or "vote" on it. (Again the "votes" are not necessarily binding.) Users can also easily find those who agree or disagree, in order to contact them directly, or notify them of the discussion.

Lumenos (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to set this up in your user space go ahead, it however to me seems like a huge waste of time and overly bureaucratic to do this in project space. - π 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are saying it would be okay to link to my user space from some issues on the community standards page. I'm guessing you are not. I assume it would be alright to put footnotes in the community standards pages, to the discussions in the archives. I may want to post footnotes of community members breaking the "rules" but that would probably be a can of worms. Lumenos (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think links to your user space from the community standard would be a good. You can keep lists of everyone breaking the rules if you like, when you are a pariah that nobody wants to talk to I'll give you hints why. As I said before RationalWikiWiki needs some love if pointless documenting is your thing. - π 02:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean. Maybe I will do that. Thanks. Lumenos (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hardly anyone uses watchlist email alerts, & most who are interested in the rewrite will be interested in all of it, not just single issues.
  • When the rewrite is complete, the discussion should be archived here, all in one place, not scattered across the wiki.
  • New users can more easily find the discussion if it's all in one place, which regularly shows up in RC, not scattered across the wiki. If we hack this into subpages, some will inevitably get neglected. Discussion about the CS should be open & in as few locations as possible so that it is easy for anyone to follow. Users contacting each other about it elsewhere to form alliances is not desirable. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess the difference is that I value the long-term benefits. The subpages would always be easy to find because they would be forever linked from the individual community standards. Once this stuff gets scattered across the forums and archives, you have to know what to search for. The only disadvantage of subpages is we would have to click more. (This is easier if you use a watchlist, etc.) A proposal such as this should be more neglected if you are a good judge of what most/everyone wants/does.
I don't see a problem with alliances. The forum on the racist linking could have been a subpage where all that discussion would have taken place. Now that discussion is also on this page, in the last archive, and in some other archive for the discussion before it was added.
Lumenos (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with alliances is we are suppose to be working together as one community. What happens when your subpages get archived? The discussion will be even more defuse. Also the subpages assumes that these ideas are discrete, separate and independent. Whereas I think the entire of the Community Standards is one document and the sections are interdependent. - π 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe everyone is going to agree on many of these things. If you are hoping I will "come around" on this issue, it isn't likely. I'm not trying to push it, or be in the spotlight. It seems the way you are doing it would stifle dissent and alternative forks. Like the way you are saying I post walls of text and "will I quit posting if...?" You prefer an environment where I have to choose between not participating, and being "tolerated" by a few people who are opposed and don't seem very interested in my ideas. If I put an idea on a subpage, it could sit there for a year until some other conehead arrives and suggests we develop it further.
The subpages would require much less archiving (if any). I would have some parts of the page be edited like a wiki article, and archive discussion. I would put the archives in the subpages so things wouldn't be lost/mixed in the archive; it is all one topic.
I would link interdependent sections using interwiki links and categories, just like articles. But if this were to happen here (doesn't look like it will) there may only be subpages for a few issues (of interest to me). The proposal is to allow people to do this, not to implement it across the board.
Lumenos (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I just don't see what your idea will achieve besides a large, unwieldy, and confusing set of community standards. How do we know which are current policy and which are in a state of flux? Also what is an "alternative fork"? Do people get to have their own private set of community standards or something? I prefer one clean, simple set of standards and if there is a problem we discuss changing them. - π 12:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
People get to represent their own standards, which would be the actual "community standards" even if those are not really a neat and "consistent" list. Presumably the real standards should be the ones on the Community Standards page, not the stuff on the subpages. But that depends on how we would judge what would be moved to the "Community Standards" page. I think with polling we would have a deadly accurate measure of how much a "community standard" a "Community Standard" really was, insofar as editors really follow the principles they "vote" for. The point is, no matter what we put on the Community Standards page, anyone could easily have a look at any polls or discussion, relating to any issue that links to a subpage on the "Community Standards" page.
There is another advantage of your current system that comes to mind. It seems to allow a bit more privacy/obscurity. I guess there is always a trade off between privacy and an open, democratic approach, but if that is important to anyone, they may be able to remain pseudonymous while here or use a sock for "policy" involvement. Editors who use socks would not be able to represent their full edit history, but if they use their primary pseudonym with your current system, they only really have a bit more obscurity to protect them.
Lumenos (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestions are not useful or popular. Please get over it. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was never under it. If you would like to explain how you know this, feel free. Lumenos (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably because no one is using or applauding them, I'd guess. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That could be because they aren't aware of them, they don't understand them, they are prevented from posting, or they don't bother with trying to change or participate in these things because they perceive it as futile. Lumenos (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (It seems you are referring only to the evidence of "popularity".) Lumenos (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, a poll. Who likes Lumenos's idea?

Yes

No

  • Tis' shite. - π 22:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to explain "my idea" in your own words, this would be appreciated. And/or what disadvantages you see, or evaluate above response to your "criticism". (One wonders why you continue to show an interest in "my idea" unless it has some notability.) Lumenos (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, let's all keep talking about Lumenos and his wonderful fucking idea. Clearly that's what this revamp thing is all about. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) @Lumenos It is a poll, you vote, leave a short comment if you want, this is how we gauge consensus. Because I oppose your idea and I don't want it to pass by my apathy. - π 23:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is it?

Why bother?

Polling the idea just validates the idea. Plus it's a waste of everyone's time. If anyone does support Lumenos's idea, they have every opportunity to say so, just by saying so. There's nothing you can say with a voting * that you can't also say in words. Since nobody other than Lumenos has expressed support for this idea, and until such time as anybody else does, can't we just draw a line under this & get back to actually discussing & updating the Community Standards? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would rather just run a poll and that way he can't complain about his idea not being discussed (even though it is now the most discussed idea at the expense of the actual standards). This will probably go the way of CUR's idea that got his 2 for a about 10 or more against before it was voted that it was archived. - π 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
But it's still humiliating for editors to have to express their objection to unnecessary polling by engaging in an unnecessary poll. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to post some evidence that I have ever "complained" about anything, this would be appreciated. Lumenos (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to drive home the point. - π 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I agree with Weaseloid. I have a new proposal. That there be a footnote from the term "Community Standards" to say that these do not necessarily reflect the community at large (unless someone has some empirical verification of this). Lumenos (talk) 23:24, 23 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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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)