RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive6

Deletion, moving and merging votes
Currently it takes three sysops to agree to delete something, and fewer to move or merge articles. There's nothing written down anywhere finadable about this - should there be? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think we wanted any hard and fast rules on this. 3 was a rough guideline for what to do with something reasonably major. 17:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No protection of talk pages
I count myself, Nx, Broccoli, SR and Moriarty in favour and NU513 opposed. Can I put it back in now? EddyP (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold up. Let's at least talk about it first. 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nx that not protecting talk pages is already implicit in the standards, but it should be made explicit. I'd put it in a different sentence though, rather than shoe-horning it into the current one about user space. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to go along with these changes if we can agree to protect my talk page. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's put it back (I think even NU is really in favour) Broccoli (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to allow consideration of a short protection of a talk page given that edits to a user's talk page can trigger emails to that user. Nothing more than 30 minutes though. That might be one exception that could be added. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk page changes sending e-mails can be turned off in preferences. EddyP (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm most concerned with is people editing my user talk at night. Can I protect it only during night hours? Like some kind of mode that I can turn on? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember reading somewhere that any kind of protection needed to be discussed first (except userspace, of course), but can't find where that is. -- Nx  / talk 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have 'consensus' yet? Broccoli (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I want to know: Those of you who are against protection talk pages, why are you against it? And those of you who are for allowing talk pages to be protected, why are you for it? I think that will get the discussion moving. 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the talk pages are places where we can discuss articles. If you can't post on a talk page, where can you post? EddyP (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My user page isn't an article. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But how else are we supposed to talk to you? EddyP (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that you think you're privileged to talk to me, you would be able to talk to me on my talk page because you're a sysop. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need to talk to you. We just need to ban you for life. Broccoli (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew it was only a matter of time before you reverted to your fascist impulses. If you don't want to talk, then why care if my talk page is protected? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FOR PROTECTION I refuse to be slandered and have my page vandalized while I'm not here to respond or correct it. I know you guys think you'll be on top of it and take good care of it, but honestly you're a bunch of derelicts that I wouldn't trust to water my cactus. My talk page and my reputation are important to me, and I won't have some shady bunch of numbers defame it or me. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can protect your userpage. -- Nx  / talk 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I can protect my user talk page, too. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. user talk pages are community property, not private property.  22:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I vote against protection of talkpages, unless you provide an alternative place (Like a User:user/thisplace) for people to talk to you that isn't protected. I know I once protected my talkpage to unregistered editors for a week because it was a spambot target, but I provided a page for serious people to talk to me..  22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't censor here 'Neveruse'. Anyone is free to say anything they like about you on your talk page. Broccoli (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My user talk page will inherently be about me and during daytime hours, I welcome your comments and questions. While I'm away, I won't trust you derelicts to keep it free from vandalism and slander. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * EC.Perhaps there could be some explanation of why we are discussing this? As Human says, talk pages are public. RW policy has always been to avoid protection if possible - but I guess there is some incident which has started the discussion?--BobNot Jim 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Neveruse was just bored and decided to troll. -- Nx  / talk 22:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree with the spiky-head on this one. If your talk page becomes a target of a spambot or some jilted BoN it seems only fair to save yourself the trouble of reverting/re-reverting this stuff.  The only problem with the alternate page is that the little message thingy doesn't pop up when you have a message, and the only way you'll know if someone is attempting contact is constantly checking the RC.   22:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or by putting it on your watchlist, which I did when I created mine. 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ECx2) The alleged user 'Neveruse' is just filling up the troll-quotient. We should have MC back. He isn't really a troll. Broccoli (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How some of you get so worked up over a little trolling (even when you know I'm trolling you!) never ceases to amaze me, which is why I will continue to occasionally troll you. Learn to ignore me or learn to take yourselves a little less seriously. Serious business wiki parody over. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ECx10,000) (Ignoring the bit about trolling) Neveruse, what exactly are you afraid of? If someone blanks your talk page obviously we will deal with it. If they just say something insulting, that's their right and nobody should revert it. 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it that when someone confesses to trolling, we let them keep trolling? EddyP (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This community requires regular trolling. We'd get bored without it. Broccoli (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the trolling, I think this issue is worth discussing. Obviously article talk pages should never be protected, but user talk pages are a bit different, because of the constant annoyance from the orange box/email. -- Nx  / talk 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So how about 'don't protect user talk pages without first setting up some other page for people to contact/abuse you on'? Broccoli (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the orange box/e-mail can be easily disabled using 'my preferences'. EddyP (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just make a template that clearly states the user can't/won't respond to any comments or questions because they've quit, or something? [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]Norseman  Cyser Melomel  22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The email can be disabled; the orange box can't. And that's not the point. If user A is causing a large amount of disruption to user B, should it really be user B's responsibility to change the way they want to view the site to stop it? A brief period of protection may be in order, from my POV, but I'd like to hear other opinions. Certainly, the length of protection we've seen so far is out of order. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Protection from concerted wandalism/spambots makes sense, but sysops protecting pages on a whim makes little sense. Broccoli (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the vegetable above me. 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It shouldn't be done on a whim, ever. A consistent, sustained period of wandalism or bot interference should probably warrant a brief block though. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 23:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No protection of talkpages does seem like a good rule and I would support it, but I remember an occasion were Fall down and Mei were edit warring on my talk page over the level of a comments indentation. I got so sick of seeing that yellow box I semi-protected my talk page for an hour, so I think no locking of talkpages, should have a common sense exception. 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, we don't need to make a separate protection rule for talkpages - the same policy should apply as with articles: avoid protecting at all, but do it occasionally & temporarily where there is a real need for it.  18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking section needs updating
The option to allow a blocked user to edit their talk page contradicts what this page says ("if the blockee is not a sysop, they have no way of protesting [the block]") -- Nx  / talk 03:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to add that we should make an exception for spambots, as they are typically undeterred by the vandal brake,as they are set to edit at a certain rate that is usually less than once per 30 minutes. It doesn't need to be a permaban, just one long enough to disrupt the program. 03:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with threats
I think we need to have a discussion and a plan in place for dealing with situations where a user makes a specific threat of harm to themselves or another person. Vague, non-specific, trolling posts, are probably best dealt with through deletion (and oversite if particularly bad) and then ignoring them.

