RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive17

Proposal
I propose that, because the three blocking policies are different and contradictory, RationalWiki:Community Standards and RationalWiki:Sysop guide's sections on blocking be merged into RationalWiki:Blocking policy, and that the new texts appear as below. The new blocking policy emphasizes that blocks are for malicious editing only, that blocks should be short, explains the blocking process, that only users should be binned, that joke blocks happen, and that editors should clean up afterwards.

Discussion
My apologies to Weaseloid, I was just trying to merge the three pages' policies and iron out their differences. 02:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Several things:
 * No apology necessary, but this is a community-driven page & needs community input to get stuff changed in it, which generally isn't straightforward (see any of this talk page's 15 archives)
 * The "eligible voters" list is for voting in RMF board elections specifically & isn't used for the other kinds of votes mentioned here. Currently the Foundation isn't mentioned in the CS at all.  There should probably be a link to info about the RMF & ownership of RW somewhere, but I don't think RMF election process needs to be covered herein.
 * Personally, I still favour having a separate sysop guide &/or blocking page. If the info on different pages contradicts each other, that needs to be resolved, but there is a distinction between this page - aimed at all users & providing an overview of how things tend to work around here - & a page aimed at users with blocking abilities telling them how & when to use them.
 * There's also the issue that this is a pretty long page, which may deter a lot of new editors from bothering to read it, & these changes make it even longer. So it may be better to split some items like blocking & deletion & voting processes off into separate pages & link to them from here.  The namespace list also seems a bit redundant as it's duplicating Help:Namespace.
 * For blocking, I reckon the best thing is to keep the details on a separate page (either blocking policy, or merged into the sysop guide if that seems the best way forward). Then replace the content about blocking in the CS with a very short overview stating that our blocking policy is lenient but we do use blocks and a vandal brake to address vandalism where necessary, plus the odd joke block. Add a clear link to the blocking policy (or sysop guide) page for further info & a statement that sysops should familiarise themselves with it before making use of their blocking rights.  02:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the "eligible voters", I changed the template to have two possible configurations. (See it's documentation.) This makes it true for this page, too, I think. Would it be acceptable to add it, then?
 * On the "separate" pages point, in retrospect, I realize that I should have merged the blocking stuff on the three pages into B, rather than CS. Would merging the stuff into RW:B work, or is some of it still too sysop-specific?
 * On the "long page" point, I think merging into RW:B would alleviate this issue.
 * On the "separate page" point, I think merging into RW:B would alleviate this issue.
 * Thanks for the feedback! 03:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are very comfused about eligible voters. It is only for foundation purposes. Otherwise this is too long. No one is going to look at sub paragraph 6 to figure out what to do. -
 * On the eligible voters point: the Community Standards state "In order to vote in policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote." The EligibleVoters template has two modes.


 * If parameter 1 is nonempty, then it parallels the Community Standards.
 * On the too long point, a successful merge would actually reduce the total characters of the three pages by about 1000 characters. In other words, if you think the proposal is too long, then the current versions are too long. 12:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. 04:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. 14:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. 05:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm afraid that it's a little bit difficult to figure out exactly what point is being made here. Could it be succinctly re-stated?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Essentially, whether we merge a load of separate pages (sysop guide, blocking guide, eligibility criteria for RMF elections) into the CS. 18:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well - on principle we should have consistent standards and instructions. I'm not sure what the objection would be.  We might need to reconsider our blocking policy though - we have always been very lenient, but with (another) new generation of editors we might need to (a) reconfirm this historically lenient policy or (b) be led by them into something less tolerant.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Weaseloid, I propose that we should add the eligibility criteria template into the CS and merge all 3 blocking policis into the blocking policy page, which is the subject of the gigantic SBS above. (Sorry if unclear)
 * @Bob_M, I propose what I said to Weaseloid. 18:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. 04:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop saying that. It's not a persuasive argument.  08:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What he means is "if you're going to complain, offer something substantive". You in particular, as the complainant - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Weaseloid: It's not an argument... ?
 * @David Gerard: Isn't the 10,000 character article-merge proposal substantive? 15:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant Weaseloid objecting to it then going silent - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already laid out my opinions at the top of this section. 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I read your opinions and attempted to respond to them and change my proposal accordingly, but you haven't yet told me what you thought of my responses. 19:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "eligible voters", I don't agree with putting eligibility criteria for penalty & policy votes in the same template as RMF election requirements. I don't understand what problem (if any) this is intended to resolve, given that that template is only used on about three pages, all relating to RMF board elections. Meanwhile there's a risk of muddling different eligibility requirements which aren't actually related. If there's a need for a template listing policy & penalty vote eligibility requirements, it would be better for it to be a separate template, but if it's just going to appear on this page, there's no need for it to be a template at all.

Regarding the blocking policy, it mostly looks pretty good, but I'd suggest a few small changes. I don't think inserting gibberish or non-relevant information into an article is necessarily malicious editing, as per Hanlon's razor. "Repetitive malicious editors can have their blocks extended for significantly longer than the 'standard' block times" is too open ended - how would the reader know how long to extend the block? Surely the role of the Chicken Coop should be mentioned somewhere in relation to long blocks sanctioned by the community. And I don't think it's any longer true (if it ever was) that almost every sysop issues joke blocks.

