RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive18

Amending the mission statement
The current mission statement needs to be amended in the wake of this vote, since the range of subjects deemed appropriate to cover on this wiki has evidently expanded beyond "analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement," "documenting the full range of crank ideas," "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism," and "analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media." Sardonically, I'd suggest "documenting anything currently trending on Twitter," but "documenting current sociopolitical events and activism" is probably more workable. -Shtrominer (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's redefine the mission because you're sore about losing an AfD. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 21:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has offered a solid policy-based explanation of how the article in question fits under the umbrella of the current mission statement. However, the community has spoken and they want the article kept. The only solution is thus to amend the mission statement. This will help prevent future disagreements over what is on-mission and what is not, and reflect the fact that the community vision for this project has evolved since the time that the mission statement was written. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are unnumbered articles that don't fit into the mission statement perfectly. &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Documenting significant sociopolitical events and activism" would probably cover a lot of the things that don't currently fall under the mission statement. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of "BLM is patently a response to a pattern of authoritarian systemic abuse." do you disagree with? That was right there in the AfD. Sweeping police misconduct under the rug in the name of public order is exactly the kind of thing authoritarians willingly accept. Documenting a response to it is an exploration of authoritarianism and its sequelae. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When most people read the term "authoritarianism," they think of fascism, communism, or other forms of government that place state control above personal liberty. Whether that term applies here isn't so clear-cut. Which is why it seems prudent to create a new policy covering this and other social-justice movements (such Occupy Wall Street) that don't cleanly fall under the current mission statement. -Shtrominer (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for "most people", RW has an article on authoritarianism to dispel that notion, right there in the first line. Authoritarian citizens get the rulers they deserve, which is a likely source for the popular reading of the term. I would rather construe the RW mission statement as using its terms accurately, instead of some fuzzy cluster of popular misconceptions, but hey, that's just my take on it.


 * In other news, the whole "how these subjects are covered in the media" part of the mission extends a pretty wide umbrella over a lot of social justice activity. Deciding what is or isn't a stretch would best be done on a case by case basis, without any need to alter the mission. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Characterizing law enforcement as a form of authoritarianism is extremely problematic, to put it mildly. That's not an argument you're going to win outside certain political circles. Which is why it seems preferable to add a criterion which unambiguously covers this article and ones like it. -Shtrominer (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I said sweeping certain abuses of police power under the rug is something authoritarians tolerate. Who tried to characterize law enforcement as a form of authoritarianism? Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You described the police brutality BLM are protesting as a "pattern of authoritarian systemic abuse." -Shtrominer (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So I did. Systemic, as in it's not just law enforcement, but society having a history of letting them get away with selective application of deadly force. Pattern, as in the imbalance is well enough known that black elders need to have "a talk" with their kids about it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So probably the article fits the unwritten rule of civil rights stuff being on-mission?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with BLM being missional. I don't agree with the section about how a fringe group of BLM supports the BDS movement.  It's irrelevant and only in there because youknowwho needs to have everything be about EVVUL ISRAILIES or PULITZER PRIZE WINNING WORLD RENOWNED CIVIL LIBERTARIAN. CorruptUser (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Youknowwho? Lord Voldemort has joined RW?!.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then take your problems to the talk page. &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I voted to keep BLM, and I don't think the missing statement needs updating. Trying to avoid the talk pages, simply because I'm too bored/annoyed to be bothered getting myself soaked with all the vitriol in that and a number of other articles. CorruptUser (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Snowball clause (article deletion)
It is a thing, and a good thing too, in my estimation.

I would much prefer not to have a written standard for it, since that would entail wikilawyering, which can be a massive time sink. Still, perhaps discussion is in order. So discuss, already. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this could be left to the RW mob. Certainly, an editor is going to be pissed if their hard work on "Ray gun use in modern children's stories" is deleted, but, to almost all of us mob-members, it's going to be obvious that said article has no chance of ever being on-mission. If a mob member makes a wrong decision - it could happen - the rest of the mob steps in and corrects it. Should HCM develop, well, we have a way to handle that, too. MarmotHead (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Policy proposal
In relation to this case, and in line with the general sentiment towards trolls intently bringing off-site drama here, I propose the following policy: If someone is intent on importing off-site drama to RationalWiki, they get smoten with great impunity. They can take their dramawankery somewhere else.