But if there is any credibility to the threat it is probably not a good idea to ignore it. Wikipedia which has more experience with this than hopefully we ever will has several policy discussions (see here and here). The gist of it is removal of the offending material, limiting editing/contact with the individual, and using administrative tools to locate the user and contact local authorities who are in a better situation to assess the issue and chose a response.

One issue we have is that there are only 2 people on the site who have anyway of discovering the IP address and location of a user. We do not have checkuser installed so there is no way to expand on that either. One potential solution is to bite the bullet and activate checkuser, giving it to a small number of people who would only use it for emergency situations.

There maybe a lot of other ways to handle it as well. Just seems like a conversation the community should have. tmtoulouse 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a lot of involvement in the Wikipedia method developing. Basically, the idea is that deciding the sincerity of such a thing is WAY outside the competence of pretty much anyone on the site - so contacting the authorities is the way to go. It's also one of the few circumstances in which one can just release an IP to someone else (the police or the ISP). If they're in sincere trouble, then getting the authorities to them is good - and if they're trolling, then having the police show up and ask them not to be silly is also good ;-)


 * It's different here to Wikipedia because this is a tiny wiki/forum/thing where we know each other virtually (200 editors any month), not a huge thing the size of a small city (135,000 editors any month). But I think the principle is basically sensible.


 * And, y'know, in such circumstances I'd rather be trolled than not act when I could have - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is addressing threats of harm to oneself, not to others - David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Even with checkuser enabled it doesn't mean that you would be able to locate someone. Not everybody has a permanent individual IP. 14:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless the person is behind a proxy that will refuse to provide information to authorities it is always possible to find someone. ISPs can give the account information of the user who had a given IP address at a specific time. The point though isn't for us to worry about that, but rather be prepared to know what we should do given a particular circumstance. tmtoulouse 14:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another point that I think we should decide is that suggestions that individuals will harm themselves in some way will always be treated as real.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did one where I emailed the ISP (cc WMF) with "this person on this IP at this time from your ISP has posted this suicide note, do please contact their local police" - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not linking to Nazis
"This is so we don't contribute to driving up their standing in search engine results." But ... we nofollow external links by default! So this doesn't actually apply. Is there any other reason not to link to Nazis? (I'm thinking specifically of European Union Times, where the links are references) - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh but of course! Someone might go there and read what they say. Imagine if everyone had read and analyzed Mein Kampf before WWII. Certainly there would have been more believers then disbelievers. ;-) Lumenos (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried reading that thing in high school. I lasted about five pages - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to read it now. Racism, genocide, etc, is new and improved. Lumenos (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Undo for discussion
"External links to websites purely devoted to hate (Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, Metapedia and so on) should be avoided per longstanding community consensus, except as needed for on-mission purposes. Use your common sense (so rare, it's a goddamn superpower)."