It still needs some level of community input before changes are made. Hopefully we won't have to bother voting on it, but I suggest calling others' attention to this page for comment (e.g. by posting a link in the Saloon Bar). 00:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've dropped the eligible voters point, so I think that's not an issue.
 * I've added a note about Hanlon's razor to the list of malicious actions.
 * I've limited blocks to 3 months without Chicken coop consensus. Too short? Too long?
 * I've also added the Chicken Coop in a hatnote at the top for people who've been unjustly blocked.
 * I've updated the joke block section.
 * Thanks for the input! I'll make sure to spam mention the propsal to others. 01:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall I think this looks fine. I think the malicious editing section is a bit baggy though. In my opinion malicious editing should mean repetitive posting of the below:
 * Advertising
 * False information
 * Illegal items
 * Blanking pages
 * That's it for me (obviously would need word-smithing). As it stands inserting false information is not counted as malicious editing, the 4th point is just a repeat of 'advertising' and bigotry is singled out as a special form of malicious editing for some reason.
 * Good work on this FCP, needed an update. Tielec01 (talk)
 * I've rewritten the malicious bullet list. I think it's better. 03:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I would have preferred no reference to bigotry, and a mention of false information but I can definitely live with it as is. Tielec01 (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with prohibiting bigotry? (JW)
 * My problem with "false information" is that nobody ever thinks their information is incorrect, and so nobody will ever think that they are adding false information. Or are you talking about something else? 03:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The current proposal seems pretty moderate and can always be edited later; plus, our current blocking policy page is woefully inadequate. 03:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Like what parodists do over at CP - insert overt and sometimes covert false info in articles. Nothing wrong with prohibiting bigotry from articles, but I see two issues, first people might misconstrue this to mean that bigotry is not allowed at all on the wiki (which it is on talk pages etc... no matter how distasteful we find it) and also in determining what is or isn't bigotry. Minor quibbles, go right ahead as is.Tielec01 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it now. 04:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks decent to me. *thumb up* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've updated all three pages. I noticed that Help:How to handle vandalism also exists; should this also be merged into RationalWiki:Blocking policy? 00:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the link at the top of the section to the ' blocking main page' now doesn't take you there. I assume there is a problem with the piping, but as my wikifu is at sub-panda level I can't fix it myself. I avail myself to the wiki gods. Tielec01 (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Shit, you're right. Fixed. 01:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency on user talk pages
A few pages say that removing content from user talk pages is unacceptable:
 * RationalWiki:Community Standards states: "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, with the following exceptions:
 * Obviously vile comments made for the purposes of trolling, and of a user on his/her own talk-page, as described above. The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates.
 * Posts from users who have been blocked from the site, but are circumventing the block by using an alternate IP address or sockpuppet account. Deletion of such posts is mandatory, as this is considered necessary for the proper enforcement of blocks."

At least one page states that a user removing content from their user talk page is acceptable: Which is it? (This has come up before, for different reasons.) 01:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki:Newcomers states: "Your talk:user page, however, can be edited by anyone and you may not delete items from this page, obvious trolling or spam excepted. (Although you may archive them periodically.) The reason for this rule is to prevent the retrospective re-writing of history which has been known to happen at  other Wiki projects."
 * RationalWiki:Community Standards states: "A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. However, users are permitted to delete posts from their own talk pages at their discretion, being responsible for any abuse of this permission. Users who believe their comments have been removed unjustifiably can take their case to the Chicken Coop or All Things in Moderation, rather than edit-warring over the removal."

Still inconsistent
Despite all the work below that's gone into fixing me, the page still says different things. Which do we want? 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice

 * It would be fantastic if you would take a break and consider that people are getting really really tired of your attention seeking. Perhaps revisit this issue when people stop rolling their eyes when the get emails that you, always always you, are editing something. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nutty: Why do you think that pretty much everything that I do on RationalWiki is "attention-seeking"?
 * What happened here is that I realized that I may have been wrong in reverting you on your talk page (for which I now sincerely apologize), since there's grounds for deleting stuff from user talkpages on this page, and I wanted to find out whether deleting comments from user talkpages is acceptable or not.
 * Why must you attack me whenever I do anything? 01:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was as close as I'm probably going to get to making a helpful suggestion. You're driving people nuts. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If my actions have driven anyone nuts, then can they please tell me what I've done to make them so crazy? I can't fix any issues with how I edit unless I am told me what the problem(s) is/are; if you tell me, I will attempt to fix it/them. 01:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to help you out...
 * You edit too fucking much. It gets old clicking RC and seeing the FCP show.
 * You stick your beak into all sorts of shit that does not concern you.
 * You routinely use 1,000 words where 10 would suffice.
 * That help? --Inquisitor (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll try to be more concise and less nosy. However, I'm not sure why editing too much is a problem. 01:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also you seem overly preoccupied with enforcing "rules" (which these aren't; please read the first line) rather than exercising sensible judgement. Yes, we disapprove of conversations being vaporised, but you were edit warring over the removal of a single comment (which was basically a repeat of a comment posted & responded to on the relevant article talk page).  It wasn't your comment & it wasn't a comment you responded to; you seemed to just be fighting over it for the sake of it, & should have stepped back to ask yourself what is actually at stake here?  02:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks! I'll try to be less anal about stupid things like this. I was mad, and couldn't step back. I apologize. 02:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You were mad because I challenged you. Think about that. I'm just some asshole on the internet. I also hate to be a dick about it, but I'm pretty much always going to win. Sorry buddy. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone care about this "rule"?
