RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive24

Proposal to change two-thirds rule on banning members
As per the discussions on the current Raven's coop some users have given good reasons why the motivations for the two-thirds vote for banning users (originally devised for conservapedia trouble makers and more light hearted trolling) is irrelevant considering the more menacing forms of trolling in the last couple years. Everything else on this site requires a simple majority, I see no reason why the votes of a minority should overpower the votes of a majority on any vote. Shabi DOO  14:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Shabi DOO  15:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Old Community Standards as stated above suggests this vote, being on policy, requires a two-thirds majority to pass.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Eventual vote
This has rin for two weeks. I now declare this vote closed. The 2/3 guideline stays in place. Spud (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Aye

 * 1) The fact that this was even a thing is stupid. 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) We should not allow nine users to overrule fourteen. If I cannot stop that from happening now, I can stop that from happening again. As a child of the Bush era who acutely remembers the suffering my household went through in 2007 "if you win the vote you still don't win the election" is kind of a berserk button for me, for those who wonder why I am so passionate about this.-Flandres (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple rule by majority is in fact a very flawed concept, easily exposed by a crude thought experiment: is it okay for 51% of the population to vote to chop up and eat the remaining 49%?--Hastur! (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is Reductio ad absurdum. 21:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is RationalWiki's own checks and balances.  Something to ensure stability and that minorities aren't constantly get muscled out (or eaten)--Hastur! (talk)  21:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We're an explicit mobocracy. That means, will of the majority rules. This isn't a "checks and balances", the supermajority guideline is giving undue weight to minority opinions. Our "checks and balances" are that you can coop or dispute with any user at any time, for any reason (but also shouldn't be suprised that if it's a bad case, that it ends up boomeranging in your face) and that no user has more voting/blocking power than any other user (everyone is a sysop and mods/techs are either elected or under higher scrutiny on their actions since they wield a lot more power). The supermajority guideline goes against that idea. 21:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to resort to reductio ad absurdum to make the argument against simple-majority rules, at least in some cases. It has been noted elsewhere (e.g., Democracy), democracy is more than simply voting and majority rules. Basic minority rights should not be at the mercy of the majority, otherwise it becomes tyranny. That said, some safeguards against such tyranny have been used against minority rights, e.g. in the US: the filibuster and the Senate (and its implicit states' rights). I don't think however that anyone's rights would necessarily be trampled by simple-majority permaban. Permaban, as I've said before, cannot be strictly enforced against a person since we can't match accounts with people. Functionally, permabans are against the account and against the specific behavioral pattern. Bongolian (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all that we call ourselves a mobocracy is at least partly tongue-in-cheek. But assuming that mobocracy is an inherent part of RationalWiki's culture but that an aversion to permabans and censorship isn't is very inconsistent.  Second of all, are we an "explicit mobocracy" according to the community standards which are "just guidelines?"  Finally this rule was likely instituted because being solely a mobocracy governed my simple majority is a terrible idea, as I've outlined--Hastur! (talk)  21:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 21:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) --RWRW (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) The rule may have made sense in the past but it doesn't considering the likes of endless concern trolling/sealioning and disruptive users of late.  Shabi  DOO  22:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Absolutely. I am not doing this because of just one user. If a simple majority vote says that Raven stays, I can live with that. But we shouldn't allow the most toxic users to avoid a well deserved ban based on this technicality. Users become that unpopular for good reasons. Coop cases don't get started against people for being mildly irritating. And I definitely don't want us to reopen old cases and invite back the scum of the internet who were permabanned without getting a 2/3 majority.Spud (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the most toxic users don't avoid bans. The system works.  If you could demonstrate that individuals like Tisane or Mikemikev have managed to survive ban votes as a result of this rule, your argument might hold water--Hastur! (talk)  05:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you were the one that said yesterday that Tisane, Abd and Mikemikev might be able to appeal their bans. You were the one that put the idea in my head. Spud (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a hypothetical. AFAIK their bans passed the 2/3 threshold.  Had they not, and they desired to appeal, I am certain that new votes would be unanimous in banning them.--Hastur! (talk)  06:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) as far as i am aware, the bans hastur refers to centred around unapologetic racism and promotion of the sexual abuse of children. its no big whoop that votes to ban would easily be close to unanimous. issues that you wouldnt want even a suggestion of supporting, and playing devils advocate leaves a bad taste. any new user showing up expressing such views right now would be blocked without question. attempts at avoidance of those bans are thus easy to spot and not really a factor worth considering. recent events however are more subjective, more tied up in perspective. whats is or isnt disruptive, or when is it enough to warrant action, are never going to be so skewed one way or another. evidence relies on its culminative effects and interpretation of the more vaguer guidelines, such as on long term trolling or harassment in block policy. importantly, behaviour in the coop, the manner of defense counts as much as the actual argument that might be made. it is an unreasonable standard to expect anything so definitive as a 2/3 threshold. if there is ample enough examples of what brought a user to the coop in the first place and gets a simple majority, its unlikely to be something that will simply go away. you can disagree with the outcome of such votes, you may be torn over your own vote, may think it is unfairly harsh even, but a simple majority is still a consensus of support, agreement that there is a problem. sorry if any resolution isnt as definitive as we would like, but such is life and a decision is needed. insisting on a 2/3 majority here ensures things will not be resolved. the risks of rights being trampled by our tyranny is limited. we are not handing out death sentences and bans still need to be thrashed out in the coop, needing to be argued for and support needing to be built. attempts at rail roading people will be apparant long before any vote, and would speak to greater problems with community here that wikilawyering would not address AMassiveGay (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bongolian (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) For reasons I gave above. Bongolian (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Am in favour. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ [all-lowercase name pls]  talk  19:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) agreed with what basically everyone said Vorarchivist (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) — Oxyaena  Harass  20:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Time for an update. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) This is not to do with any particular users or coop cases or anything like that. However, I will say firstly that. 1) From a quasi-utilitarian perspective, if someone is disruptive enough to cause those kinds of problems, then the net effect is probably just to make other editors unwilling to participate, or at the very least, to spend time focusing on unproductive drama. 2) I legit don’t think being banned under a certain account is that big a problem; maybe this is illegal or w/e but I feel like it’s pretty easy to just make a new account, not identify yourself, and avoid ALL the behaviour that got you banned in the first place; I wasn’t banned but I did basically the same thing and it’s honestly so much better. Sure, if someone IS banned I guess it’s technically “ban evasion”, but I feel like if someone doesn’t give anyone any reason to suspect, its the same net result as just a new editor. 3) I absolutely think there should be some kind of caveats however; a quorum, a vote margin, previous ban history, etc. is definitely worth taking into account. I can’t think of or propose any SPECIFIC requirements but I think it’s worth discussing.  12:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also would just like to add — I’m not convinced by the arguments about simple majority votes/increased banning leading to “suppression of ideological dissent”. Across the wiki I’ve seen everyone from conservatives to communists to socdems to liberals to anarchists, all of whom might get in heated debates but have for the most part never even been considered for a block/ban. I think there’s a clear difference between banning someone for, idk, saying “taxes should be lower” or some shit, and banning someone for causing trouble. I do think that there should be some kind of strict requirement that ideological differences (short of fascism or hate speech or whatever) should not be considered/discussed in the banning process, but in my experience, that’s rarely been the cause of someone being cooped/blocked/banned, so I’m just not sure it’s a significant concern in these types of cases. 13:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, you can use #: (increase colons for deeper indent) to comment on bullet items. This doesn't screw up the list count in ordered lists like this one. Fixed it for you, but thought it might be useful to share. 19:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) There is a reason we had this policy in the first place. We don't just get rid of people because they're unpopular.  This is the one tool that keeps us honest, and that allows use to foster healthy dissent.   This is what keeps us civilized.  Also quite alarming that some people here have such a rage boner for another editor that they want to change the community standards to get rid of him--Hastur! (talk)  21:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We barely apply this guideline to begin with, as I demonstrated in the coop. It'd be honestly a more arbitrary change to start applying it now, given it hasn't been seriously applied in cases where it mattered in at least 2 years, if not more. Luckily, there's no such thing as hard rules, and the will of the mob seems to have prevailed thus far by ignoring this guideline. A simple majority is honestly the fairest situation a mobocracy could allow, rather than allowing a minority of users to get their way over the majority based on an arbitrary guideline. Unlike general voter egliglibility (3 months and 75 edits), which exists to prevent socks from being used to stuff the vote, there is little reason for this guideline to exist. It's our equivalent to the filibuster: In theory and in the past, a great idea, but now it seems to exist to allow the will of the mob to be overturned by a minority. 21:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Free discourse and dissent are cornerstones of RationalWiki and this rule preserves our principles.  It having been applied inconsistently is no excuse.  The rule has served us well in the past.  I would like to cite the case of notorious troll MarcusCicero.  We only blocked him for a month and we easily achieved a near-total consensus.  That we feel the need to permaban a good faith user with a simple majority when previously we only issued a month long ban with an overwhelming majority is to me disgusting overreach and heavy-handedness--Hastur! (talk)  21:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * easily achieved? it took you literal years and multiple coop cases. thats not super appealing and a permaban is only overreach if we ignore what actually occurred. free discourse and dissent are in no way effected by this at all. a rule inconsistently applied, so much so we forgot about it, suggests its not as fundamental to our freedoms as has been suggested. a simple vote is all that would be required to reinstate if we were to suddenly find this one thing was all that was holding back the tide. i note the vote back then was similarly split between those looking at what was done versus those in denial of reality with a liberal helping of hes alright really. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Always thought of RW as radically inclusive, and tearing that down would be backtracking on RW's legacy and strength imo. Not interested in or aware of the drama that preceded this motion.  This wiki is an open wiki that doesn't need registration.  Blocks are therefore mostly ceremonial and over personal issues that should be settled outside of these sorts of dramatic wiki changes imo.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Black Guns Matter. I know it's unpopular, but I'm gonna say it anyway. nobsBlack Guns Matter 02:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you are interested in Black Americans protecting themselves. You may find the following book instructive:Negroes with Guns by Robert Franklin Williams.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) AceModerator 09:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Neiltyson1fan convinced me. Even an utter asshole like TK wasn't permabanned back in the day. Let it be noted that it was Nutty who unilaterally blocked him for 4 years (for making legal threats against Trent). That the four years turned out to be a lifetime for TK is incidental. Banning at simple majority makes it too easy to silence any dissenting voices. I'm not great at debating myself, but I have Darwinian faith that this community includes people who can run circles around and by doing so humiliate away any and all douchenozzles who manage to infiltrate it. No permanent blocks needed (with some very rare exceptions...I'm talking about doxing and threats to life and health here).Coigreach (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) This site seems to be a prickly place full of prickly people. There are too many fans of running perceived ideological enemies out of town,  A standard higher than mere unpopularity needs to be in place to justify banning anyone.  Requiring the two-thirds vote is an imperfect solution to the problem, but any other mechanical device for achieving the same goal will also have issues, because human interactions and algorithms do not mix well. Keep it until something better is proposed.  Removing the procedural bar and allowing bans by simple majority is not something better. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) if you can't get a 2/3 majority to agree it's probably not a good idea. Bans are very rare, we only have a few banned users total, less than 10. 20:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Reframing the issue as a slim minority suppressing the will of the majority is appalling. This issue has been written about for hundreds of years. It's not a remarkable proposition that votes affecting constututional issues and bans should require more than the slim majority of a fickle mob's blessing. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Raven here. My OG account is eligible, so I will vote on this one. To be clear, LGM and co. are canvassing in the discord (hence why sapient and vora voted here). Ravenism (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that striking this vote is denying the spirit of the law in favor of a rather obtuse interpretation of the letter. I've personally confirmed that this vote is the real Godless Raven. --Hastur! (talk)  20:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fails to meet eligibility, which is account-based. I could just as easily make 10 accounts and claim that I'm Raven on each one. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then count this as GR's vote. Ravenism (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a disappointing decision, Bongolian. I have personally verified this account's identity, and I don't believe that there are grounds to question my good faith and honesty--Hastur! (talk)  20:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a very simple solution. Dis-scramble my passowrd on GR and I vote with that account then. Ravenism (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We'd have to propitiate Davide Gerard or Trent Toulouse and beg them to take time out of their busy schedules for the sake of restoring the password of a user who keeps LANCBing and inexplicably burning their account password+email. You may open a topic up on tech support if you want and I'll say a word on your behalf but dude you gotta stop with stuff like that--Hastur! (talk)  20:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's easy. Just accept my vote with this account. You verified yourself (vouching for it) that it is GR indeed. Yeah, it's me. Owner of socdemwiki. Ravenism (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's easy to fix with renames. 20:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh they're tampering with votes again. Unsurprised. GR (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 16:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Hclodge (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) If we allow people to be permabanned by simple majority, this wiki will rip itself apart through perpetual civil war with endless coops and counter-coops. 19:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) The "mob" is often full of shit, and can be wildly inconsistent in who or what requires the torches & pitchforks treatment from one month to the next. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) If I recall correctly the rule was introduced to prevent the takeover of the wiki by a 'cabal'. This reason remains. Scream!! (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Invalid votes