The italicised section was the addition I undid. While I can see what Dave meant because I remember the article he did it on (using footnote links to justify what we said about some site), it's not very clear in this wording. Following "longstanding community consensus" with a vague exception pretty much cancels the concept out. 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. In hindsight it may be better to keep snark out of this and be entirely direct. i.e. "External links to websites purely devoted to hate (Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, Metapedia and so on) should only be used when required to provide necessary background to an article. Links to such sites should carry a warning of their content." This removes the contradiction but I think it captures the stance we agreed on in the forum discussion. ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 00:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I approve of the above comment and would not complain if it replaced the current wording. Can you work the "longstanding" bit into it though?  01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, not sure it is longstanding, except maybe in a kind of unofficial way (given we've been linking to Phelps and company for some time). I think the original version was controversial, given that it arguably went against the notion of free exchange of ideas and rationality, so it needed some kind of strongly implied community agreement, but a more pragmatic approach (linking to the shite when we're talking about it) seems easy enough to accept as is. I know only a few people chipped in to the forum thread so I could be misjudging this, and I wasn't around when the original consensus came about. What do you think? ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It started by accident when I deleted the simple EL to MP with the edit comment "we don't link to racist garbage". It sorta took hold, over the last three years.  When MP trolls came here during the very brief RW/MP wars, they'd undo it or insert it.  So the point ended up "don't bother to link to their mainpage".  However, if we are refuting a site, especially a more active one, we need to be able to add footnotes that link to them.  01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this issue need to be in the CS at all? It only got added very recently, & the amount of discussion generated kindof underlines that the "longstanding community consensus" really isn't as hard & fast as this text would imply.   18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's been there a long time. Can you find it being "added recently"?  20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 31st May.  06:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus?
The policy currently reads "External links to websites purely devoted to hate (Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, Metapedia and so on) should be avoided per longstanding community consensus." There is a vote here and consensus is going the opposite direction. I would go ahead and remove the... ahem bullshit "policy" claim (or add a snarky reference to the vote) but I fear being blocked by whichever mob member may find this offensive. Lumenos (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "consensus" is based on over three years of general agreement. If the mob wants to change it it should be discussed at talk:community standards (here) not on some random forum page many people might be aware of.  03:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only seen the evidence of general disagreement. Where is the evidence of general agreement? I think we should link each policy to a subpage with a poll to show exactly who agrees or does not agree with them. Keep the poll open all the time, so that anyone who is reading the policy will be more inclined to vote rather than think to themselves "this wiki doesn't reflect my opinions or preferences". Lumenos (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh shut up. First, you have no idea what you're talking about (see history of metapedia article).  Second, you are the least organized thinker I have seen in quite a while, so your "ideas" of how to "manage" RW are not even funny.  05:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What has happened here? You were being so polite. Let me see if I understand your argument here. "There is consensus. Poll showing exactly the opposite consensus means nothing because you don't know the history. There is no need for any more polling because I know the history." Lumenos (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much. The poll is not directly related to the question at hand.  06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is some other question don't let me stop you from dealing with that.
 * You've said that the poll is in too obscure a location. I "agree" that a poll could be in a better location. What location would be more noticeable than a link from the policy page? Then there would be no confusion as to how much consensus there is. What's the problem?
 * Lumenos (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

05:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I promise not to be hurt or compare anyone to Hitler. ;) Lumenos (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lumenous I think Human's point is that changing the Community Standards is somewhat like changing the Constitution. It should have widespread, prolonged discussion, amongst a lot of people, preferably here. Last time we did a side-by-side so we could see what is being discussed. 06:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So why is an alleged policy that was summarily added to the Standards two weeks ago being treated as sacred? This clause is really more trouble than it's worth: I say just delete it again & deal with this issue on a case-by-case basis, as we have done until now.   06:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about changing the standards (yet) I was talking about either referencing the claim that there is consensus, or removing it. A poll that is always open would allow people to change their vote and allow newcomers to see exactly how much support any policy has. Lumenos (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to reference the community standards, they are the community standards. That is like asking for a reference to the First Amendment. 06:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to but when we have a poll that shows exactly the opposite of what the supposed community standards claim, it would help to establish what the community standards actually are. Lumenos (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what this page is for. Again if we want to change it we will, but only after a proper discussion. 07:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine but I think a poll should be used to summarize the results and precisely quantify how much a "community standard" it really is. You can't convince me there was consensus on this issue before this "standard" was written when the poll is so far weighted the other way. Bob and David Gerard are crats, so these aren't insignificant voters. Lumenos (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am of the opinion I couldn't convince you of anything you don't already believe. 07:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nx's edit to the blocking section...
Nx, read your edit out loud: "The purpose of the vandal bin is to avoid the problems of blocking (specifically, that if the blockee is not a sysop, they can't continue to vandalize and troll, except on their talk page)." So the "problem of blocking" is that vandals/trolls "can't continue to vandalize and troll..."? How exactly is that a problem? P-Foster (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, because we like to feed the trolls and revert vandalism. It makes us feel manly. -- Nx  / talk 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop being a smartass/using a community page as a way to vent your spleen. If you don't like how things are working--a justifiable complaint--this (edit warring w/MC over a completely nonsensical edit) really isn't the most productive way of handling it. P-Foster (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said I wanted to be productive? -- Nx  / talk 16:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's often assumed that bureaucrats have been allowed this privilege because the owner felt they were capable of being "productive" in one way or another. Lumenos (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a bureaucrat. -- Nx  / talk 00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I thought you were way back when. Now I don't know. Lumenos (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I see "Nx" apparently demoted yourself: 21:16, 3 June 2010 Nx (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Nx  from Bureaucrats and Sysops to (none) ‎ (Abuse)
 * Great show! Hum but then there were rumors of squabbles with Human and Hoover? I'm not sure who will re-promote you. Lumenos (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why use the vandal bin instead of blocking?
-- Nx  / talk 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * P-Foster (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I see that, but my question was: WHY use the vandal bin instead of blocking? -- Nx  / talk 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno Nx. Tell you what--why don't you pull some poorly-written, poorly-constructed piece of prose out of your ass and throw it on the page all by your lonesome and then edit-war whenver someone objects to a unilateral change to the community standards page? That seems like the best way to handle it. P-Foster (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't think of any reason to keep using the vandal bin other than being able to play with trolls. -- Nx  / talk 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