I have only ever seen it enforced as a way to further harass a person. They get a huge pop up telling them they have a message, if they are interested can look. The problem at Conservapedia was that the admins were deleting things to shut down discussion. You can't shut a discussion down on RationalWiki if you tried. You are not entitled to another user's time, so if they don't want to talk to you on their talkpage they don't have to. 09:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I care a little bit. It's not your talkpage, it's community content. You are entitled to ignore someone on your talkpage, that much is obvious. Deleting content is futile anyway, are we going to start banning people for reposting deleted content? If you want to stop someone from posting to your talkpage the only way to achieve this is to ignore them. This is true regardless of whether we allow or disallow talk page deletions. Tielec01 (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was more talking about the mindless/malevolent enforcement of this rule, a person putting back something that has been removed and justifying it under this rule. If the rule didn't exist they couldn't use it as justification to keep being a dick. 10:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In practice, it's only ever used as an excuse to harass people and to further harassment, the latter with a remarkable and odious air of self-righteousness. It's a shitty and terrible rule in both theory and practice - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can change the rule to "Although archiving is much preferred, you may delete comments from your userpage, unless the person who posted the comment objects to its deletion or premature archiving." This allows comment deletion, doesn't allow censoring others if they don't want to be censored, and doesn't allow asshats like me to ride in and object to removing comments posted by other people. 18:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the situation I want to avoid, where a person insist their message has to remain there for the world to see. If they have removed a post then it is fair to assume they read it. It is no more censorship than if I skimmed your email then deleted it or look at a letter and threw it away. Nobody has to read your bullshit, or read it every time they go to their talkpage. 01:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with you. If I decided to go full trollergags and start KKKing it up relentlessly on your talkpage, I sincerely doubt you are going to just ignore me. And you shouldn't, if I did that. The correct action would be to delete my patently racist shit and then get me banhammered like fuck, because who needs that harassment? I agree with David; it's a shitty rule. --Castaigne (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's already an exception for trolling: "obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box". And one of B's ban reasons is: "Adding purely offensive bigotry (racism, sexism, etc.), solely for the purpose of causing emotional harm, into a page". So currently, you'd be able to delete the content and banhammer; and the change I proposed doesn't change that. 18:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that I can troll without using vile comments. It's really that easy. So I can muck up your page and so long as I don't skirt this particular line in the sand, it's all to the good, because Legal Is Legit. And I frankly can't agree with that.
 * Let's go with a more concrete example. Ryulong is a target for GGers. They come in and GG his page all up with bullshit, but nothing that can be counted as "vile trolling" or "bigotry". He archives or deletes it, because they're just coming in for harassment. They object to that and it's restored. Is he supposed to "ignore it"? How do you respond if there's a concerted attack by, say, KiA to snow his page under with hundreds of comments? How does your rule handle that situation? Because as far as I can see, it would be totally legit. --Castaigne (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think spamming somebody's talk page or incessantly posting on somebody's talk page counts under "trolling", since the goal is not discussion but causing distress, and would be deletable now as under the new rule. (BTW, Castaigne, I never supported the "ignore it" idea. That's Tielec01.) 18:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the guideline here is: Is this particular case a big deal? If not, be reasonable about deviations. I don't care that Nutty did that to one tiny post of mine, and recentralized the discussion. If someone is recurringly whitewashing accusations of misconduct to maintain their wikiputation, that's one thing. If they don't feel a conversation is worth having, it falls to "pick your battles" territory. Ikanreed (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the principle that users keep/archive talk page discussions - rather than just blanking or deleting their talk page when it gets too long or LANCB - is pretty important as people should be able to find past discussion when they want to. Removing the odd comment or two from your talk page when it bothers you is pretty harmless.  I don't think there's much, if anything, wrong with the existing wording; only with people pedantically enforcing it without sound judgement or perspective, and that can happen with anything on this page or with any rule or guideline on any site.  19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that. Ikanreed (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Every practical application I've seen in the past five years is older users wielding it as a stick against newer ones, with zero consideration of whether it makes any fucking sense, and particularly when it clearly doesn't. Your claim is pretty much hypothetical - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember WIkipedia's rule, but it is something like "if a message is left on your talkpage it is assumed you have read it". The talkpage is just there to communicate with a user, not to hold a debate. 01:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to overcome the gut reaction of distaste when someone removes a conversation from their talk-page, largely because of my experiences with CP - which I know other editors will understand. Changing this rule is a bigger philosophical change than it appears at first blush. Talk pages at RW have been defined as community property, in the interests of transparency they are kept as a record of conversations to the user (and not just for the user that 'owns' the talk page). If we allow users to delete comments from their talk-page then I think we are saying that user talk pages, like user pages, are now the property of the user - as per WP.
 * If we do change (and I would prefer not) my preference would be that we allow users to delete unpleasant conversations, that may not reach the level of trolling, as long as they are not still being discussed or referred to in other parts of the wiki. In practice this means that a user can delete something after a week or so if they feel the need. That way discussions can't be shut down, and discussions arising out of talk-page posts aren't going to link to deleted revisions thus rendering them out of context.
 * At a deeper level I think deleting content from your talk-page in practice never achieves what you want it to, with the exception of doxxing. People will just re-post it and it will likely be subject to the Streisand effect. Ignoring it and moving on (perhaps deleting down the track if we go there) is the only way to limit the fallout of whatever untoward accusation or unpleasant thing is sitting on your talk-page. Of course that's my opinion with all the relevant disclaimers...Tielec01 (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an interesting thought. There is nothing in principal to stop me doing this and me setting Pibot to do hourly sweeps (and apparently it needs resting). So how does this differ from me archiving a comment straight after I read it? 02:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing, and I doubt anyone would object until it became impossible to use your talk-page to have conversations. Archiving is a little different to deleting though. Tielec01 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough with the coop, continue rangeblocking and doxxing here.