 * 1) I can vote, right? Fowler (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. Your account needs to be at least 3 months old. (for reference, you registered on july 28th, you can vote from october 28th onwards). 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Let's face them head on, shall we?  07:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, you're not eligible to vote. You don't have the necessary amount of edits. 08:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Late reply, but thanks. I should have been more involved in RationalWiki before voting in this matter. 10:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Goat

 * Is there a waiting period for these votes?-Flandres (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge, but I guess a discussion beforehand could be nice, also I think Shabi doesn't want this to influence GRs current coop. 19:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This needs a site notice--Hastur! (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It has now been posted. Bongolian (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we'll make it more colorful soon--Hastur! (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I appreciate the uniform look of the notices we use to inform people about ongoing affairs. Adds a flair of professionality. 22:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that it is not sufficiently visible and that people may miss it--Hastur! (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We should make it look like early 2000s sites. A big flashy gif with moving lights around it. That'll grab people's attention :p. 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. With a dancing baby--Hastur! (talk)  23:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying my best to do devil's advocate. In what hypothetical instance in the context of this wiki can a simple majority vote not be justified? 00:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ban votes, for one. As well as changes to site rules.  Simple majority is too volatile.  I'd say cases where it IS justified would be for less controversial stuff like mainspace content--Hastur! (talk)  00:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Has there even been a case where simple majority was way too close to call (let's say margin under 3 votes) and a decision was heeded? 00:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will not vote until the coop case has been completed. 00:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate to vote on this while a contentious coop case is happening. I'll defer until the current coop's closed. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sitting this one out. For now. 02:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Peanut gallery opinion. As a reader of RW, I don't think I'm elligible to vote. Countries often implement two thirds majority rules because they think they've created a great system, and don't want anyone changing it in the future. In the future, this only ever seems to create headaches, as people are stuck with rules everyone thinks are outdated. It's not a majority versus minority thing, but a past people versus future people thing. I think it is very important to ensure minority rights are upheld. However, I think supermajority rules are a particularly poor check on the power of the majority, and could even backfire here. Other methods should be found. Supermajority bad. Tulpa001 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see anything that would disqualify you from voting.(EDIT) never mind, you don't have 75 edits. Sorry for the inconvenience.-Flandres (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ll admit to being torn on this issue. One the one hand, I think that the current rules open up a bit too much leniency, given how few votes you’d need to prevent blocking/banning, on the other, a permaban potentially based on a single vote majority seems a bit shaky to me. I’d suggest that temporary blocks can be voted through by simple majorities, while permabanning should probably require something more. I’m thinking that this could be either the two thirds options currently on the books or a simple majority provided the user has received at least two prior bans of at least two weeks each. This will slow down more trigger happy editors from wielding the ban hammer too indiscriminately and allow for some deliberation, while still having a fairly speedy process for kicking out serious offenders without gumming up the votes. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Permanent bans seem to be unnecessarily contentious. If a user receives a six month or one year ban, how likely are they to return and do the same things? Ariel31459 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How about requiring that to permanently ban someone, a two thirds majority must be required, whilst for temporary bans a simple majority will suffice. As for policy changes, I'd also propose changing to a simple majority. Look at elections and referendums for a start. Kiko4564 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose that a simple majority should also require a quorum, so it's not something like 2:1. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Beautiful how the censorious pitchfork population is losing this vote. Will def not help their crusading seasons. 04:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Just fucking ban everyone and be done with it

 * 1) AceModerator 09:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Slope ain't that slippery, dude. 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Come on Ace, it's the hardware, remember?
 * https://youtu.be/-tm_zgr71F0