People on page-blanking spreees? P-Foster (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * THOSE ARE VALUABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY BE RATIONAL WE'RE TURNING INTO CP ARGHGGHHGHGHSHSHGHGHG!!!! --Kels (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, because vandal binning them will prevent them from blanking the page (except every 30 minutes), while blocking them is completely ineffective. -- Nx  / talk 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I remember right, the rationale was that blocking someone encourages socking to get around the block, but putting a 30-minute restriction on them doesn't. Apparently that's enough to prevent someone from taking 30 seconds to sock up and not be restricted at all.  It goes back to the idea of engaging with wandals and trolls, rather than just blocking them and doing something enjoyable instead. Or paranoia about being accused of being like CP.  Or something. --Kels (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that we've been through this before. Blocking people has generally been against our "free speech" ethos.  In part this was because of the original reaction against CP's blocking style. But if this now needs to be changed then it should be as a result of a site-wide discussion. The mobocracy does not give an individual editor the right to change these standards because they believe their views are obviously right.
 * Having said that, it is possible that we may need other forms of decision making mechanisms. At the moment some editors seem to think that the quickest way of making changes is simply doing them and the surviving the ensuing HCM - this may not be the best system. --BobSpring is sprung! 18:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What Bob said. This would be a pretty major change to how things are handled, & trying to implement it just by making changes to this page ain't gonna take.  If you're serious about it, open a forum thread & announce it on the intercom so that everyone knows what's being proposed.   18:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob is far too reasonable to survive in this cesspit. The reality is that a small cadre/elite are forming a leadership faction by themselves, eschewing consensus or discussion, instead intent on creating rules and policies, making templates and screwing around with presentation like a wikipedia fanboy on an internet camp summer holiday. And the worst thing is that you simply allowed this to happen, because you are too spineless, because you are too indifferent to liberal values, to rationalism, instead embracing authoritarianism and a disgraceful oligarchy. Who is at the center of this conspiracy? J'accuse Nx, the man who ruined Rationalwiki and who is intent on making this a mirror site of wikipedia for the kind of editors over there who are virgins and irritating little shits, what with their constant meme perpetuation and sexually frustrated hysterical-isms. (EX- PFoster) 74.63.112.147 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was merely pointing out that the sentence "if the blockee is not a sysop, they have no way of protesting it" was false. And, since I'm just a troll, I'd rather just point out why the current policy is stupid instead of trying to fix it. -- Nx  / talk 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Our BON above may have the objective of creating dissent. However, anything which changes the thrust of the community standards really should be debated first. While it may seem obvious to the individual editor a note saying "I intend to change this." might be a better way to proceed. --BobSpring is sprung! 18:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * RWW has an apt description: "It’s like being blocked, except RW sysops can pretend they are better than Conservapedia." http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/Vandal_bin -- Nx  / talk 18:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * RWW may, or may not, be correct - but changes to CS should be debated.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, debate away. -- Nx  / talk 18:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nx. [[Image:Chat-smiley.gif]] But the thing is that I'm not proposing a change. So I'm reluctant to make a suggestion about changes.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your blocking policy is built on a premise that is no longer true (blocked user can't complain about their block) and the irrational fear of being labeled "just as bad as CP". Read this -- Nx  / talk 22:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Your blocking policy..."? Wtf, now you think of RW as being an entity that does not include you? Insane.  08:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * David Gerard can certainly be added to the list of authoritarian wikipedians intent on ruining this site rational and liberal values. His behaviour is thoroughly perplexing. I reckon he is a spawn or automoton of Nx, and not a sentient person, because nobody could possibly be as despicable as him. 74.63.112.137 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We aim to please - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I must say, we're doing a bang-up job preventing the place from being overrun with bad-faith trolls and general disruption. Fight on, free speech warriors! --Kels (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right Kels, RW is a most feared fortress in the Troll-Verse. Acei9 22:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may, I like the vandal bin as an option because, unlike restricting people to their talkpage, the vandal bin allows people the chance to make constructive, redeeming edits to articles. I have used the talkpage-only restriction as a backup when they continued anyways. Conservative Punk (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewording to reflect reality
1. Nx is correct in pointing out what has become an error of fact, regarding blocked users generally being permitted to edit their talk page. However, the wordings I read during the part of the edit war I went through weren't the improvements needed.