 * ''This was moved here from the chicken coop at 1502 UTC 12 April; please read references to "this page" with that in mind.

Proposal
Can we exit the coop staredown for a while, go have a discussion about the direction of our block policy, come back in some time t, and block/unblock as appropriate? PacWalker 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, now, that might actually be reasonable. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I can't do that. Why next I might become downright rational! If a rough discussion starter were to go somewhere, would the saloon bar be the place? PacWalker 21:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I see. PacWalker 22:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall receive! --Castaigne (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just keep it here. It's not like different pages are different conversational environments. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Too late. And this really isn't a coop issue. --Castaigne (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I mostly wanted to isolate the policy debate from the "you did I did he did" stuff, but hey, whatever works I suppose. PacWalker 22:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is not so much as to whether range blocks (or this particular range block as such) might be desirable. It might just be that this range block *is* desirable. I think the reason for using being on this coop page is Ryulong's decision to "just block these 65k addresses". Now, I can completely understand being slightly 'too enthusiastic' and/or 'caught up in the moment' about this, but his/her comments about this even before it went to coop (as well as prior behaviour) prove to me that this person is not worthy of a mop, even by RW's standards... Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an issue of policy to settle; that is what this heading is about. Go complain about people's mopping up above. PacWalker 22:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "I think the reason for using being on this coop page is Ryulong's decision to "just block these 65k addresses"."
 * This is something I don't have an issue with. It is better to be badly proactive than to be diffident and indecisive. Decisive action is always preferable to me. --Castaigne (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So...
If we have this automatic anti-proxy thing active (Gerard mentioned something along those lines), how come some proxy IPs can edit? Should we unilaterally ban such IPs when they show up? What about rangeblocks? Are they gonna be a thing now? Lastly, I find it kinda peculiar how Ryulong twice in a row used ban reasons that have little relation to the bannable activity that actually occurred on the wiki. Sure, it's apparently a "Proxy IP", and that's apparently a big deal, but that's not why the IP got in trouble. Sure, it's imaginable that spambots would make use of this proxy IP range, but that wasn't the case with the specific IP from that range that popped up on the wiki. Just seems weird, is all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding as to the first question is that it is WMF's list of open proxies, or at least that open proxies are the bulk of the list. Beyond that... oi vey. PacWalker 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is that one proxy IP was used to be a cock to me and I don't think that's something worth recording in a block log, so IFE lt it was better to establish that the IP in question is an open proxy.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 22:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While I understand the motivation, I've always had problems with banning open proxies, tor nodes, and the like. For the simple reason that they might be used for legitimate purposes. RW covers some "sensitive" subjects such as religion and sexuality, and I find it entirely feasibly that someone might use an open proxy or tor to find information about it. In fact, depending on where you live, it might be the *only* way they can find information about it. I hope these people end up on RW, and I certainly don't want to deny them access to RW. I see no reason to pre-emptivly block a range (unless it exhibits unusual and large amount of disturbance, in which case it might be a good idea, depending on circumstances). And "One IP harassed me and this range is often used for spam and such" is not good enough of a reason, as far as I'm concerned. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There might be legitimate purposes but how often does this come up here? And can we at least keep the IP that spurred this blocked again? We all seem to be lenient on establishing a URL blacklist so I don't have to deal with my dox showing up again.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 22:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know how often it comes up. Do you? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The /16
FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Check what's going on with it at Wikimedia.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care about other websites. Issue a rangeblock again and I will coop you and remove your powers. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's a fucking proxy subnet that's been abused here why the fuck should we not leave it blocked?— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP range is not legitimately used by anyone. It is solely owned by one company that runs dedicated server hosting and has been abused here to attack me. There's no fucking reason for you to desysop me and constantly unblock that range. There was a shitton of discussion on my own user talk page about it beforehand. What is your problem?— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't do rangeblocks. We're not TK. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't "we" do rangeblocks?— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you unblock the IP that was used to attack me too? Fuck, man. This is some petty bullshit.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You gave "proxy IP" as the reason; that may have been misinterpreted as the ONLY reason. PacWalker 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well we shouldn't give recognition to such acts. I'm surprised my revdels haven't been undone in full.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling vandalism a turtle does not communicate much information, so we try to call it vandalism or harassment or what have you. PacWalker 21:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is also a proxy IP.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's odd that you have no problem calling this shithead a shithead all over the place, except in the ban reason, though. Do you maybe think that person will derive some sort of pleasure out of having their bullshittery mentioned in the ban reason, but won't get that feeling when it's mentioned anywhere else? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Live pages can be redacted more easily.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 23:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Range blocks are unprecedented here. You want to implement them, draft a policy, post it in the bar, and get a consensus from the community. "Ruylong and Gerard say so" isn't how we make policy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply because they are unprecedented does not mean they are forbidden.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Something unprecedented not being (explicitly) forbidden doesn't mean it won't be notably controversial, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Proxy IP
FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC) So what? I also edit from a proxy IP much of the time. PacWalker 07:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bless your heart for trying. Word of warning - Ryulong literally cannot change his behaviours - he was kicked off WP for it. Luckily for him he has some big guns in his corner that won't allow the mob to reign him in a bit. Tielec01 (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The proxy in question has done some shite oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, but a first-time human sheitmeister wouldn't normally recieve a block of such length, would they? Or did I misread/apply where not applicable? PacWalker 14:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is all your fucking problems? The person using this proxy (which is part of a network banned on all Wikimedia sites) was being a cock towards me.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 17:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "banned on teh Wikipeds" I can think of *others* who are as well. Is there a reason that BLOCK shouldn't be read as limiting the block on that IP to 1 month for this first case? PacWalker 17:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not just "teh Wikipeds" it's globally locked over there. It's obviously used for some like "Hide your IP" web applet or whatever. And it was solely used here to be a cock to me so why be a stickler for this shit?— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 17:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PacWalker, if someone is being a douchenozzle and is doing so using an illicit means, does that not mean we cannot prevent that douchenozzle from using that same means here?— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 17:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are also a douchenozzle, sir, and again: banning folks because of past troubles at WP would bite you in the ass. RW:BLOCK is not terribly optional. PacWalker 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your account is less than a month old, PacWalker. There's a difference between "Had disputes they did wrong in elsewhere that aren't really our business" and "Anonymous proxy subnet used almost exclusively for vandalism, here and elsewhere."  They're wasting everyone's time with holocaust denial bullshit.  We are not enriched or informed or debated.  It's garbage, and you don't need to defend garbage.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have not been enriched? Obviously. Will not be? Fail to see. If we want exceptions carved into our policies, carving them into policies before claiming them might be proper. PacWalker 18:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure all your many months of bragging rights, together with everyone else's, could've been used to add this to our blocking policy if it was intended to be a part of that policy. PacWalker 18:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A wild exception appeared! FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 18:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW Ikanreed, why mention "less than a month old"? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be sanctimonious and self-righteous, of course. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, open proxies should be blocked anyway, particularly if mainly used for abuse as this one seems to be - we should have the open proxy blocker switched on after all. When clear fuckwits are gaming rules, it's time to declare Calvinball - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I mistakenly believed our policy pages accurately documented our policies. Block away, then. PacWalker 18:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * RW:BLOCK incompletely documented our policies. RW:BLOCK in this form is only a few months old; I wrote it, and it's bound to have holes. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found one in between the h and the l in "holes," I think. But anyhow I'll chill out; I went ahead and reblocked 108.61.x; is that still halal? PacWalker 18:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kosher, too. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec with a tuber) Walker threw Grouchy Ball! PacWalker 18:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

did you issue a /16 rangeblock?
FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC) If so, please, we don't rangeblock here. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a spam subnet.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Good thing we have sturdy edit filters that do a decent job of keeping spam off the wiki. No rangeblocks please. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I get why he did it, but you know what? You're right.  /16 is an absolute ton of addresses.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you fucking trust me on this? Christ. The 108.61.0.0/16 range is owned by https://www.choopa.com/ who are not an ISP but a hosting service. This service is used by spambots and assholes AS REFERENCED IN THE SECTION ABOVE to have proxy servers to fuck with us here. Leave it blocked. It's blocked by Wikimedia's spam project. We can block it too without having to worry about shit.— Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus
Are rangeblocks appropriate for ranges that are frequented by open proxies, spambots, and trolls? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

CHANGED PROPOSED POLICY per AgingHippie's request in Goat. Apologies if this changes your vote.