Does anyone object to this? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:09, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Is this to have ex post facto application, if passed?---Mona- (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This should be discussed on the relevant blocking policy page(s), NOT in the coop.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to the case in question, and if no one actually objects, there's no need to go through a full discussion at the policy pages (which hardly anyone checks eitherway). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:28, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Well, we're not gonna dive into the logs and check whether all the trolls have been properly smoten, but it might apply to DlagonDlagon if the mob wishes it to. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * 1. Why aren't we going to make that dive into the logs, and 2. Why should the "mob" vote for ex post facto application, and 3. May I also propose a new policy?---Mona- (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ADDING: I agree with TRtWP, but if we are going to start voting on policies, I certainly have some to offer.---Mona- (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As a point of order, policy proposals happen on the Community Standards page, and usually have an announcement on the intercom. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As supsected. Can I then suggest that this policy proposal is ported to the correct place? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And a fine point of order it is.---Mona- (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to port it, go ahead. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From the very top of thispage, "If the issue is not conflict resolution, but concerns RationalWiki policies, suggested changes to how things work around here, or similar matters of principle or general importance, please post on the Community Standards talk page instead. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, feel free to put it through all the formalities you think are necessary. I don't see the need to put it through the whole bureaucracy, but eh. *shrugs* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:58, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

I only see this as something worth an immediate ban if it's a new user who's joined solely or primarily to bring up something another user did on another site. If it's an established user or a new user who's shown that they joined the site in good faith, the rules already in place should suffice.  Frederick ♠♣♥♦ 07:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the primary focus here should be on new users who joined in bad faith with the intent to spread off-site drama to this wiki. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:44, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Applicable only to new users seems like a good idea. Maybe, the first 3 months, which is also the time before they'd be eligible to vote in elections? But, we still need to have some idea what we mean by the operative terms in this offense. The mere act of thinking about that, and setting forth what it is, can greatly clarify both the problem and the result of the rule.---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Defining terms
This is proposed to be sanction-worthy: "importing off-site drama." Two questions: 1. What constitutes "importing?" 2. What constitutes "drama?" (We might also want to be clear on what we mean by "off-site," but the other two should probably be defined first.)---Mona- (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We must get to Mona's questions, but first we must determine what we mean by "constitutes", "define" and "might". Without a proper understanding of these words how can we understand the sentence she wrote above? 07:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Before this, let us first contemplate the nature of language and how our view of reality is coloured by it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * But how can we contemplate the nature of language without first perusing about the nature and form of thought itself? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Star_of_David.png|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] ''as much fun as requiring a double mastectomy 12:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the usual nasty sarcasm towards other editors. Get us so far, that does.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be useful if somebody explained (preferably with linked examples) what "off-site drama" DlagonDlagon is alleged to have imported. I don't see anything relevant in his/her contributions. 08:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did a moderate dig on that as I knew absolutely nothing. Apparently Dlagon Dlagon is a nickname given to Ryulong by some group or another on one of the usual suspect boards. I read this last week and cant find the link but this might help a bit I think: . Ryulong "means" dragon dragon if you combine Japanese and Mandarin. Or something like that.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also of note. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 09:01, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * So it's a joke about Ryulong's username that he uses across multiple sites, including RationalWiki. That's not offsite drama.  13:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "GG-troll comes here to stir shit about Ryulong" sounds a lot like off-site drama being imported to me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? What aspect of it offsite?  19:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... how about the GG part? Does "P.S. We're coming for your Buddyloids!" not tell you enough? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:13, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * 'Does "P.S. We're coming for your Buddyloids!" not tell you enough?'It tells us a great deal about specific people coming here to troll Ryu, but it doesn't sufficiently inform a generally applicable policy.---Mona- (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but Weaseloid was specifically talking about DlagonDlagon. Admittedly, it's kinda confusing that they posted their question here in this section. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Defining terms.It is a common feature of legislators everywhere to define the operative terms in their laws. The above snark notwithstanding, such law-making does not entail having to define the words in common language; merely terms those that are going to be employed to sanction people. This is a good idea for the same reason it's a good idea in formal legislating, to wit: It allows people to actually know what it is they are voting (or not) to do. It also somewhat prevents those who enforce laws or rules from manipulating them to capture people they merely dislike. Finally, it can often happen that, when defining operative terms, people realize the law or rule is not, after all, one they support.---Mona- (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Utterly opposed
Current policy works if someone's being a dick on-site (because being a dick is trolling or breaking rules, both of which are bannable), and we shouldn't care if someone's a dick off-site (because it doesn't affect us). This just makes it easier to block people we ideologically disagree with for things they've done off-site. 21:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Where did you get this weird interpretation? This policy's purpose is to punish and discourage people yapping about off-site stuff, not the opposite. O.o 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * This will let people more easily ban people who think like Chrimony or Naqoyqatsi. 22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Current policy works if someone's being a dick on-site" That's manifestly false. Both Avenger and Ryu have been de-mopped, re-patrolled, coop-cased, and vandal binned innumerable times (I think all of that for both, but you get the idea) and they still persist in the same bullshit that disrupts the wiki and consumes vast amounts of time from otherwise productive members. Indeed, focusing on this DlagonDlagon user -- about whom I have no strong position -- in light of the real problem users strikes me as surreal.---Mona- (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but those people don't bring in off-wiki drama. They're just drama unto themselves. 22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but those people don't bring in off-wiki drama. They're just drama unto themselves. 22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