2. The "Oh noes you been blocked" screen needs a few improvements. The one relative to this topic is it should specifically tell the blockee that they can edit their talk page, with a link to it, because they might not know. Perhaps they should also be able to edit the blocking sysop's talk page, too?

2b. The block message should also say who imposed the block and how long it is for, and also perhaps how much of it is left. Possibles? 23:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed section for trolls
We really ought to settle our policy on how we handle trolls (or rather, a troll). Some people revert troll's edit on sight and block him for an hour or two. Other's feel that we should preserve our principles of openness and acceptance, and it's better to just ignore him. Whole mini-HCMs spring up just over whether or not we can revert his talk page edits.

My opinion is that we have tried to just ignore him—and we have failed. Like it or not, said troll has managed to corrupt numerous threads with his mere presence. I feel we cannot let this continue. So I am proposing an addition to the community standards detailing an official policy for handling trolls:

"Trolls with an established history of maliciousness and bad faith edits can/will have their edits reverted on sight and their account and/or IP may be banned for up to one day." -- 23:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for this one thread at least, if said troll does comment, can we please we move his comments into their own section. I don't want him to derail this thread, too, or for it to turn into yet another fight over revert-or-not-to-revert. 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverting them means you are acknowledging them and that will just encourage them. -- Nx  / talk 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Numbers needed to back this assertion - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * MC is still here. -- Nx  / talk 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * MC would still be here anyway. Trolls are like that. - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the rule is "Marcus Cicero can just fuck off", possibly it should be stated in those terms. Generalising from a single example is a bad idea. i.e., get the Zionist Occupation Government to declare the troll known as MC is unwelcome; don't write it into the community rules, or you'll just get rules-lawyering - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the Loya Jirga? Should we get them to rule on this?   00:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Them or whoever; I mean whoever has the power to declare such things - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think I should go ahead and do that, or wait for others to weigh in here first?  00:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For trolls, MC in particular, I just vandal, revert, carry on with my day. Acei9 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a few people feel we should leave their comments in—this is an attempt to hash out these two different approaches.  00:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not use the roll-up template like WP has? It was very effective in derailing several substantive discussions at wp:Talk:Conservapedia lately.
 * My feeling would be why leave them in? Revert, ignore. That'd be my vote anyway. We already have enough sensless garbage. Acei9 00:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people are starting to remove Earthland's comments because they consider him a troll. And then you'll be just like CP. -- Nx  / talk 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx, you are being a baby. I agree that EL's comments should not have been deleted but a user made them small on his own talkpage - you could have just left it at that as a compromise. Acei9 00:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx, you are being a baby. I agree that EL's comments should not have been deleted but a user made them small on his own talkpage - you could have just left it at that as a compromise. Acei9 00:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can understand why people would revert my comments, because I'm an abusive cunt, but Gerards reverting of Earthland and his weird justification (A mildly Maoist rattling off of purity, of those who belong and those who don't) is a terrible precedent and you'd be wise to see it. This is me with my serious hat on. And this is all I will have to say on the matter. I'm officially retired. 86.40.97.129 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll need a definition of some sort, and it has to be better than "I know one when I see one". And I'll say I disagree with the proposal, but I know that means I'm just not thinking of the children...  02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Trolling herein defined shall be anything misconstrued as supportive of the anti-science movement, Christian fundamentalism, or people we (the mob) just don't like." nobsdon't bother me 02:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Trolling shall be defined as edits made with the sole intention of attacking, disparaging or insulting individual users or the commuity at large, edits made with the intent of sowing discord among users, or edits made with the intent of undermining the stated objectives of the community." P-Foster (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. Acei9 02:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * edits made with the intent of sowing discord among users. Ace your recent edits & DFRS template would be trolling, then. nobsdon't bother me 02:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's different, Rob. That was directed at you, not a "member of the community". P-Foster (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been a member, and member in good standing, longer than most of you. I was a registered user & sysoped among perhaps the first 40 users.
 * Then why can't you remember to sign your posts, like you're some n00b? P-Foster (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Member, yes, but good standing? That's funny, Rob. --Kels (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have I ever vandalized or abused sysop rights? I've only contributed solid, stimulating; intellectually challenged discussion. nobsdon't bother me 03:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it, too.  02:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether "intellectually challenged" was intentional or not, it's hilarious. And, no, you never even used your "sysop rights", although you show many signs of not actually understanding how this site works.  But there was that one thing you did for a month and a half where you attacked myself and others on wikipedia, for no other reason than that we were RW editors.  For that rudeness you will never be forgiven.  And then when WP told you to go screw and stop wasting their time, you dragged your bizarre theories back here.  That is why you were blocked and desysopped.  