Is it acceptable for a user, after seeking consensus at the Saloon bar or Chicken coop, to block the known range of a proxy that has recently and repeatedly been used for the purposes of malicious editing on RationalWiki, for no longer than 1 month, with an IPBE system in place? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SHENANIGANS! Your apology notwithstanding, I find this kind of goal-post shifting unacceptable. It only confuses the situation. If you are going to append "Esq." to your sig, even in random jest, you need to get your ducks in a more orderly row. You want us to strike the votes already counted, and start over? Then make a new section to that effect. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is done, m'lord FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

====Yep====
 * 1) Sure. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the updated version of the policy (which also applies more specifically to Ryulong's case) avoids almost all problems laid out below. (1) Evading parental/government information-censorship through a proxy, only to be IP blocked, can be appealed via IPBE. (2) Spirit of RW / kneejerk response: Consensus should avoid kneejerkishness, and it should gauge whether RW's community spirit agrees or disagrees with the block. (3) Individual IPs: This only works when an editor only uses an individual IP. However, specifying rangeblocks to recent activity has the same effect as a single IP block -- it's targeted -- except with wider scope. (4) Assfly: Assfly bans for ideology; this for malicious editing, which explicitly excludes ideology. Having consensus also helps prevent CP-esque bans, since CP never got consensus for any blocks. (5) Unspecified: Now more specific. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) — Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">琉竜 ) 22:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Prolly CorruptUser (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

====Nah====
 * 1) I think we need to be very careful about this, and very carefully judge this on a case-to-case basis. As far as I'm concerned, the best possible thing that RW can do is to help understand someone that all that bullshit in the bible is exactly that, or that the sexual reorientation therapy their parents are pushing is complete nonsense. Some of these people might have a good reason to obfuscate their access to the internet, perhaps they're worried that their parents (or government?) will either block or see their activity (these concerns might not be justified, but that's not important here)... Now, I don't know how often this happens, and I certainly recognize that spammer shitheads abuse these otherwise useful services, but do we really want to take the risk? Especially when there's no pressing need to block a certain range? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) *I'm going to call the parents one, simply on the premise of "if they have physical access..." PacWalker 23:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) As a general rule no. goes against all that RW has stood for over the past years.  Block individual IPs as necessary. Scream!! (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Not until things like length/size of range/on whose say-so/what constitutes reasonable grounds is clearly articulated Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) What those first three guys said. In cruder terms, overzealous knee-jerk range blocking is not a habit I want to see RW get into. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) A ban hammer should wielded with care (think of it as a ban scalpel, if you will). When all you have is a hammer and all that jazz. I agree with the opinions above that range blocking goes completely against both the traditions, precedence and spirit of RW. This seems like pushing the red ICBM button because someone got involved in a bar brawl.ScepticWombat (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Given the tuber's updated phrasing of the question, there might be grounds for such drastic measures, but I'd rather not change my vote until I have any reason to suspect that this is more than a hypothetical scenario. Massive and persistent (unfunny) vandalism might merit such measures, but I don't see any pressing need for instituting such a policy unless it addresses an actual, rather than a potential or hypothetical, problem. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) We shall not adopt the tactics of Assfly.--Madman (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman

====3rd option====
 * 1) Only when multiple IPs from the range in question have done bad things on RW. We don't need to bother banning every single potentially problematic range if just 1 or 2 (or 0) IPs from it have ever been used to access RW in the first place. (Also, my anonymous opinion might not officially count.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for the 3rd option anymore. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

====Goat====
 * I think the above argument about using proxies to get to RW about sensitive topics is interesting, but I'm not sure how big of an impact it is. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How awful would trying to run something like WP:IPBE for those few cases be? Maybe no yes? PacWalker 22:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be pretty easy, given RW's low traffic and 0 known previous instances. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 22:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is vaguely put. we only block for on-wiki activity. We do not block for behavior on other websites. As put, the question leaves open the possibility of range blocking ips for things that happen elsewhere. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose an alternative. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You need a proper policy. What should constitute a reason for a rangeblock. You need to bear in mind we only block for on-wiki activity. Who should be allowed to issue such a block--individual users or a consensus? How big a range? For how long? You need to find out what the community thinks are reasonable answers to those questions, and then put it to a vote after sufficient debate. And you need to make sure people know this is happening. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's at the SB now. The voted-on policy has changed, it's more specific methinks, except for "how big a range", because I think that might vary depending on which proxy / ISP / whatever is being used, so it specified "known range". Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 23:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, while it *should* be obvious not to use rangeblocks if you don't understand them, a "know how this notation works first" thing would be nice. PacWalker 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, if I can't vote vote, do I have to stay out of the goat section? PacWalker 23:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 23:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can goat all you want, PacWalker, it's only your actual votes that don't count. You can get your say so, but enfranchised editors don't have to give a flying fuck about your opinions when calling the shots. Patience my young padawan, remember that anger leads to the dark side... Nyahnyahnyah you caaaan't voooote! ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep

 * 1) The updated version of the policy (which also applies more specifically to Ryulong's case) avoids almost all problems laid out below. (1) Evading parental/government information-censorship through a proxy, only to be IP blocked, can be appealed via IPBE. (2) Spirit of RW / kneejerk response: Consensus should avoid kneejerkishness, and it should gauge whether RW's community spirit agrees or disagrees with the block. (3) Individual IPs: This only works when an editor only uses an individual IP. However, specifying rangeblocks to recent activity has the same effect as a single IP block -- it's targeted -- except with wider scope. (4) Assfly: Assfly bans for ideology; this for malicious editing, which explicitly excludes ideology. Having consensus also helps prevent CP-esque bans, since CP never got consensus for any blocks. (5) Unspecified: Now more specific. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah

 * 1) If you want to think of the children, the IPBE is a layer of bureaucratic friction, and in many cases will not help. Sure, make them jump through another hoop to participate, see how well that goes. (Where do I find a sarcasm diacritic to make it plain?) Going with what Aging Hippie said in the now collapsed section, "Not until things like length/size of range/on whose say-so/what constitutes reasonable grounds is clearly articulated." Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that these "children" know how to use a proxy to evade their parents/government's censorship, I'm going to say that they're probably mature and intelligent enough to handle a "pls help I'm blocked" request. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [EC] Maybe so, but how many of those mature, intelligent souls will say "fuck it, I don't need to go through another whole procedure of getting permission from strangers", and bail? In their shoes, I suspect I might, depending on which side of bed I got out of that morning. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider: You only need IPBE to edit, not to read. So in terms of RW evangelizing secularism etc., they could still get access, just not contribute. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 00:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. Kindly consider that participation can include asking questions and offering anecdotes, not just lurking. "They could still get access, just not contribute." Fine. They could also self-emancipate and move to Montana, but I don't think that is a great idea either. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) Further: The length of the block has been specified: 1 month. Range: Known range of whatever proxy is being used; if the range of the proxy is unknown, we probably shouldn't be rangeblocking, eh? On-whose-say-so: Community consensus. Reasonable grounds: Malicious editting, like doxxing or spamming or trolling that would have gotten a normal IP ban, except that the bannee is jumping IPs. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to hammer out consensus on the policy. Unless and until the community gathers round and does just exactly that, it's too soon to allow this kind of thing, for reasons already articulated. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the place? Isn't this the community gathering right now? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 00:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki talk:Blocking policy is the obvious choice. If you start a topic there, and the recent changes patrol does not pile on, then drop a note in the saloon.
 * This community gathering is about a particular editor's use of range blocking. The discussion has wandered here and there, but it is still not the place to hammer out consensus on policy. You may have taken community input into account when you modified the question now in front of the mob, but it is still mostly your own wording. I'd like to see it done more formally, less ad hoc and on the fly. Solicit input, allow more than an hour or two for the discussion to proceed, that kind of thing. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This policy still leaves more unsaid than said. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What more must be said? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 00:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You guys are doing a shit job of making a case.  I don't see even a link or summary here of whatever comment(s) or vandalism originating from proxy IPs prompted this move.  My attitude is that anything that excludes potential users should be an emergency recourse only.  IIRC range-blocks & proxy bans have been used as short term measures at times in the past when we were hit by an otherwise unmanageable level of persistent vandal attack.  Are we actually facing anything like that here?  01:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A singular BoN (and then one account with timing of creation/content of edits suggesting they were related) made rather unoriginal revisions to Ryulong's comments, linked to ED, and was blocked for lack of subtlety, blocked for real, and later RevDel'd. One more BoN ( range? can't remember... different range than the blocked one) made a related unfunny edit to RW:BLOCK, and was briefly blocked. I know of no other incidents here coming out of the range that has been discussed. 03:09, 11 April 2015
 * Unoriginal & unfunny aren't good reasons for rangeblocks & revision deletions. 02:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Go look for yourself as to the original mess/revdels; I think I'm going to not mop any more gas onto this fire myself. PacWalker 02:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Good to see RW's resident TK is stepping up to the plate in an attempt to ban the entire world. These problems could be resolved by taking sysop rights off one editor. Who's got the balls? Tielec01 (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Nah. Range blocks are like trying to perform a heart transplant with a hammer and a chainsaw. <font color=#CC0033>|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Red rose 02 -.jpg.svg|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin' 02:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) TK says hi from the grave.--Madman (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * 4) I'll just repeat in this second vote my point from the first one: WHY? (Why is this necessary?)
 * A) Does RW have a systemic problem with spambots that requires range blocking?
 * B) Are there any other reasons beyond the hypothetical "it might perhaps be a problem in the future"-scenario?
 * C) If not, is this hypothetical scenario something that is likely and immanent imminent?
 * D) If not, then why does RW need a range blocking policy, or to add range blocking to its "arsenal/toolbox"?
 * If the answers to all these questions are no, I don't see the urge to either employ range blocking or to start making policies beyond a "better to have it and not need it"-feeling which I think is a rather poor argument for either. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, very important remark here: "immanent" means inherently/automatically encompassed in reality. The word you were probably going for is "imminent" (impending, fast-approaching). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ONOZ! A grammar mistake! Where can I put my head? I'm so ashamed! (Oh, and I've fixed now, btw) ScepticWombat (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, it was a spelling mistake and/or a case of mistaken denotation. To be a grammar mistake you would need to have misapplied or failed to apply a particular grammatical rule, which doesn't seem to have been the case. For example, the lack of an 'it' in the sentence "I've fixed now" means you're using the verb "fix" in an intransitive way, but the intended meaning requires that "fix" act as a transitive verb. Hence, that is a grammar error.
 * Also, a bit of further exposition: In my native language, the word "immanence" is virtually unknown, so whenever the concept boils up in philosophical discussions, people just assume it means imminence, resulting in massive misunderstandings. So you could consider it a bit of a pet peeve o' mine. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake yes, and I hope you've got your English teacher fix now - or perhaps I should make some more mistakes just to make your day? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to do anything for my sake; do whatever makes your day. Also, please don't take me too seriously when I'm in overly-pedantic mode. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But we are all very serious people here, sir. PacWalker 10:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FART JOKE! Sorry, but I seem to have burst a blood vessel in me brain m'lud.
 * I of course meant, yes we are all Very Serious People; now might I persuade you to pass the tea and sugar, please, gentlemen? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes most certainly, kind sir, save that I am a lowly fuckwit and sadly know not how to pass sugar. I do dearly hope some other much less fuckwitted individual shall assist thee. PacWalker 14:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) We've got our own Ken but we don't have to change the rules just for him. Ochotona princeps<sup style="color:#0066DD; font-size: 0.7em; font-style: oblique">not a pokémon 23:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Point of Order
This is completely the wrong place for a discussion about policy changes and and what our standards are. Such debates should be at RationalWiki talk:Community Standards and the standards should be updated after a debate there.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What he said! Scream!! (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * {{somoveit}}... Or better yet prevail upon tuber to drop the proposal for a time so we can get back to our coop case, hand all mops back with a "don't rangeblock" attached, and return to the rest of the farm? 131.204.254.105 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that I only really brought it up here to show RW's opinion on rangeblocks such as the on Ryulong used, that sounds best. Almost everyone seems opposed. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * However this is all "idiotic bullshit" (okay, some parts of it just might be...) and should be archived straight away right now this very instant. ;P PacWalker 22:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With the discussion here - and subsequently archived here -it will be hard to get back to.  It's just badly done.  But I can't say that I care enough to fight to get it done properly.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat
Someone said I could goat ALL I want, so...