How often is this a problem?
How often is this a problem? Obviously, this is intended for the DlagonDlagon case, but have there been other recent (recent=last ~2 years) examples where such a policy would have helped us? Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also the Krom-defamers that've been popping up lately. Most of which have been summarily banhammered on suspected Mikemikevhood. And I remember one popping up under similar circumstances as DlagonDlagon. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * I guess you could argue for a User:Jyulong qualifying... or maybe not really. Walker Walker Walker 21:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Importation of off-site drama
Walker Walker Walker 21:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, well, yes. Good point. #definingtermsisagoodidea---Mona- (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Importation of off-site tumbleweeds
Forgot about this. Walker Walker Walker 04:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard
We are creating a proposal against off-site drama to protect a user who brings off-site drama to RationalWiki by baiting trolls, and then exempting that user from the same standards? Utterly silly. I say it either goes both ways and holds both sides accountable, or it should go no ways. So far as the Krom drama goes, that's just Mikemikev pretending to be not Mikemikev, and we always kick him to the curb accordingly. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And to repeat myself (yeah, like the proverbial broken record) I really do find it almost hilarious that so many are putting so much into an issue that is not a very big problem for the wiki, all while two users who take up endless energy and cause astonishing amounts of disruption are not dealt with. One of them still has a mop because David Gerard quickly gave it back. Frankly, I can't take any of this all that seriously; many want to contrive a policy to take care of one troll who isn't even that active. Why? pffft---Mona- (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And again it's Mona spreading her grudge against me and Avenger to another page of this site.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What codswallop. Your name is nowhere mentioned. Have you forgotten that Avenger is blocked for two weeks? Along with Ryu, he's the cause of the vast majority of the energy drain here. Surely you've noticed that I am not, not by a long-shot, the only one who's sick of both of them?---Mona- (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It really is a solution in search of a problem. Just like the hoopla about voter fraud in the United States (which does occur, but very, very rarely), this a blanket solution for something that hasn't historically been a major issue for RationalWiki. And even when it was, the policy as proposed wouldn't have helped because most off-Wiki-to-RationalWiki drama has been between established RWians. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is "one of the silliest ideas" intended to be self-descriptory? I'm sure seeing a lot of them in your post here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:48, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Goonie is not remotely silly. He's both reasonable and correct.---Mona- (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice point-by-point refutation there, 142! Gooniepunk (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seriously expect something else from 142??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd be wise not to confuse my preference for making funny asides with having no retort. I can be less kind, if that's what you prefer. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Desysopping proposal
To (a) prevent individuals from user-rights warring over controversial users and (b) prevent individuals from resysopping users who have been desysopped by the community, I propose that any Coop desysop is followed by (1) putting the desysopped user into "sysoprevoke" status and (2) putting a notice on the top of the user's talk page stating that they lost sysop by Coop action. 18:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I support some rule-making on this issue, but is the coop the place to do this?---Mona- (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) FFS, I don't even know where I am anymore. Can you tell I only had 3 hours sleep last nite?---Mona- (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposal (2) sounds too much like "public shaming" to me. In Dutch we call this "nailing someone to the pillory". Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Object to item 2. Unnecessary. The flag does enough. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * [EC] @CS: Yeah, true. I wanted something PSA-like -- the notice would tell people why they couldn't resysop the person and what to do about it if they disagreed with the desysopping. 18:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, strike item 2. 18:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If a user well and truly beileves that another sysop needs to have their mop taken away, they could show their commitment to that action by de-mopping themself after de-mopping the offending party until a neutral third party confirms the righteousness of the decision and gives them their mop back. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, isn't it supposed to be "desysopped", rather than "resysopped" in (1), or am I reading it wrong? Also, (3) how much of a problem is this and will this codification actually solve it? I mean, if the problem is de-/re-sysop warring, followed by a coop decision to de-sysop some miscreant, then any re-sysopping is either accidental (in which case a simple explanation to the errant editor and repeat de-sysopping of the original miscreant is in order), or deliberate (which probably necessitates a de-sysopping of the editor who keeps re-sysopping the original miscreant). ScepticWombat (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem has been the lack of a known or and/or stated term of the de-mopping. Was it for 2 months? Permanently? How did the community decide? Then we've seen people scour the archives trying to figure it out. Any de-mopping at the coop should have to declare a formal time that is somehow tracked, if not be the site's software then by someone. No administrator should re-mop until the term decided on by the community has expired.---Mona- (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with Mona that de-sysopping should have a clear expiry date, just like blocks. If it can be automated by some Wikifu, so much the better. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Somehow I strongly doubt it'll become a feature serverside, though the idea of a bot with mod rights to do it could be worth a think. Walker Walker Walker 20:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I support and I can write a bot to handle expiry of the desysopping. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How does this solve the problem?
I assume this is inspired by the coop case about Ryulong's sysop reinstatement a few months ago? How will this proposal help? The confusion there was whether the de-sysop was 2 months or "indefinite", and what exactly "indefinite" means. Aren't we better off by (1) agreeing that in future de-sysop coop cases we'll name a term in the voting process (rather than just "yes, desysop"), and (2) agree that "indefinite" means "can only be re-instated by another coop case" (or maybe another definition)?