Ariel31459 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the liquor. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Motion to strike
Whilst we can all admire the chutzpah required to launch this vote for such nakedly motivated reasons, at least let the coop play out first, you filthy animals. Le législateur (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Uhhh who are you? 23:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears I originally pitched myself as A wiki Moses on wheels; sent to lead y'all to the Promised Land of Happy, Productive Editing, but that's not important right now. How did you get from your history teacher's bad pun about a stuffed animal to an extended riff on a dead Italian fascist as some wiki restaurateur? Describe the journey in detail, please. Le législateur (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I, too, would like for the Duce to elaborate--Hastur! (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Story time is the best time. Rakim (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Motion denied. Let's get this rule sorted out now. Shabi  DOO  00:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I kinda like this motion--Hastur! (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is really enough of a stink to this (officially changing a rule we haven't been enforcing) that this rule, if successfully changed, shouldn't be applied to the current coop, then I will start another coop next week and if this policy successfully changed and the vote is around the same (no reason why it shouldn't) then the same result will happen. Question is, is there enough of a stink from this from the community (I doubt it but we can see) and is it really necessary to have another coop? Shabi  DOO  00:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the coop closes sooner than the CS vote...--Hastur! (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It all depends on how much stink is made. Shabi  DOO  00:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A more principled stance would be to worry about the smell itself, rather than how many people complain about it, but like I said, full marks for chutzpah. Have you thought of running for office? Le législateur (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also a vote on the community standards should really be left open longer than a single week--Hastur! (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll note that my vote said this current coop would be treated in a "grandfather clause" sort of way, still applicable under the old rules? Strawmanning is such bad sport, you know...-Flandres (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Legislation doesn't apply retrospectively. The current Coop case will continue on the 2/3 rule as usual. Y'all are welcome to do it again later, if you must be drama queens. 02:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. We'll just do the whole coop thing again next week. Shabi  DOO  02:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Second time around will be a cleaner, less dramatic, clearer event I'm sure... 03:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason legislation generally doesn't apply retroactively is because of the concept of the rule of law. It's a good rule to adhere to for RW even if it's not codified.
 * So, this is going to be the one rule we actually adhere to, even though it's not actually a rule? Cancel my rhumba lesson! Ariel31459 (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling the next vote will be on changing these from guidelines to actual rules. Or at least it will be if the vote goes in favour of keeping the 2/3 guideline. Spud (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Compromise?
How about a simple majority wins, assuming the margin is some number of votes? Seems that manages to not let the 51% mow down the 49% but also means that the minority can’t rules-lawyer their way into beating the majority. 203.111.4.57 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Define the margin. 03:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree my dear 203.111.4.57, but Dysk has unilaterally decided how we are going to apply a rule that hasn't been applied for some time and reverted my attempt to work it out democratically through consensus. So yeah...this is where we are. Shabi  DOO  03:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Shabi, don't be provocative. I think Dysk is right; we shouldn't be holding a vote to just try to subvert a rule that didn't align with a result we don't like in a coop (considering that a vote has already taken place in the coop). The rule should be dealt with first, then it should be applied to coop. At the very least, this vote should've happened before there was a coop vote. 06:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take it easy on the tone policing LGM. I'm not provoking I'm expressing my dismay that an attempt to get the community to democratically make this decision was unilaterally torpedoed because one person didn't like it. Reverting a call for consensus without even a discussion...I don't think that's cool. But if we are to have a drawn out second coop and delay the inevitable...so be it. Shabi  DOO  07:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand it seems this way, but I believe Dysk acted out of advice from another user, Nutty (DM?), not on a whim. 08:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My only involvement in this is public. I hope you're just making assumptions. Nutty Roux (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I must be mistaken then. 18:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, I based my commentary on Nuttys commentary, here on the wiki and possibly in Discord channels. These are of course public comments. 00:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Every time I pop back here to see how RW is going, it seems to be inhabited by more and more people who have no idea about the ideals and goals upon which it was founded. If only you all could ban everyone, then this would finally be a productive wiki. The current crop of sad authoritarians who blithely piggyback on the shoulders of those that actually created the wiki should be ashamed. 120.16.159.53 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a repeat of the same stupid shit we hear from time to time. While you and your ilk keep repeating that the wiki is one of two possible things: absolute blissful anarchy where users can be free to troll and get up to dipshittery as they please or a totalitarian North Korea of gestapohood. That's fucking stupid bullshit. There is an entire universe within these two polar opposites (or false dichotomy) and we can easily find something in between. Yearning for some false-past-paradise is stupid and thinking that anything other than that is some authoritarian nightmare is ridiculous. Come down a few steps and realise the wiki doesn't belong to any one group of people...neither the original creators, the admins or any clique but it belongs to the entire mob. Always has. Zheesh. Shabi  DOO  10:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong words from an editor with about 2 mainspace edits out of the last 500 (drunk perfunctory glance, could be as high as 10). Insert some Aschlafly 90/10 joke here. I concede the point though, the only thing holding RW back is that it's too hard to ban people. Godspeed!106.68.229.94 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Except of course the annotated Quran doesn't show up on main space edits Mr anonymous IP address with one single edit showing. Not to mention what the fuck does that have to do with anything...red herring much? Seems the only thing you really miss is a place to pass by and spit out cranky assholy shit from time to time. Shabi  DOO  12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kiko4564 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dysk. I am but a humble IP address so I don’t really know how many votes these things get or really anything about the process so I cant answer confidently. I’d say anywhere from 2-5 personally, with 3 sounding reasonable. Idk though I guess it’d be ideal if whatever margin usually fell in the 5-10% range for these types of things. 203.111.4.57 (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC) For clarity, I don’t even know what this is really about either; I’m just here bc I saw the thing on the top of the screen and I figured it sounded like it might make people happier with whatever option is chosen. 203.111.4.57 (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I ain't convinced that is workable. 00:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think there is any way to make the option more workable or nah. Idk I just feel like this situation is a good “compromise moment” tbh. Having read a tiny bit of the drama page, this all seems fairly intractable otherwise 203.111.4.57 (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As has been pointed out. Any proposal to change the existing system would itself need a two-thirds majority.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The introduction is not really accurate.
The introduction reads: ''... some users have given good reasons why the motivations for the two-thirds vote for banning users (originally devised for conservapedia trouble makers and more light hearted trolling) is irrelevant considering the more menacing forms of trolling in the last couple years. Everything else on this site requires a simple majority, I see no reason why the votes of a minority should overpower the votes of a majority on any vote." ''

I would point out that the current version of RW came live in May 2007 - some time after many of us had a falling out with CP. The requirement for a two thirds majority was voted on and passed in October 2011. You can see the rather rather difficult process by which that number was arrived at here, and this was well over four years after we said goodbye to CP.

It was certainly not designed to deal with "light hearted trolling" From CP. In fact, the worst troll we had to deal with was TK and he was very active on CP. This (now deceased) user was certainly as big a difficulty as anyone we have seen in recent years and, if I remember correctly, he was the first person who ever got a perma-ban. Though this was before our formalized process existed.

I also note that CS states: "In policy votes and penalty votes dealing with a user's removal from the site (temporarily or permanently), a positive option (an option that is not "nay" or "none of the above") must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass." Which means that not only permanent bans, but also policy changes need to pass the two thirds threshold. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. A very useful post.  You are much appreciated--Hastur! (talk)  17:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Added caveats for a simple majority
I’ve seen a few people propose various ideas to make the simple majority thing fairer; ie to avoid situations where someone gets thrown out the door bc of only one or two editors, etc. I do think SOMETHING along these lines is a good idea — options I’ve seen proposed are some kind of necessary vote margin (eg the difference needs to be greater than three editors), a quorum of how many people have to vote for it to count, and taking into account someone’s previous history of blocks/sanctions/disruption. I think these ideas all have good points and bad points, but I do think it’s worth discussing. So, if it does go to simple majority, does anybody have any proposals for how that could be made fairer? 12:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m going with no on that. We have established users openly using sockpuppet accounts, and no way to really stop people from socking. Some of these discussions have been really close, giving sockpuppets an avenue to affect ban discussions and other matters in big ways. 2607:FB90:7C97:C18D:E0A8:B073:C1A5:8B23 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been two weeks. Let's end this now!
This discussion started on 29 August. It's now 12 September. I say it's time to stop it. It looks like the guideline about not permabanning someone unless a 2/3 majority votes for it will stay on the books. I will point out once again that at the moment it is only a guideline. If you want to change it to a hard and fast rule, that needs to be another discussion. And that goes for everything else on the Community Standards page too. Spud (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And another victory for the rule of law. Close it, Spud. 06:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be closed. It's been going on a long time and it looks like there is no chance it will pass.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have declared the vote closed. The 2/3 guideline stays in place. Spud (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Collapse template
We need to have a major conversation about the excessive use of the collapse template. It causes disruption in most cases rather than solving anything. I see it being used as a muzzle rather than an attempt to clarify things. 04:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GR you created your own template which is designed to stop conversations instead of clarifying things. Shabi  DOO  05:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Shabidoo, does said template cause edit warring?--Hastur! (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How does verygood censor people? it's supposed to be a sarcastic joke. that's all. 05:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I clearly and unambiguously said it is "designed to stop conversations instead of clarifying things" I did not say censor. Please don't put words in my mouth. Your template is designed to deflect, avoid and stop a conversation instead of responding to people. You have used it multiple times to avoid clearing up a valid problem, question, criticism or responses. So if you are serious about fostering a better atmosphere of "clarifying things" then you can lead by example and delete that stupid template of yours.  Shabi  DOO  06:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are a sysop, you can delete it yourself if you desperately want it gone? 06:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And that's why it's hard to take your concerns here seriously GR. Shabi  DOO  06:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ??? 1. You are a sysop 2. It's a public template 3. Thus you can delete it. You don't need me to do it for you, do you? 06:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If Raven doesn't desire to respond to a particular post, that is fine. I do not see his cesium template as being on the same level as the collapse template.  The cesium template is clearly meant to reflect his own opinion, and perhaps his own decision not to pursue a particular conversation, ergo nobody edit wars with him over it.  The collapse template is meant to represent a shaming from the entire community, as well as shutting down a discussion for the whole community, and thus is far more controversial.  This is why I oppose using the collapse template but not GR's cesium template. Edit: Not that I am defending or encouraging the cesium template.  Rather I tolerate its existence--Hastur! (talk)  06:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since he was ambivalent as to what happened to it, I have deleted Raven's verygood template. Spud (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And it's been immediately restored (but not by Raven). Spud (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. You can delete it again if you feel strongly about it--Hastur! (talk)  06:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't feel particularly strongly about it, But I've deleted it again anyway. That's the last time I'll do that. Spud (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that we got rid of that tiny problem Shabidoo had, can we talk about how the collapse template is overused? 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Spud you are a legend Shabi  DOO  06:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Shabidoo's perspective
The collapse template is extremely useful especially for toxic content. I agree, to a small extent with GR that it has been a little over used recently, but I think his claim that it has been "excessive" is pretty exaggerated. Though in the case to today and yesterday's Salon "sea lioning" or "concern trolling" posts, it would have been wiser to have just put up the seal lioning template as we used to do back when Unlicensed Thinker was sea-lioning the shit out of the Saloon. But I still think the majority of collapsing has been sound judgement call but I agree that a little (and only a little) more restraint would be a good idea and using warning templates instead of collapsing whenever possible. Shabi DOO  06:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've created a template for Baiting as some of the recent shit is more baiting than concern trolling or sea-lioning. Shabi  DOO  07:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is clearly worse than my template. Let alone how that yellow stings in my eyes. 08:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, templates made for talk pages are best small. Such as Template:dftt.  Second of all, I'm not fond of templates designed to claim a community consensus where none has actually been reached.  The problem with the collapse template is not that it collapses speech, rather that it dismisses it and presents it as useless in the eyes of the community.  That's why it's controversial.  It's fine if you want to say a post is bad as an individual.  People accept that.  But they get tilted when you try to claim nobody wants to listen to them.  That's when people start edit warring.  Does that make sense?  Don't create templates that cause conflict, basically.--Hastur! (talk)  08:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You both have a minority view. The sea-lioning template was completely accepted by the community and done frequently used. A notable percentage of posts in the Saloon are trolling completely written to mislead and provoke. And the longer they sit around with nobody doing anything about it the worse they get and more frequent they come (unlicensed thinker is a particularly good example of that). If you think a template is irresponsibly used you can remove it or state your objection to it. I cannot remember ever seeing such a template used with anybody disagreeing with it. Sealioning, concerntrolling etc was blatant and called out for it. They NEVER led to edit wars. You're arguing about a non-issue in this case. Shabi  DOO  08:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This template, along with the excessive use of the collapse template, will cause more conflicts. 08:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Moose's sea-lioning template never caused conflict. The authors of trolling bullshit on the saloon know what they are doing, I've never seen them contest the templates because all they are looking for is a reaction. Not to mention the fact that you've done a fair bit of ill advised collapsing yourself. Try to distinguish between collapsing obvious stupid shit with collapsing to seriously shut down a welcomed or necessary debate. And yes the template is hideously ugly. That's the point. And no Hastur the templates are not all small, several of them have been prominent and large including the Sea-lioning template which thankfully hasn't had to been used for some time. You're both doing a fair bit of exaggerating here. Shabi  DOO  08:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, neither did my verygood template. People don't like the response, but it didn't create conflict (conflict already existed). 08:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Shabidoo rolls his eyes all the way around in their sockets Shabi  DOO  08:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