PacWalker 00:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, fuck all of you people. Voting fucking AGAIN? I'm tired of the whole goddamn thing right now. Enough. Just ban everyone. --Castaigne (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * huehuehueh FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It's 9 to 3. At what point do we reach "overwhelming consensus", agree that rangeblocking is bad, and move on with the coop? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say wait, personally, especially given the hour. PacWalker 04:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good lord Fuzzy, we don't need to do everything within 12 hours of starting it. -- Mie kal  04:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you say, "we need to do everything within 12 hours"? Because that's what I read oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 12 hours is like a week in Internet time. <font color=#CC0033>|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Red rose 02 -.jpg.svg|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''A vain death of a plump bird. 04:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Old Earther logic. PacWalker 04:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 12 hours is like 12 months. I've already gone through Internet Spring allergies oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did you get 9 to 3 from FCP? Give it more time. Ryulong hasn't voted yet and presumably they think they did the right thing. DG will come along soon and try to archive this whole discussion as an attempt to shut down conversation about his favourite son. There are stages that these discussions need to go through dammit. Tielec01 (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 9 people voted nah. 3 people voted yep. (Both votes.) Not trying to rush it, but everyone's going for nah, unlikely to change. You're probably right about DG though. :P oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * DG tried. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One of those vote polls has been labelled as "now meaningless". But you still want to count it & aggregate it with the second vote?  Don't do that.   08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems people's opinion isn't dependent on the changed policy. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't labeled as "now meaningless", it was a vote of an earlier draft that got rejected. And now this draft also got rejected. <font color=#CC0033>|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Red rose 02 -.jpg.svg|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''A vain death of a plump bird. 22:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, *someone* labeled it that way... "" PacWalker 22:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious tongue-in-cheek is obvious. <font color=#CC0033>|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Red rose 02 -.jpg.svg|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''But does planting trees help bring people to Christ? 22:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was a tongue. PacWalker 22:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't a changed policy. 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The changed policy proposal. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He did seem to express some support for blocking at least the WMF list earlier... somewhere... on someone's talk page that might be here now... eh. Something. PacWalker 04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "Would you fucking trust me on this? Christ. The 108.61.0.0/16 range is owned by https://www.choopa.com/ who are not an ISP but a hosting service." Just did a WHOIS on my IP address for shits and giggles; it is, as I thought, not registered to an ISP either. PacWalker 00:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This might be attributable to your source of Wi-fi. --Madman (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * Okay. My point stands: not having an ISP-owned IP address doesn't mean one is guaranteed to be a vandal. User:PacWalker Stuff to the left was REDACTED cuz teh LogikMaster thinks I is vandal after all. 07:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I'm guessing that the ban on rangeblocks is official then. <font color=#CC0033>|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Red rose 02 -.jpg.svg|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams 22:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like it. (That said, if RW got plagued with attacks from a proxy, we'd probably accept it as an emergency measure.) ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa
Dont vote Goat, vote Jerboa !! they are cuter 198.98.209.150 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fucking hell
Just, you know, fucking hell. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * NO FUCKING IN MY DUTCH OVEN. Peace. God 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ajk is right. Clusterfuck. Acei9 00:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FUCKING HELL. Someone wipe this crap up. please! Scream!! (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

ED links and revdelling

 * This was also ''moved here from the chicken coop at 1502 UTC 12 April; please read references to "this page" with that in mind.

There's still a few other issues to adress: 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is linking to an ED page of a non-public figure doxxing?
 * 2) Regardless of what we call it, should affected revisions be revdelled?
 * a) Does revdelling prevent unwanted information from being spread in a meaningful way or is it more likely to draw more attention to said information?
 * b) Are harrassive shitheads bothered by having their edits revdelled or do they get off on someone taking the trouble to revdel the revisions?
 * On the subject of 2a, I'd say that in regard to random RWans seeing said information, the latter would apply, since most users have sysop rights. As for non-RWans, whoever put up a link to revdelled revisions can just as easily put up a direct link to the unwanted information in question. As to 2b, it's probably a mixture of both. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is blatantly targeted harassment happening? (Yes.) Is a link to dox pretty much the doxing? (I think it pretty obviously is.) Is letting it through on a technicality actually in any way a good idea? (Not that I can see.) Is looking hard for a technicality to let it through on just a bit fuckwitted? (Yes.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I don't want to shred the documents, toss the fish overboard, burn the file safe, and smash the fossils, and will argue against doing so how I deem best. I guess that's fuckwitted. PacWalker 14:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I submit here also that the first point has been raised here before and recently, to the tune of absolutely zero action for such a very serious offense. PacWalker 14:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, "linking to dox" could just mean saying "Google Ryulong" since that article seems to be the very first result when I spawn a browser I haven't used in ages (it was IE - I shall perform penance), wipe the history, and search. PacWalker 14:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet again, this is the wrong place for this discussion. It should be here.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean I can copy this part over without turning too many heads (hopefully) unless somebody wants to seek coop-type action against me here or some such. AHEM. *Somebody*, is this a precursor to properly cooping me? PacWalker 15:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing whether Ryulong's ED page contains doxish information or whether linking to said page amounts to doxing, I'm just trying to get clarity on whether linking to a non-public figure's page on ED should automatically be considered to doxxing. If the latter is the case, then we could take more proactive action in preventing people from linking to ED in general (like the edit filter PacWalker proposed below). And it'd also be nice if there was some clearer policy on when revdelling is appropriate, so Ryulong can stick to that policy and various users don't need to get all upset when Ryulong does something unprecedented but not explicitly forbidden. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A policy'd be nice. Any suggestions? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not strongly pro-revdelling or anti-revdelling, so I don't really know what I'd suggest. I just brought this up because Ryulong seems to enjoy using revdel quite liberally to the displeasure of various users. Solving that discrepancy before it leads to (more) major drama seems obviously desirable. Also, the reasons why Ryulong uses revdel seem to be to prevent people from looking at his dox and because it denies the harrassers the 'honour' of having their actions recorded and I'm honestly doubtful that revdelling is achieving the desired goal on either account. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then if revdelling doesn't achieve these goals, should we allow it for these reasons? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, going by consequentialism, no, but some may argue that we should still revdel as a matter of principle. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Immanuel Kant, but at least Immanuel tried.
 * What principle? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 20:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The principle that it is objectively moral to erase to the greatest possible extent dox-type information? Like most principles, though, it's largely just based on sentiment/intuition. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Since we're now having a general policy powwow: Also, if for some reason links to ED or specific ED pages are held to be generally unacceptable but casually mentioning it is not, I suppose some kind of filter automagic might could cut down on future need to delete revisions, which I think is a fairly worthy goal. I don't know too much about the things, though; is this indeed feasible? PacWalker 15:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So I did some research and I think my answer is yes, that is quite feasible. PacWalker 22:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Short answer: Case to case basis depending upon the content of the page. In Ryulong's (Since I know that what's provoked this conversation) case, the only things I'd call dox in a very loose sense were pictures and the name of the country he was living.