I'm also not sure this is that much of a problem. Has this come up more often? Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that Ryu case was such a clusterfuck I think it's best to avoid any repeats. When a de-mopping happens outside of the coop -- and I do think there should be discretion to do that, but guided by formal rules -- the specified term wouldn't apply. But it seems sensible to me that a de-mopping case at the coop, if a de-mopping is decided upon, should come with a specific term.---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clusterfuck, yes, but aren't we now making rules just because there was a single clusterfuck in 8 years of RW? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've only been here about 4 months. Do we really know this issue hasn't arisen before? It seems to me it woulds be an obvious source of argument.---Mona- (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * lusterfuck, yes, but aren't we now making rules just because there was a single clusterfuck in 8 years of RW? - You must be new here. Acei9 02:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I meant was this specific confusion/clusterfuck over sysop revocation time period. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What "sysoprevoke" does is that it makes it impossible to make the sysoprevoked user into a sysop again. Essentially, this means that someone is stuck as nonsysop until a mod changes it, which makes desysop decisions final (until another coop). 00:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Modified proposal
Given the above suggestions:

"To (a) prevent individuals from user-rights warring over controversial users and (b) prevent individuals from resysopping users who have been desysopped by the community, any Coop desysop (1) must have a specified time limit (eg, 2 months, infinity), with possible bot enforcement, and (2) must include putting the desysopped user into "sysoprevoke" status (which prevents sysop status and can only be changed by moderators) until another coop case grants them sysop rights." 04:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Well expressed and the policy makes perfect sense.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable enough. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fairly sane. KOM 04:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Prolly should add some sort of waiting period between reinstatement coop case attempts should one fail. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like relying on mods, but I agree we have problems with certain prolific users over-ruling the mob because they live on the wiki. This is the least bad solution I guess. Tielec01 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the least bad option characteristic and the wariness about relying on mods, but am still not sure about how much of a problem this actually is. Oh well, we can always try it out and see how it works. After all, we can just go back to the present state of affairs if need be. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