We also have this template.

It was created specifically for Unlicensed Thinker's Saloon Bar. It did its job and nobody ever complained about it.

You know, I think this entire discussion is making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, sometimes the collapse template has been used when it shouldn't have been. But I don't think it's being used excessively. If you think it's been used inappropriately, just remove it. However, I think it's only right to collapse borderline sexist/racist/homophobic stuff. And blatantly nasty sexist/racist/homophobic stuff is nothing but vile trolling and should be removed. Spud (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the new bait template, I'll try to use that from now if I'm not allowed to clean up bigoted stuff outright I guess. That said, I'd like for a more softer yellow, #ffffbf or something. That'd be easier on the eyes. 11:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is built on blatant exaggeration. The actual number of cases where the collapse template was genuinely abused is...very small.-Flandres (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why this debate is here. What aspect of CS is being discussed? What is the CS proposal?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think this would have been better suited for the Mod noticeboard or just the Saloon Bar. Spud (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My thinking too.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone remove the site notice template, please?
The vote on the 2/3 guideline ended on Saturday. There's nothing to discuss as far as the collapse template is concerned. There's no discussion going on here now. Spud (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's gone. 07:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

About drafts
So, I have been going through draft space lately and I have noticed a lot of drafts are permanent stubs only edited by their creators that have since been completely abandoned. Does the article deletion process just apply in main space or is it for drafts as well?(sorry if I sound like a fool for posting this-I do so mostly because I have seen drafts unilaterally deleted before)-Flandres (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming draft space isn't indexed, the only concerns are that 1. we run out of server space and 2. the draft content is exceedingly offensive. This is likely to be a situation where doing nothing is fine--Hastur! (talk)  00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft articles are not indexed when they contain the template on them. I went through all the draft articles a while ago to make sure that they had this template, and I try to keep it up to date. I see no reason not to just summarily delete stubs that have not been edited in more than a month. They just add to clutter. Before the existence of draftspace, it seemed to be customary for editors to summarily delete stubs in mainspace that were going nowhere. Bongolian (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Draftspace and categories/navpages
Recently reverted my edit of Draft:Julie Bindel, wherein I had removed the categories and navbar. Magic Master requested that I explain the deletion. My rationale is this generally: it's lazy and potentially dangerous to put them in at that stage. Specifically: Since, navbars only list mainspace pages, it should be fine to have them in draftspace pages. Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently we have over 300 articles in draftspace. Very few of these ever become good enough to enter mainspace.
 * It was recently decided to insert the " " template on all draftspace pages, so as to prevent them from being indexed by search engines, and in part to prevent anything potentially libelous from being indexed.
 * In mainspace, it is bad form (and in some cases potentially libelous) to add categories to pages that are not substantiated by the content of the pages (in particular by a citation), and consequently should be removed in such cases. Similarly, categories have the same potential problem in draftspace, but additionally fewer eyeballs are upon these pages.
 * Categories on draftspace pages allows the existence of these pages to leak out into search engines because the categories are indexed even though the draft pages are not.