 * If pages actually do contain dox, I see no problem with reverting the revision.--Madman (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC) The Madman
 * I'm glad you rethought that comment. My reply is no longer relevant.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not. 131.204.254.100 (talk)
 * Thanks for sharing. PacWalker 11:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User talk and user pages looking suspiciously like articles: Leave it alone, or add a warning label?
I know that RW'ers' user/talk pages are (usually) sacrosanct, but would it be okay to add some sort of "warning label" (perhaps a category?) when one is designed to look like an article? The specific case I stumbled upon is User:TrivediFoundation which I have a hunch is created by either the same guy or someone connected to User:Trivediguruji. None of them have any edits outside their own pages and both push the same woo meister. Should I just shrug and move on, add a warning label in the header, or throw them into a (new?) category? I look forward to the mob's input. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think any userpage that looks like an article should be given something like the essay template up top, personally. PacWalker 09:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For a rough idea of what I'm thinking of, see here. PacWalker 00:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That page is spam and will be treated as such. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that is one way to do it. PacWalker 00:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The weedwhacker of Christmas past strikes again! I didn't know it was okay to delete this kind of crap. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The userpage-wiping BON vandal & auto-vandal binning BoNs (moved from the Saloon bar)
Can we get an editfilter that prevents page wiping (as I understand it, currently our filter just tags such edits as "page wiping" in the edit summary, which is usually very stupid) for non-registered users? kthx FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * *seconds this* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thirds this --Arisboch (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should all BoN's be vandalbinned to start? CorruptUser (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will try to get on it when I get home in a couple hours. Meanwhile, I have some powerful, helpful one-click tools that might help in my vector.js extension that y'all can copy that might come in handy until I draft that filter. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved it here since it concerns general CC and policy issues. Btw, I think both ideas sound pretty reasonable. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The page-blanking filter would be ineffective against the current BoN vandal spree, as it would only stop somebody leaving the page blank. If they replace it with something (wandalism in this case), then the filter goes "Oh, well nothing's wrong" and ignores it. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a tech, but JJJS seems to have a point, whether this can be worked around, I have no idea. However, I think that default vandal binning BoNs is very much a CS/policy issue, as are filters which, however useful they may be, can potentially limit people's opportunity to edit. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Filters like the one I'm working on shouldn't need community standards discussions; if they are programmed correctly, they do what I want them to. If not, I will find out eventually. In any case, I always keep an eye on the filter in case of false positives and do my best to correct those false positives. The problem with relegating filters to being up to the community is that it requires the person making the filter to devulge how it's programmed, and if the wandal knows that information, it renders the filter useless. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That still leaves the suggestion of default vandal-binning of BoNs, though. Again, I'm not saying it isn't desirable, I am saying that there are principles involved in addition to the technical practicalities. Sure, restraining wandals is a laudable purpose, but it's a restraint nevertheless, and considering RW's general open door ethos, I think it merits a CS talk - if nothing else to make it clear that RW employs such filters as per the similar "to prevent disorder" phrasing in the blocking policy (but without disclosing the filter specs, of course). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh, it's just such bad policy. When somebody is made a tech, they are made one with the understanding that things like edit filters should have a "gentle hands" approach so that it is written in the least hampering way possible. But there's no way in goddamn hell, with things like doxxing vandals hitting at an alarming rate, I'm going to wait for the community to give me the OK before I, say, make a filter to prevent somebody's telephone number from being pasted everywhere. That sort of policy making is short-sighted and totally asinine. Edit Filters need to be made in real-time to combat real problems as they occur. Voting on every damn edit filter and waiting, what, weeks(?) for approval defeats 75% of the reason such filters are made and 75% of why the edit filter is something done on the front end. Ugh, this is just horrible policy all around, and if a rule is made where I need fucking permission every time I need to stop something bad, then you can have my tech badge, because I will no longer be giving enough of a damn to maintain the filters through all the red tape. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm new here, what is "vandal-binning"?--Arisboch (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's basically "autoblock for 30 mins after post", to prevent vandals from making edits faster than we can be bothered to clean them up, while still giving them a chance to turn around and become productive. Personally I think what should be done is there should be mini vandal bin for BoNs that lasts much less than this, maybe 5 minutes or 30 seconds, that ends once the BoN is autopatrolled or registers a username.  Registering isn't proof of good intentions, but if you have to spend 30 seconds to create an account just to make a vandalism that's undone in 2 clicks, it doesn't generate lots of lulz.  Maybe we could have something where the BoN has to be active on the site for at least 5 minutes before vandalizing (I mean, opened up Ratwik 5 mins prior to editing), to prevent people from just coming back with a different IP address? CorruptUser (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, 30min is too much. 1min or 30sec is the maximum. --Arisboch (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

He's back, for a 3rd day. Make a filter that prevents edits from unregistered users that change the article character count from over 100 to less than 50, pls.

JJJS, everyone agrees this filter is good. And I don't think anyone would care if you made a filter to prevent vandals. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 01:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or over 750. 100 seems a bit too low for a lower bound. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Techs & archiving
Do we have any techs left that are active on the wiki apart from DG? On a related note, it used to stipulate somewhere that tech powers were not allowed to be used as proxy moderator powers - I forget the wording but it stipulated that a tech could never use their tech powers to elevate themselves over another sysop. That seems to have disappeared. Did it get caught up in the recent rewrites of this page or something?

In addition I think we may need to write a little section on archiving etiquette, I've seen a few people react to being told they can't delete talk-page posts by immediately archiving everything on their talk-page. It's not an issue unless it occurs while a conversation is ongoing where it becomes a tool to shut down a conversation. Users have also tried to use this tactic on pages like the chicken coop when they don't want a conversation to continue. Tielec01 (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to elect more techs, mods.
 * I'd support re-adding a tech non-proxy-mod-powers clause.
 * Maybe just add "Archiving should not be used to shut down conversation." in the usertalkpage section and the CC section. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ZooGuard, JJJS, NoiseBot are active techs.
 * Too bad for you. This was the tolerable workaround to trolling fuckwits on talk pages. Your words will remain searchable in the archives, index updated every Sunday. If you don't like your golden prose being removed forthwith, see if being less of a dick makes your words any more welcome. Here's an educational text you clearly need to read, particularly the first paragraph: Free speech - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahah, just saw the above - classic DG. Tielec01 (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * gi isn't really green enough imo... :/ 09:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)