BON voting
The community standards are vague with respect to considering the validity of BONs voting on things such as AFDs. They do say that "users" with at least 75 edits are permitted to vote, but it's unclear if a user is defined as someone who has gone through the account registration process and obtained a real user name or if a user can be a BON. I favor the former; if someone can't take a minute to register a name or for some reason would prefer to hide behind an IP address, then their vote can be disregarded. It seems this issue has arisen in certain recent ..contentious.. places. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Plain meaning prevails: one who uses [RW]. Walker Walker Walker 01:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And how exactly does one "hide behind" an IP address as opposed to a username? <font color=#006600>Walker <font color=#55AA55>Walker <font color=#AAEEAA>Walker 01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) The franchise requirements (75 votes etc.) only apply for votes on site policy, Chicken Coop cases, & electing moderators + RMF board members. There's no specific restriction on voting in AFD cases or any other ad hoc voting.  01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my interpretation as well. Just wanted to get a read from the community, as it seemed a little vague to me. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Block Policy Adjustments
I hereby propose 2 adjustments to the block policy:

1: If any user should impersonate another user in any way that is not intended to be sarcastic or funny, especially in chicken coop cases or votes regarding important RationalWiki issues or disputes, that user should be banned for a period of no less than 12 hours and not exceeding 36 hours for the first case. After the second case of impersonation, any sysop may ban for a period not exceeding 3.6 days.

2: If any user modifies another user's proposals or comments in a coop case or policy discussion in a clear attempt to change the community's view of their statement or proposal, former user should be banned for a period of no less than 12 hours and not exceeding 36 hours for the first case. If a second case occurs, any sysop may ban for a period not exceeding 3.6 days.

The reasons for which I have proposed these policies are delineated here and here. Please vote on the proposal. Mods, if a vote is inappropriate, please modify this proposal into a discussion. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added "interfering with other users' talk page comments or votes" to the RationalWiki:Blocking policy for short-term blocks. That's all that's needed; no reason to treat this as any sort of special case.  Also, remember that you were moving and deleting other users' votes & comments in the coop too.  08:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent coop votes
Okay, so recently there have been many issues with people being unable to vote on their own coop cases because they do not meet the three month mark. I believe we need to make a policy descision on whether or not you are allowed to vote on your own coop case or not, regardlessof the three month rule. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Dont allow people to vote on their own coop cases

 * I personally believe it skews the end results, as the person being cooped will obviously vote to not punish themselves. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I have a question in response to that. Should we then not allow the person who brought the coop case to vote since they'll obviously vote to punish? If they're just going to cancel each other out why does it matter? AyzmoCheers 18:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My response, do they allow the the accused person onto the jury in court. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think the accused should be able to directly vote. It also would not be a rule violation if they ask others to vote for their side though. I'd like to add that caveat so the rule isn't abused in the future. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep the rules the same

 * 1) What is the problem with the status quo?  20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Per the stoat.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Goat
Question: Regardless of whether or not they can vote, are they still allowed to "participate" such that they can provide evidence and/or defend themselves? AyzmoCheers 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My plan would be that they would be able to participate, just not vote. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How to handle suspected long-term harassment
Policy proposal: How to handle longer-term harassment.

Required tool to carry out: Add CheckUserIP to the wiki. This tool will only be accessible to the user group "staff".

Description: Staff should have the ability to block specific IP addresses / ranges that are witnessing an increase amount of abuse. Historical abuse of the specific IP range must be over the time span of a minimum of 5 years. Blocks to specific ranges can last up to a maximum of 1 day. The block should be applied within an abuse period, which should last at a minimum of 5 hours. Do not block when no abuse is occurring. 16:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) No. Unless you can demonstrate this will actually make the wiki more secure. Also, who are the administrators? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a point when Grawp flooded the entire wiki with logins when we had the SSL issue. We had no choice but to lock down the entire wiki for an entire day by blocking 127.0.0.1. It's either we block IP ranges or just disable logging in for a period of time. Also, I meant staff. 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) this policy is far to vague to be considered AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you point to specific parts which could be improved? 17:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)