 * I agree with your assessment. Category tags on draft pages should be avoided and wrapped in comment blocks to prevent them from leaking into and polluting the main space. Since the navigation bars don't include draft pages, it doesn't matter if they're included in drafts. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 09:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Spud (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If they leak into search engine results, they should be avoided. After all, the point of Draftspace is to work on projects without them being official articles yet. Also, I apologize for adding categories in previous instances, I didn't know. 10:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Voting for or against oneself in the coop
It is generally understood that a person may not sit in judgement of him/herself, and that an accused criminal may not sit on his/her own jury (natural law, rule of law). As such, it should not be the case that a person should be allowed to vote in a coop case regarding the adjudication of his/her own punishment. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems fair. After all, the coop is like a court but for edit-warring, harassment, and abuses of sysop, mod, or as we were all reminded quite recently, tech powers. -- Goatspeed. 20:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So long as they can speak in their own defense. 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, we are trying to change the community standards in order to pursue grudges/editors we dislike. Voting for or against yourself in the coop has always been allowed.  I've voted on my own behalf a number of times.  It's never been an issue.  The fact of the matter is, LiberalTears is a member of this community.  A tragically hilarious and often annoying member, granted, but he does get a say in votes so long as he meets the activity thresholds.  Comparing this to a jury or a court of law is rather silly, if you ask me.  We don't have judges, prosecutors or defense attorneys.  That's because RationalWiki's justice system is democratic.  Or mobocratic, if you prefer.  We issue penalty votes on a 2/3 majority, of the entire community.  That is how we do things.  And Liberaltears is a member of the community, and thus is allowed to vote for themselves.  This has always been the case and has never been an issue--Hastur! (talk)  21:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding DuceMoosolini's point: Yes, they should be able to represent themselves in the coop. The policy to unblock users to represent themselves in the coop would still stand. Bongolian (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki is a good example of anarchy in practice. It's based off of free association and ran without any actual hierarchies, while still maintaining rules for allowance into a group. Anarchism doesn't mean rules are off-limits per se, only that such rules should be voluntary and people should be allowed to leave if they disagree with said rules. — Oxyaena Harass  21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, for someone who spouts off about power and control and anarchy you nonetheless display a hunger for power and authority. Between claiming you were a "de facto mod", your constant calls to be a sysop again and how aggrieved you get when challenged. It's an interesting irony. AceModerator 21:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, champ. — Oxyaena Harass  23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but you are free to disagree with me back. CoryUsar (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The proposal Bongolian made is eminently reasonable. Can't wait to see people whine about how it will "turn this site into radicalwiki" or whatever.-Flandres (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding Hastur's comment. No, this is not about me pursuing grudges. I realize that any result of a rule change on voting would be applicable to the current coop case, both because of timing and because of not applying rules retroactively (part of the rule of law). I have been irked by self-voting in coop cases in the past, but haven't pushed for a change because I don't think it's mattered in particular cases as yet. You and I have a strong difference of opinion about policy, but I respect you as an editor and have not grudge with you. Bongolian (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the idea we are trying to change community standards to pursue personal grudges is just pure arse water. as hastur notes, we still require 2/3 majority to permaban and its just bizarre idea to be in a situation where the 'accused' (is that really the right term here?) might have the deciding vote. the coop IS a jury of ones peers - is that not enough to ensure fairness? they would still be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves.
 * its also a facile idea that because somethings always been a particular way then it should remain so. the rules have constantly been evolving over the years, and just because its 'never been an issue' before does not mean it wont ever be - it apparently is now.
 * its an argument based on nostalgia and nothing more. the rationalwiki of the past is not the rationalwiki today. deal with it. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no real objections to the community standards being amended to prohibit voting on one's own coop. But as said above, users should always be allowed to defend themselves when going through coops (I was the one who unblocked LT so he could comment on the current discussion). --RWRW (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This type of formality could be settled either way. It's just a rule with relatively innocuous consequences. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In my eyes, voting in ones own coop should be allowed. I consider coops to be in part of our general voting process and I don't think we should disqualify people from voting in their own coops because they are the target of said coop. They have their opinion and given we do decisions here by majority or supermajority, we shouldn't exclude the targets of coops. I do consider it good faith to abstain from voting in your own coops, but I am unwilling to make that into a policy as a requirement. Informally, our behavior surrounding this also has leaned more to allowing people to vote in their own coops (the GR situation was the last time this came up a few times cuz of his re-registering accounts and not meeting eligibility criteria), so this would run contrary to what we seem to enforce it as. We don't need a policy change just to deal with LT. 22:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally principled people have voted Goat in Coops about themselves. But we shouldn't force unprincipled editors to be principled. If that one vote is enough to turn it over, then it probably wasn't strong enough case.
 * I would say though, this Community Standards discussion and vote will probably go beyond LT's coop case. And changes to community standards must not apply retroactively. If the coop fails to ban LT, he can of course be cooped again. But he must not be cooped for that same old transgression. Until he does something else ban- or blockworthy, the results of this coop will have to suffice. 23:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Total no brainer. You shouldn't be able to vote in a coop deciding community sanctions against you. Shabi DOO  23:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure if the accused got to vote on their punishment in any other system, very few people would get punished, and fewer would receive the punishment they deserve.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to reiterate that this is about conforming to the rule of law, not about bearing a grudge as has been suggested. In my view, it is unlikely that passing such a rule would ever even apply to LT. Bongolian (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to apply coercive legal measures to a website that defines itself at least partially by mobocracy. — Oxyaena Harass  09:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting the Sysoping rules
The Community Standards currently allow, any Sysop to add Sysop rights to any account, at their discretion. Although this has been a long-standing rule, I have been recently picking up resistance to the concept, from multiple users. I propose that we discuss the possibility, of adding minimum requirements for new users obtaining Sysop rights. A minimum time registered, a minimum amount of edits, perhaps a rule requiring a second Sysop to approve. Or if the mob desires, rules remain as they are. This is not intended to be rushed to a vote, it is nevertheless, a discussion. Judge Dredd (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've taken issue with too liberal handing of mops before. I have a faint recollection of reading somewhere that about 100 (uncontroversial) edits as well as 1 month account age was seen as requirement for receiving a mop, though I can't be arsed to find where that opinion was made. Also, historically editors have given mops to new accounts they've created.. I dunno, I guess I'd support setting an official 1 month and 100 edit baseline for sysop. I might also support smaller limit for Autopatrol (say 2 days and 10+ edits).
 * That said, I'm going through self imposed voting ban of 1 month, so this is just me opining. 12:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An interesting discussion to be had for sure. I'm... somewhat split about this. Right now, our rights system is a free-for-all on sysop rights, and to an extent that's the point. Most resistance tends to pop up when it comes to users who are just gonna be exceptionally frustrating about things, so it is tempting to establish a minimum amount of edits or registration time (if we're doing this I'm leaning towards a mix of both like our voting eligibility standard, because someone like GR who was handed it speedily had an account for 2 years but no edits and quickly ran into opposition due to an inability to cooperate which his sysop bit made far more frustrating to deal with), but at the same time I fear like that any kind of restrictions risks us echo chambering the RW commmunity. I've personally hardened myself against editors fucking around with the sysop bits of other editors and I will continue to do that and I don't want that element to be changed. Sysop is a right that's only removable by community vote (sysoprevoke has a point goddammit). As for instating harsher restrictions, the main fear I have is that we have a... reasonably high turnover rate. One reason we give out sysop is to make sure that our RecentChanges page doesn't get clogged up with unpatrolled edits, with the idea that we want as many eyes looking and tracking that at once because those eyes have turnover rates. If we limit the sysop right to only certain editors with minimum requirements that could result in a backlog. I don't really lean any particular way in the end if you ask me, but a convincing argument I haven't seen yet could sway me on this matter. I do add that I don't often give out sysop, and more often hand out autopatrolled first instead to see how the user responds when they have some independency over their own edits. Perhaps a soft advice to first consider autopatrol before granting sysop would be useful as well. I do want to stress as well that this is just my opinion (duude) and that I'm not pushing any of this to a vote yet. I want more input from fellow sysops, mods and techs. 13:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm very much of the old-guard persuasion, that Sysop is the default user-state. I oppose minimum requirements; yet I see this is a discussion which will happen sooner or later. So here it is. Judge Dredd (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think having it "seconded" by anyone is impracticable and unnecessary. However I am not against a minimum time (one month or perhaps less) and I highly endorse a minimum edit count. Shabi  DOO  14:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One month and a few (ten?) substantial (i.e. not grammatical or similar) edits. I don't think sysop should be regarded as default - autopatrolled maybe. Scream!! (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm always in favor of avoiding adding more bureaucracy and policy to this place unless absolutely necessary. That said, I oppose minimum requirements for demoting someone to sysop. The rare case where someone demotes another editor with zero contributions and/or almost no time on the wiki can be handled on a case-by-case basis. In case the privilege is abused, the mob and/or the mods can take care of this with minimal effort. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The current rules, which you say you wish to retain, fully allow for users with no edits to be given Sysop rights as any other Sysop wishes. Further, Sysop rights are routinely given to users with no edits, by myself and others. If the rules here are not changed, this will no doubt continue as a legitimate action. Given that your comment gives mixed messages on this, could you clarify your position on giving Sysop rights to users with no edits? Judge Dredd (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine for a sysop to demote another user with zero edits. We should always assume good faith when dealing with our fellow sysops. However, a reason should be given for such an action, and if another editor is puzzled by this and questions the action, they should be given an honest answer. If an honest and truthful explanation isn't forthcoming, then the issue may be addressed by the mob and/or mods. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Judge Dredd (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I'm joining cosmiks opinion on this. 16:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As someone who's been told off before for handing out mops prematurely, I think that we should only demote people if their account is at least 2 months old and they've made at least 25 edits that consistently indicate that they're not an obviously bad-faith editor. In fact, I once even gave this very advice to some of my own demotees on the Saloon Bar. -- Goatspeed. 17:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect that a new account show some reasonable minimum mainspace editing before being given sysop. Although the CS would seem state otherwise, my interaction with one of the old guard (User:AgingHippie and maybe others) indicated that there was some informal support for this. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm Okay with something approaching Cosmikdebris' suggestion. In my opinion handing sysop to anyone with very few to zero edits should be strongly justified in the edit summary. This whole thing began rather weirdly with JD creating an account (as requested at Discord, so for someone else allegedly) and handing it mop before a single edit. This is something that decidedly should in my opinion be justified, since some of us (maybe all if it's a private conversation) can't see the discord conversation.
 * And I think I was the one who admonished CR for handing out mops too liberally. In that case it was more than a year old account with about 10 clearly good faith edits. So I'm a cantankerous old goat clearly, but I think some standards should be set to make brigading less easy. 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cosmik has swayed me a bit. If there's a good honest reason, like it's somebody who the sysop knows off site, then I wouldn't have a problem with premature sysop (but it does need to be stated so that we all know about it). That being said, I'm also not opposed to a short waiting period of perhaps a week or so, or alternatively an edit requirement. 19:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Discord issue, Judge Dredd still seems to think that important RW decisions are made on Discord ("Yeah, it's where everything is talked over, planned, coordinated, decided between key users. But absolutely nothing to do with the wiki.") RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation. This is not the case, and it has been discussed before on the Mod board. People on Discord are elected on Discord. People on RW are elected on RW: they are functionally independent bodies, particularly because the full set of RW moderators are not even present on Discord. Fellow-moderator has firmly stressed this point. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the edit requirement should be at around 25 mainspace/funspace/CPspace edits that are consistently good faith, and an account age of at least two months. 100 edits seems a bit excessive, IMHO. Heck, I demoted (who I initially didn't trust until he impressed me on a few occasions),, and  when their edit counts were all in the lower double-digits, and those weren't too controversial. -- Goatspeed. 19:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to give a mop to someone with zero edits. Shabi DOO  19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was here for over a year before fuzzy gave me a mop and I didn't even use any of the tools for several years and I think I've used them seriously once and a couple times to make stupid joke blocks. I have no problem with people easily given the mop, I don't understand why they should be handed out to someone who hasn't contributed anything. Shabi  DOO  19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was around for more than 4 years before I was even Autopatrolled. I don't begrudge that, because for the most of that time I'd only made one edit. It was another year and about 30-40 edits later that I made a drunken rant about Ace and he decided to give me a mop for it. I still question his judgement on that, though I've tried to behave.
 * Anyway, Autopatrol is supposed to be handed after you're diagnosed as "not a troll". Sysop should require a bit more I think. CR's numbers look basically good, though I might overlook the 2 months limit if they've been very productive and noncontroversial over a shorter time. 19:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying we should demote people with no edits. In fact, I openly disagreed with JD's sysopping of that lurking alt of his, remarking on how premature the demotion was- especially since JD didn't tell us that it was his alt on-wiki. -- Goatspeed. 19:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I stg, why are we still talking about discord. This problem was settled months ago. Coordination on Discord from certain users to run the site as a "backroom chat" did indeed used to happen. That said, as it currently stands, all users who were responsible for that have since been stripped of user rights that would give them meaningful sway to my understanding over them misusing their rights (and one has LANCBed). Since then, there's been an active push to do everything in public from me and several other editors to avoid that from happening again. Anyway, while I get the fears of mopping people with no track record, it's... difficult to ascertain what warrants a proper "quick mopping" (ie. "i know this guy") versus a "let's wait their competence out a bit". I'm not a fan of requiring edits or account age as a minimum requirement for mopping because it'd be hard to define. Leaving it up to "anyone can do it" has worked... reasonably well so far, barring the coop rigmarole. I also want to stress the importance of sysop as a way to avoid locking people out of talkpage discussions. Right now, blocking a sysop is like pissing in the wind, for better and for worse. By deliberately forcing a higher disparity between sysops and users, discussion and joke blocks turn from a nuisance into a case of rights abuse (because they start clogging up the relevant logs) if accidentally done against a non-sysopped user. 20:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I eco some of the words said by Cosmikdebris and others above. I'm opposed to any minimum requirements (x number of edits in x number of months), but those who demote brand new users should be prepared to explain themselves if asked. --RWRW (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidently a sysop on this wiki has the prerogative to give out any number of mops on the same day. Today, JD handed out nine. As far as I can tell, these are the only mops handed out by JD under their current cognomen. What is the occasion? Ariel31459 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think JD is trying to make a point. I also think he's being an irresponsible dick. Though there's nothing new in that.  22:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ditto on the trying to make a point thing, especially given his purely ideological demotions of people just for being ancoms. But to be fair though, the only one I particularly object to is Catgrrl37-0, who has tried to push her POV into articles a la ideological categorizations, despite having been told off countless times... not to mention the fact that she has openly alienated people who somewhat agree with her, as evidenced by her one-sentence userpage. -- Goatspeed. 01:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We definitely need a standard on making people sysops, or at the very least we need to relax any pretensions about removing sysop rights. We also ought to be more careful about granting autopatrolled status--Hastur! (talk)  02:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * She hasn't alienated me. — Oxyaena Harass  06:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Two quick things to add (because I am on holiday I’ve left this wiki for the time being. Back next week). is absolutely right. RW Discord has nothing to do with RW policy. Second - who gives a shit if someone is made sysop on day one. They can do nothing harmful whatsoever. Fuck it - stop fucking crying about shit that has no consequence. Fuckers got me out of my holiday for this shit? AceModerator 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuckers got you off your holiday; You can't have shit on RW. Twodots (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Absolutely right. The vast majority of sysops here don't go around giving out sysop rights willy-nilly. The vast majority of sysops here are relatively sensible and don't do stupid shit just because they can. The system ain't broke. Don't fix it. Spud (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What he fucking said. I ain’t broke. No reason to add more layers to a system that already works. AceModerator 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If is decided that there is no minimum editing standard for Sysops, I propose striking this text from the RationalWiki:Sysop guide: To patrol an edit, click the word 'diff' where it says "(diff For if there is no minimum assessment of 'sanity' to become a sysop, then surely there is also no minimum requirement to judge 'sanity'. Bongolian (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

18:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ace if people proposing and supporting a minimum edit count before system is enough to spike your blood pressure then you need a much longer vacation. Spud, a system doesn't need to be broke before having precautionary reasonable rules. A minimum edit count is entirely reasonable and sensible and people would still get sysop very shortly after joining. I propose we vote on the matter of minimum account age and minimum edits. Shabi  DOO  20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it may be simpler to simply remove sysop rights from the few individuals guilty of doling them out too freely--Hastur! (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hastur is right. If somebody is repeatedly demoting bad faith or non-constructive users, that merits a look at the individual and their conduct, rather than the current system of user rights as a whole.-Flandres (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now, the system isn't exactly broken. 0/few edits/new account demotions sometimes happen but it's... not exactly an issue? I have enough faith in our sysops to not demote complete nimrods to sysops. Maybe just mention on the sysop guide that when demoting other members to sysops, you should be able to clarify your reasoning if someone asks you (not insane is a good enough reason, but so is "I know them, they're not crazy" if they have few/no edits) and recommend sysops to type a reason in the stated field to save themselves from being asked this question. Account age shouldn't have to factor into this either, someone can be less than a week old and have made substantial contributions to our articles which shouldn't delay them from being demoted to sysop. Do remember that our "there's no rules around when to demote someone to sysop" policy exists in part to make sure that every user who wants to be here and participate in a good faith discussion won't get crapped at and constantly blocked by an in-group of sysops who hold a different stance. The only people who can deliberately prevent someone from becoming a sysop are techs and mods and both are bound by the CS/ATIM rules in that it can only be applied as the result of judgement by the mob (and informally to make sure that judgement by mob blocks are properly enforced). 13:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Creating an alphanumeric username policy
This is a fairly simply proposal: As anyone who has been watching recent changes lately, there has been an influx of a certain troll using uncommon unicode characters to create a username to just spam a page and do some variation on it. To this end, I would suggest expanding the Community Standards to explicitly forbid the creation of an account with a non-alphanumeric username. Enforcement would be possible using the abuse filter. Discussion on actual policy can be had below if we want to bicker about the specific wording. Personally, I don't see the use for any non-alphanumeric username to exist on the wiki (for anyone familiar with regex, this would mean blocking every username that matches ), but I am open to discussion on this matter. 13:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully support this proposal. Spud (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion: I don't think we should prohibit all non-alphanumeric characters (for instance, we should allow hyphens), but prohibit most, especially obscure characters that take up large amounts of space (so no Akkadian cuneiform). JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That policy is racist towards Akkadians. What of the Akkadian community members who may wish to contribute to rationalwiki in the future once we learn how to clone their remains and create a whole new generation of Akkadians (who may choose to learn their ancestors writing system). Shabi  DOO  17:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: I would also support the addition of an edit filter (or we could try dusting off the title blacklist) that prevents most alphanumeric characters from appearing in usernames and page titles; we should preferably also prevent usernames that repeat characters enough times to be not very good. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, a large part as to why I am doing this as an open discussion is because of the amount of stuff that we need to decide to let through. Just based on these discussions and suggstions alone, I've already noted that the characters  need to be let through (colons are used for ipv6 addresses, hyphens thanks to JJP. Title Blacklist wouldn't really help here, it's more of a generic filter that stops page name creation and creation of usernames containing specific strings.  13:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Angle brackets should be allowed too. Slashes, em dashes, @s, ^, &, %, etc. should be kept. [] and {} should be removed because they may cause problems with wikitext. Maybe the currency signs shouldn’t be allowed? Also, there should be a limit of characters you can have in your usernames. I have seen trolls use really long ones to fill the recent changes. 13:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * [], {} and currency symbols are removed already (the [] in the regex proposed is formatting, same for the ^ and the +). Slashes to me sound somewhat worthless to keep, all they do is cause issues with user subpages. @s are blocked internally by mediawiki (LocalSettings configuration) because they interfere with some internal handling. What are the arguments for keeping ^, & and % unfiltered? I personally don't see a lot of reason to keep them but I could be convinced otherwise. A max username length is also up for discussion. The current maximum is just 255, which is the upper limit MW stores usernames as. 13:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , iirc, you are technically prohibited from creating an account with a username larger than 85 bytes, but a specific character maximum would make sense. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 14:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine anything we would actually lose if we insisted on alpha only user names. Although we might want to include non-English alphabets. But as a broadly English-language Wiki I don't really see that we would have to.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Crow has told me that this is to reduce the amount of modwork required to filter out "certain undesireable handles." I think anything that saves time and effort and allows us to do more constructive things is good. We should also grandfather in existing users with non alphanumeric handles. — Oxyaena Harass  15:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A clarification to that; with "Undesirable handles" I'm talking about stuff like Mike's insistence on variations on the letter N that plagued us for a bit. Furthermore, Morris did the same thing with around 20 variations of Peter Parker around the time when I first joined. The problem is that those kinda variations can't easily be filtered out and they generally are only used for spamming. Grandfathering in users with non-alphanumeric handles is perfectly fine. The filter as I currently have it in Draft (it's disabled rn) would only trigger on account creation. No existing users will be affected by it. 15:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We should consider letting in other alphabets as well, or not. This is a primarily English language wiki. But would this also apply to RussionalWiki? A completely separate community using the same domain as us, with a separate language. — Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  15:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You raise a really good point. RussionalWiki seems to be running on the same backend as ours. I'll see if I can add an exemption for cyrillic characters to the filter, hang on. 15:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cyrillic is excluded from the character filter. Thanks for pointing it out. 15:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)::


 * I'm unsure exactly how this would affect signatures, as you probably note mine has some unusual characters in it (I think the ability to use symbols in at least signatures is pretty nice. <font face="Consolas, Monospace">⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ <font face="Consolas, Monospace">[all-lowercase name pls]  <font face="Consolas, Monospace">talk  17:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry in advance for the reactionary response, but isn't that a little racist? If someone has an Arabic or Japanese keyboard, but do not know how to switch to a Cyrilic keyboard they won't be able to create and use an account on RW. I do support banning useless symbols like emojis assuming it's even possible to have emojis in one's own username. 2A02:418:6017:0:0:0:0:148 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't usually get editors in those languages and the few editors we've had in those languages have written their usernames out in romaji, so I don't think that's an issue. The current policy I'd be going for with the filter is to display an interface message and disallow the action, not block anyone for it. So your problem is duly noted, but it's not one we've ever had in practice. Also, it wouldn't affect signatures, only usernames. Your signature can be as messy as you want it to be. 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going to oppose this policy on the grounds that the troll will just make other usernames and then spam "nigger" elsewhere, which he's already started doing. 22:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is necessary. I'd just let discretion rule over this and I do think this sort of restriction could end up catching our foreign users 02:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with LGM. Usernames with characters within the unicode range for the Akkadian script can be inconvenienced, but we should still be allowed to create usernames in maybe Arabic characters (except perhaps the "Peace and blessings of God be upon him" glyphs that Mikey loves to use to graffiti the user creation logs), Hebrew, Russian/other former Soviet-bloc languages, Chinese, and वे भारतीय भाषाएँ the Indian languages- since we have/had editors who might write in those. And also, I'd block the accent/palatial hook/tilde/chandrabindu/umlaut/etc.-stacking trick. -- Goatspeed. 04:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur as well. The troll(s) will eventually get bored and go away. I'm not sure it's worth changing policy for if it's just one person/group. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support limiting user names to the languages RW actually uses (so the latin and cyrillic alphabets ought to be fine). This would not hinder speech, as user names are not a particularly meaningful form of speech on our website.  Indeed, the only people this would hinder would be trolls. In the future, should anybody desire to start an RW fork in Hindustani or Japanese or Sumerian, they are free to create an account using the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets and petition us to allow them to do so.  Given that our website's documentation is in English (and I'm assuming Russian), I don't see this as a serious impediment.  If a user is unable to create a user name with latin characters, then they clearly have no business creating an account on our website, since the account creation page, our community standards, etc are all in English (and Russian?)-Hastur! (talk)  04:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be necessary or beneficial. If someone is spamming, then ban them. What does it have to do with usernames? Let people use whatever name they want. Hmmph (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see removing diacritics as solving much, the troll will just move on to another naming method. Reasonable standards for user names should be 1) not excessively offensive and 2) not confusing to English-language readers (e.g. most foreign character sets, or ".." as TwoDots used to be called). Bongolian (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotta get in a hardy opposition. Billions of people speak languages that do not use alphanumerics as their primary symbols.  We are a predominantly English speaking wiki, but prohibiting Asian names just seems racist, especially since the abuse isn't inherent to the username.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true, but as an English-language wiki, we do expect some minimal level of English language comprehension (e.g. basic understanding of the community guidelines). We have had some contributors who were a bit less than fluent in English, and they have made reasonable contributions (particularly on authoritarianism in East Asia). That being said, since there hasn't been any significant usage of non-Roman script usernames, I don't see much need to fix something that isn't broken. Bongolian (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I feel little bit like Abraham defending Sodom and Gammora, but I found a few legitimate users who contributed positively with unicode-initial names. User:√2, User:Σigma, User:∆JP二千二∆, User:Π, and User:䯂.  It's not ten righteous individuals but it's something.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see that as a problem. If there were a bunch of users complex mono-character Chinese it could be. The main reason that I had objected to ".." as a user name previously, by the way, was that in the Recent changes log the user name ".." would appear before the separator "..". Bongolian (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a dumb fucking idea. A troll can use any name they want so how is only allowing alphanumeric characters going solve anything. It's just more fucking bureaucracy. Acefuck the bozos 21:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think restricting the usernames to alphanumeric only is a case of "Mama get your hammer, there's a fly on baby's head" (or, as Bugs Bunny said, "Go get the axe, there's a flea in Lizzy's ear.") As Ace says, it will not stop dumbass trolls. It will potentially inconvenience international users. And implementing a filter to mask out specific sets of unicode would be extraordinarily complicated. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with others above! Kauri0.o (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the troll will just find a workaround, thus defeating the point of the restriction. It should go without saying that I remain in the "opposed" camp. 02:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am dropping this proposal. I don't think we'll get the community backing for it. 10:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed 2/3 rule for overturning previous votes
I would propose that any vote that in some way overturns a previous vote should require a 2/3 majority.

Overturning a previous vote (especially where the number of participants in the new vote is likely fewer) should be highly suspect, and should meet a more stringent requirement. It is likely that some of the original voters would not have a say in the latter vote, and thus it is arguably undemocratic to overturn a vote so easily. It is for this reason I imagine impeachment in the US requires a 2/3 Senate majority.

The inspiration for this comes from the chicken coop with respect to discussion of impeachment. This might also apply to unbanning of users, for example. Not too sure where else this might apply.Kauri0.o (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * How would impeachment even work? Is it a simple majority? 22:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to MOB, it would be simple majority, as is anything else other than a vote on a block. Personally I’d say it’s the sort of thing that needs a 2/3 majority regardless of the rules, you’re overturning a previous vote that carries more weight than a coop. Christopher (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you going to edit the community standards to that effect? Or are we going to have the "originalist versus organic" debate (as I like to call it) over them again?-Flandres (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I’ll vote against the proposal when the time comes and that’s it. Changing the voting procedure would just be a way of voting twice, it’s not a discussion worth having (how would you define what’s deserving of a 2/3s vote if you change the current system?) and definitely shouldn’t be done halfway through a coop. Christopher (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hypothetical Situation:

Vote for X. Yay: 10 Nay: 9 Yay passes.

New information comes to light. Three of the possible outcomes are shown below.

Scenario 1: Vote for X, in light of new information Yay: 18 Nay: 19 Yay vote overturned.

Scenario 2: Vote for X, in light of new information Yay: 3 Nay: 4 Yay vote overturned.

Scenario 3:Vote for X, in light of new information Yay: 6 Nay: 12 Yay vote overturned.

I would suggest only in Scenario 3 should the Nay vote pass. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless there's a specific problem that this would solve, I'm inclined to vote against. Bongolian (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Improving democracy, and ensuring previous votes are not overturned without good reason. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the vote was that close in the first place, it being overturned by another close vote in light of new information isn't an actual problem. That system wouldn't be any more democratic than the current one, it would just give preference to early voters. Plutocow (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The two thirds guideline is moronic in every other instance it is deployed. I will vote against any attempt to force that threshold on something else.-Flandres (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted. The 2/3 rule is absolutely not moronic in the US, for example. Without that rule, Clinton would have survived his impeachment by one vote. Other countries have supermajorities for all sorts of applications that are not moronic. Do consider other supermajorities too; two-thirds may be too strict. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to bring up the filibuster as a counterexample. The 2/3rds threshold can be abused by a shrinking minority to thwart change a still hefty majority of folks want, just because said minority feels threatened by it.-Flandres (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense that a 65% majority wouldn't be able to overturn a 51% majority. Lowering the threshold to 60% etc. wouldn't fully solve this problem. Plutocow (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the difference between the US Senate and RW is that in the US senate, an equal set of representatives votes every single time. On RW, the original voters, and subsequently their rationales, may be lost, and may or may not be replaced by similar or different rationales. Which in my mind is even moreso reason that a supermajority should be required.
 * What does not make sense is that currently, and under all sorts of circumstances, a 51% majority may overturn a previous 51% majority.Kauri0.o (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How does that not make sense? Majority rule is majority rule. Why is something bad if the "mere" majority supports it?-Flandres (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is suggesting we implement a filibuster on RW? That seems to be a separate issue.Kauri0.o (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)It makes perfect sense, if something was passed with a 51% majority then there wasn't really a strong consensus for it in the first place. If you want a higher threshold, it should apply to all votes, not just votes to overturn. Plutocow (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)You are suggesting a similar two-thirds threshold. The comparison is quite topical. You think a "mere" majority of users wanting to recall a mod is bad, much the way a "mere" majority of legislators is not be able to pass laws.-Flandres (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference regarding filibuster is that it actually block a vote, which only requires majority, from even occurring.
 * I'll agree to disagree with you fellows, I do understand your POV, and maybe mine is not shared by most.
 * Just to clarify though, do you think it should be applicable at least in the case of impeachment on RW? Kauri0.o (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on how it is framed. Recall elections don't require 2/3. Plutocow (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is what I was basing it off of. Impeachment implies a representative body is voting-recall elections mean you just go back to the voting populace, which seems like what we are trying to do here. Also, bear in mind none of this applies to our current coop case anyway, owing to deadlines for voting and such.-Flandres (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Better way of handling blocks at CS if there are 2 options with super majorities?
This discussion is inspired from Special:Permalink/2330494 in a discussion to ban Unclescoorage from RationalWiki and there seems to be a place where the longer ban gets it, but I don't think that that is a good idea. Here are 4 options.
 * 1) Maintain status quo (longer ban wins)
 * 2) Shorter ban wins
 * 3) Whichever one has more support wins
 * 4) Extra week to two week runoff vote (one vote for which one you prefer)

Please choose Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 or Option 4. Thanks. --Gale5050 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I must support Option 4. I know it's inefficent, and it can even change the trajectory (2021 Senate runoff in Georgia), but it is the best as it narrows it just to 2 options and will allow the 2 most popular options to go head-to-head. In addition, it may allow for additional participation in that people who don't meet the 3 week and 75 day requirement can participate in the runoff (though a rule may be in place to deny it), and ultimately I think is best. I am fine with Option 3 as well, but I strongly oppose Options 1 and 2, both are horrible and don't really get down to democracy. --Gale5050 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The status quo is fine, it’s not at all undemocratic, and the other options are all terrible. Gale5050, you’ve never actually seen a ban vote on RW; have a look at some coop archives and you’ll see that in practice the voting works (even if a lot of other things don’t). The 12:0 vs 4:2 hypothetical doesn’t often happen, and if it looked like it was going to people would be free to vote against it. Christopher (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I read RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive118 and it is actually all votes put together. But I still don't like it just because, and I think a 5th option, of taking the average, might work. But that requires too much math though. --Gale5050 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn’t there for that coop and don’t want to read the whole thing, how exactly did that work?
 * I still don’t see an issue with how it’s usually done, which is to take the longest option that gets a supermajority. What’s the case against it? Christopher (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think our status quo is fine.Flandres (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I support options 3 and 4 just because a 12:0 for pi weeks and a 4:2 for pi months should represent a pi week scenario or at the very least a vote for pi weeks or pi months. IMO, it feels unfair to everyone who voted for the pi weeks and not for the pi months or even voted against it. It’s just what I prefer I guess. -Gale5050 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Status quo. Kevs  Ping!  06:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to maintain the status quo (option 1) from my usual reluctance to fix what isn't broken, though I can see the logic behind supporting option 3. But I will say that I'm very strongly opposed to option 4. Coops are usually tiring and unpleasant for all involved, I can't think of anything worse than dragging it on for an extra 1-2 weeks. --RWRW (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I struck Option 4, Option 3 kind of seems like the best IMO.--Gale5050 (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No one has explained the issue with the status quo yet. Christopher (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Spud (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem. Let's say there is a scenario in which an option, pi weeks, is clearly favored, 20:1. But pi months, after rough and brutal discussion, eeks out 14:7, also a supermajority. That shouldn't be the option as it had way less support, was more contreversal, and pi weeks was far more agreeable. Therefore it is broke.--Gale5050 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. If all the former group really cared about saving this user so much why didn't a majority of them also vote nay for permabanning him?-Flandres (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, yes, but sometimes people vote and have to step away from their computer. --Gale5050 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t make any sense. Christopher (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, if someone votes, that afternoon flies to Colorado, and is on vacation by the time the vote ends.Gale5050 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand the problem which this is meant to resolve. So I'd say stay with the status quo.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If this hypothetical person didn’t want the longer block length, they should’ve voted against it when they had the chance. Weird argument to make. Christopher (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the current status quo? If you dont want a certain option to apply, vote against it. If you don't care if it gets enacted or not, don't vote for it. If you wan an option to apply, then vote in favor of it. Longest one with a relevant majority (for bans a supermajority) will win. Supermajorities are really hard to achieve here, it's suprisingly easy to get people to not vote enough on something when it comes to having to achieve a supermajority. Techpriest (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do yea and nay for multiple options? Why not option 1, 2, 3, and oppose (do nothing)? 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * because voting for oppose means opposing all options when you you are in favour of one option but not another. you could have an initial vote to decide if any action is warranted then if yea a second vote with the list of options. like in court where a guilty verdict i first reached then sentencing can be decided.


 * however we wanna do it, if there than one option on the table, we'll always need more than one separate vote - either each option separately or the guilty/sentence scenario. the latter is less confusing and doesnt need constant reminders of what it is we are actually voting for - one vote on whether to take action, tea or nay, then if yea vote on the options available. arguments on whether to take action or not are all then more or less in one place and separate from arguments about which actions to take which are also in one place rather than spread over several different votes. makes everything a little bit easier to follow. imho. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So this should be seperate votes?Gale5050 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * first phase is arguments on whether action needs to be taken ending with one vote, yea or nay, on should action be taken. second phase to decide what that action is with however many options is needed. one vote most popular option wins. job done and no further explanation is required to clarify what you are voting for. as opposed to now with separate votes for each possible action.


 * every vote i have witnessed has had some degree of confusion on how it all works and multiple votes spread over the page along with argument all the over place creates its own confusion. grouping all options together limits the confusing sprawl mess that is a coop case. voting no action in the first phase limits it even further. they are contentious enough as it is, making things little bit easier to read and a little less confusing couldnt hurt AMassiveGay (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * kinda think this is has been suggested before not to long ago. we might have even voted for something like that. i cant remember. we go over this every coop case AMassiveGay (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A more objective approach on sources
Writing on my smartphone (which is not even that smart to begin with). Sorry if there are even more typos than your average GeeJayK post. I've been thinking about this for a while. I think RW needs a more objective way to deal with sources. Since RationalWiki:Webshites became an unsourced eyesore with things we don't like I don't think it's a good idea to use it as a blacklist. On the other hand, Media Bias/Fact Check has a more solid list of reliable sources. For those who are unfamiliar with MB/FC, they have six categories to measure how factual a source is, from very low to very high. As their name suggest, they also measure the bias of the source, something that we might want to discuss too. In my opinion, anything that has a "high" factual reporting is A-ok as a source, though I think "mostly factual" sources can also be used. Some think MB/FC is biased against the right. I don't think that's the case. There are many center-right/right wing sources with a high or a very high factual reporting, including some sites that RW seems to dislike, like Cato Institute and the Tax Foundation. Meanwhile, many center-left sources (The Guardian, CNN, MSNBC just to name a few) have a "mixed" factual reporting which in my opinion is a no-no.

Of course, we don't have to use MB/FC as a white list too, there's fair criticism towards them too. That's just my first idea. My main point here is that IMO we should at least consider a more official, objective criterion when it comes to sources. I think this might even be good in future ATIM/Coop cases since we can tell new users what they can and what they can't use before adding content to mainspace. GeeJayK (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit: User LongStylus mentioned. It} is probably a better source than Media Bias/Fact Check. GeeJayK (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, Wikipedia itself doesn't trust MBFC primarily because the methodology is in the dark. I need to dig up that big list of sources Wikipedia vets. 02:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (C) Also, a practical problem I can think of. Many articles still use "bad" sources. I support effects in case we do this, with the "bad" sources only being gradually replaced. GeeJayK (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can check them on . I think we can ban the entire list too. As for MB/FC, as I said they are just my first suggestion. My most important point is to make things less arbitrary. GeeJayK (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We should bear in mind that there are generally two types of sources: evidentiary and explanatory. For the former, it's evidence that someone said something; these can often be webshites. For the latter, these generally need to be high-quality sources, though exceptions exist. I think I've come across two Daily Mail citations that we've used (not on the Daily Mail page) that are actually OK. Bongolian (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But the Internet is a big place. If a real information is on the Daily Mail then it's probably on a good source too, so even in this cases I'm not sure we need to resort to them. Although I agree with you that we don't need to revert them on sight like they do on Wikipedia as well. GeeJayK (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the heck are The Guardian, CNN and MSNBC "mixed"? says they are all reliable. Methinks MBFC is just BS.
 * Anyways, I think we should use to determine whether a source is reliable and can be used for "explanatory" stuff. On the other hand, unreliable sources are useful as well for "evidentiary" stuff and snark. So we shouldn't remove all bad sources on sight; they should only be removed if they are used for "explanatory" stuff. LongStylus (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You meant, right? I'm ok with using it too. As I said MB/FC was just an idea. The most important thing is to have an objective policy on this matter. GeeJayK (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, my bad. LongStylus (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right though, RSP is a better source than MB/FC. GeeJayK (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * MB/FC lists failed fact checks for e.g. The Guardian on its page. On the one hand, a lower rating when there's known errors in reporting simply makes sense. On the other hand, it's not clear whether MB/FC fact checks are fairly distributed; any given source could have fewer failed checks and a higher rating because it simply ended up lucky, or the opposite, for all we know. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not supporting MB/FC anymore. I'd rather use . GeeJayK (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree this is generally a better list, for a quick check on a source. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget that sources for facts have different standards than sources for claims. Unreliable source:


 * "The moon is made of cheese[Joe's blog]"

Reliable source:


 * "Joe thinks the moon is made of cheese.[Joe's blog]"

Rules lawyers on Wikipedia love abusing this distinction to remove factual things they don't like because they're "unreliably sourced". MBFC and WP:RSP are both good vetters. Hmmph (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Coop Blocking, Result; "Longest Block Only": Implemented
We need to have an agreement on how to apply blocks when multiple block lengths are proposed. Specifically, are blocks consecutive or concurrent? That is, if we vote to block DooshBag420 for Pi Weeks and Pi Months, do we block them for Pi Weeks + Pi Months, or only Pi Months? And if so, we should clarify the rule in our community standards. 18:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Concurrent
"The block length shall be of the longest duration that the community successfully votes to impose" I.e., if the community votes in favor pi months and in favor of pi weeks, the length is for pi months only.
 * 1) I'll support this. 18:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) <font color="#00abcb">𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  18:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  18:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) How we’ve always done it. You get what you vote for, no more no less. People only support the alternative when it’ll get someone they don’t like banned for a bit longer, no one actually thinks it’s a good system. Christopher (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Christopher. Honestly, if you really want to do it consecutively, add another vote in the system, like for USHA, where pi quarters of a year (9.42 months) was added (although that failed miserably). Andrew5 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Easy clarification, fixes ambigiuity that led to the current situation. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Bongolian (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) I always assumed this to be the case. 02:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) I also assumed this was what we already did. And it seems I was right in my assumption. Spud (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Consecutive
"The block length shall be the sum of all the durations the community successfully votes to impose, rounded for simplicity" I.e., if the community votes in favor pi months and in favor of pi weeks, the length is for a total of about 4 months.


 * 1) Shabi  DOO  21:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Göt

 * 1) It appears the vote has gone on for over a week, and there is an 11-1 vote to make it "longest sentence wins/concurrently". Is it ready to be marked as successful?
 * Unless 11 people suddenly appear and all join my dissenting vote...then yes, we can fairly safely close this :) Shabi  DOO  16:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you'd need less than 11 people, but yeah, closing this. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Implemented. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)