Now you are not blocked.  You will never be resysopped, at least until Aschlafly permabans you from CP for being a "member of a vandal site".  07:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the forum to discuss these matters, however I "attacked" no one;" I made certain efforts to improve WP's Conservapedia entry, which required holding certain users past editing practices to account. Using your standard -- that past behaviour is unforgivable -- don't ask me to unblock you at CP or argue your case; RW  is well on its way of duplicating existing CP policies. And the record shows I was effective in accomplishing certain things in Wikipedia, one being breaking the stranglehold of control certain editors had over content. Neutral Admins now are at least are aware of the problem; and simply because no disputing party was interesting in pursuing the dispute to the point of pursuing action against other users, our differences were kept on the plain of article improvement, for which Wikipedia is all the better now. This is how Wikipedia works. Rationalwiki's policy development governing user conduct and dispute resolution has quite a way to go yet, so be careful of precedent. I edit under my real life name, and I'll be goddammed if I allow some slimey little fuck to fuck-wit-me.  nobsdon't bother me 12:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I find both it to be useless, sadly, since how are we to determine "intent"? 02:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Key word is "misconstrued;" it gives flexibility. nobsdon't bother me 03:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it can be pretty clear given context--I tell you or Ace to fuck off, and we know it's in good fun/in the heat of a debate/not trolling. Some BON logs on to say that RA is a fat fuck who can't get it up and lives in his mother's basement, while pretty much being truthful, is trolling. P-Foster (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And the above comment is not trolling? How can you create a policy against trolling when you yourself are abusive pricks. -- Nx  / talk 11:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure it's that easy. Keep in mind that we invite people to come here and debate "us". 03:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "anything misconstrued" gives the sysop the flexibility to misinterpret intent anyway he/she sees fit--a common practice already. nobsdon't bother me 03:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Deciding what to do with persistent trolls is supposed to be handled on a case-by-case basis by the Loya Jirga, if the community is unable to agree on a solution without them. This is what the LJ was founded for, & still hasn't done yet. Trying to define who or what constitutes a troll & a specific policy towards them is a bad idea. If there's a general feeling among the community that somebody is a troublemaker, that should be enough to start talking about how to handle them. The Standards should say something about the LJ, but maybe we should wait till after they've actually handled a case so we know what to write about them. 09:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's been ample opportunity for these people to stand up and take action - or decide not to take action and say so. But as nothing has happened at all, I either see the need to cement what this LJ thing does or refine the concept further. For instance, the LJ is composed of many people, and undoubtedly there's too much diffusion of responsibility for any of them to take the action needed - or maybe we elected people who don't have the best interests of the site at heart and wanted to let a bunch of numbers attack people personally and quite brutally causing headaches for most of us who consider themselves rational and intelligent. This whole "the LJ should do something" thing has been going around, but it's a totally empty threat because I've seen no one take a stand against this crap. Do we need to call it by projecting a goat symbol onto the sky or something? 09:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The LJ is only supposed to get involved if called upon by the mob to address an issue. Thus far, I don't even see an "issue" to take to them, just a bunch of people crying about talk page posts they don't like.  09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "brutally". This is the internet.  We are grownups.  "brutally" involves the sense of physical violence.  I don't understand what your complaint is.  09:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm up for reverting anything MC posts. He's been quite clear in his intentions, and the LJ itself appeared as a result of our inability to decide one way or the other how to deal with him. In an off way he's actually been oddly helpful in highlighting this problem now while we're still small enough to formulate a response. It was going to happen sooner or later, and it's better it happened now. Reverting of talk comments should not normally happen unless it's a persistent troll or something that breaks our policies; i.e. personal attacks, disclosure of personal information, or illegal content. The danger here is that we end-up reverting someone just because they dissent or express an unpopular view. Pee Foster's summary looks pretty good: "Trolling shall be defined as edits made with the sole intention of attacking, disparaging or insulting individual users or the commuity at large, edits made with the intent of sowing discord among users, or edits made with the intent of undermining the stated objectives of the community." It should be made clear though that trolling is not simply disagreeing and wanting to indefinitely argue an unpopular point (the Earthland clause). Yes it's open to interpretation, but it's kind of difficult to have a hard rule that won't prevent the usual harmless banter. We should normally be able to decide on this, but if not then punt it to the LJ for a decision. It's a wiki, so if someone should make the wrong decision it can later be put right. Blocks should only be for hours, except in extreme cases (such as TK's legal threats).  ConcernedResident  omg ponies!!! 09:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about reverting anything 86.x.x.x posts? How about anything someone disagrees with?  09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree with most of what you said, how do we propose to determine the "intent" of a post? 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For fucks sake are you trolling yourself or illiterate: CR clearly said "It should be made clear though that trolling is not simply disagreeing and wanting to indefinitely argue an unpopular point" and pretty much everyone agrees with this. 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck off, troll. 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, implying that I am trolling pretty much destroyed any ability to define "troll". 10:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that a case should be raised on Administrative Abuse for any user who is causing serious grief to the community, & that AA should be renamed to something less specific since a troublemaker is a troublemaker, regardless of whether they're abusing administrative abilities or not. The community can then discuss there what action should be taken.  If we're unable to agree on a solution, it should then be referred to LJ to take more decisive action.   09:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. The LJ shouldn't be some kind of thing that allows us to abdicate all our decision making to a small group. I think they were only introduced to break those deadlocked situations in which we go around in circles throwing toys out of the pram. -- ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how do you define this "deadlock"? Does it count as deadlock now? Was it deadlock yesterday? Will it only be deadlock tomorrow? Does it not count as deadlock until every user has chimed in? Does it count as deadlock if only one person is dissenting? Is it deadlock if everyone starts taking the piss and votes "goat" for everything? It's all well and good saying that we have this system for emergency purposes, but we can't easily define such a thing. What if we put up the bat-sign for the LJ and someone says "but I don't think it's appropriate" and we have yet another circular discussion, not about the actual item, but about what route to deal with it and we get back to square one. If you're going to give additional responsibility to people (I have to say responsibility and certainly not "rights") it should be all or nothing. Otherwise this group is then just impotent. We've had several cases where a decisive force could have stepped in to stop people being dicks to each other so we can get on and do what we're supposed to do, but people have just said "fuck that, that's fascism" and things have carried on as normal. The LJ was put in place, it's changed nothing. It's clear that it doesn't work. 10:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody has ever "put up the bat sign" for the LJ yet, so hypothetical musings about how they might fail are a bit premature. The LJ is a group, not individuals.   10:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And it therefore has the failings of a group, such as diffuse responsibility. Not to mention that its purpose, method of action and practically everything about it has this mythical status and no one seems to know what to do about it. Should people have to call on it, whatever "it" is or should it step in and sort shit out before it becomes too much. 10:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Test us. We are explicitly prohibited from acting unilaterally.  We are only allowed to even contemplate action when petitioned by the mob.  Feel free to test the process, before you judge it.  10:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a peripheral view: the LJ is a largely a beauty contest staffed with bloated egos and career opportunists more interested in padding a resume than dispensing fairness or protecting the bests interests of the RW Foundation. What makes them qualified to replace God or the Politburo or whatever? nobsdon't bother me 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting up the bat-sign
Okay then. Consider this the first call for the LJ to do something. Since we're treating it like some nuclear weapon. No more discussion, no more bloody dithering, you guys were granted some emergency power, wield it as you see fit. 10:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not really how to do it. Please start a forum, say, and present the grief.  Also make sure all the LJ members know it's there.  Or do something technically similar to what I suggest - 1. call them all; 2. present the problem. If you're serious, I'm sure we/they will deliberate solemnly.  10:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd hope that everyone in the LJ has that page observed anyway. Probably the best way to notice cases. -- ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 10:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the membership, most will be aware of this. It's also added to the LJ page, when I found it. Also, as Human is a member, I assume he has the authority to start it. If you're just stalling by citing some less-than-well-established procedure, please just say so. 10:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not stalling anything. The mob needs to bring a case to the LJ, the LJ is not empowered to act unilaterally.  Please bring said case and state it somewhere, then ping all of us to address it, if that is your desire.  11:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LJ is still a man down, unless somebody pulls something out of that abandoned by-election page. I'm not clear what the issue being offered for LJ is right now.  Most of yesterday's HCM relates to Nx edit-warring & generally being a prick, which has already been raised on AA.  Apparently he's removed himself from server access(?) - it should probably be left at that for now unless it starts up again.  The MC issue is no different now than it ever was, but if it's time to put it to LJ, so be it: in fact I thought that was what they supposed to agree on right after they were elected.  The issue of whether the vandal bin is abolished in favour of blocking with the talk-page option is a community issue & needs to be discussed a lot more (by the community, not LJ) before any change is made.   10:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The LJ is useless and should be abolished. If you don't like it that someone who doesn't agree with your ideology comes here to argue with you, then don't encourage them to do that on the main page. If you don't like MC's abusive language and insults, then write rules against that and enforce them... oh wait, but that would mean that a few long-time members would have to be blocked as well - how unfortunate. -- Nx  / talk 11:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Except for your first sentence, most of what you say is correct. We simply don't know yet if the LJ is useless, since we have never "used" it. 11:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The LJ is not some wise council sitting in a magical tower far removed from the daily happenings of the wiki. They're users like everyone else, who get involved in these conflicts. At one point they should step in and do something - that's why they exist. But instead everyone, even LJ members, whine that "the Loya Jirga should do something", but it never goes beyond that whining. -- Nx  / talk 11:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguably the people who most commonly step in are not in the LJ. If the LJ is not inclined to step in then it could at least provide support (or condemnation) of people who step in to fix a situation. -- ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What a process, looking for a test victim for a test case. I better STFU. That will improve the site. nobsdon't bother me 12:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah

 * what about us? u can't block us on sight because sometimes we help u u ungrateful jerks! oh and for whoever stole our proxy FUCK UR MOM NIGGER FIND UR OWN PROXY! Cheerleader Vandal 20:08 5 June 2010 fuck you douchebag 67.159.36.20 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See, you're quite nice compared to MC - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * sometimes i'm nice right now i feel like being an asshole 67.159.36.22 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

see? just the way i wrote that made you mad but the content was real. it's so funny to troll you because you feed us so well. no rangeblocks, no bans, no indef blocks, just drama. i actually kind of like it because i can be an asshole and still be a somewhat active and respected person here when i'm nice but it's not practical for you to say let mc continue forever and ever. if grawp were active here you people would die fighting his bullshit. 67.159.36.24 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Grawp was here years ago, n00b. P-Foster (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

i'm sorry for being a troll will you forgive me? 66.90.73.223 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Mini-revamp
Is there enough issues with the community standards to start a mini-revamp? My idea is to archive this shit and start a few coherent discussion on a few of the contentious sections like last time. 07:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Measuring consensus (with polls)
It is kinda looking like consensus isn't going to be possible. Perhaps we could change the wording to say this is majority rule. Much like "troll" the term "consensus" is a cliche that has lost its meaning in wiki culture. Lumenos (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The nature of consensus & "majority rule" at RW is covered in RationalWiki:Community Standards. If you think it needs rewording, start a new section for it.  If you have productive suggestions about the "advice when writing articles" section, put them here.  Thanks.  19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on the phrase "per longstanding community consensus". I think I'm in agreement with this edit note, "(Advice when writing articles: This was not adequately discussed prior to inclusion & is not uncontroversial. It can be reinstated if there is widespread support.)" I think the best way to measure "widespread support" is by using polls (that are always open and linked from Community Standards). I'm not here to say that you should start using polls; I'm saying if you don't use polls, you probably don't have a good measure of  "long-standing community consensus" or "widespread support", therefore this "standard" should not make this claim. Lumenos (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit history of metapedia. 03:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If we drop the "per longstanding community consensus" part, will you stop making long posts about it? 04:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course, but unless you make me think you were doing it because you found it reasonable I will conclude that making meaningless long posts is just as "productive" as writing ones that seem to make sense. :-) Perhaps a better way to get me to shut up is to say, "I haven't found your posts all that helpful and you seem to be getting in the way of this process, could you limit your comments to about what others (besides Human) write?" ;-) Lumenos (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * God you are an idiot. 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I admire your humility in addressing me as God, har har! I will put my next comment in a new location if that will help. Lumenos (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC) This is no time for praying, we have work to do! Lumenos (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not addressing you as God; if I did there would have been a comma. 02:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you but this time I didn't need the obvious spelled out. Lumenos (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Human, I am of the opinion that polls measure consensus, regardless of the history. Lumenos (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure you are. But you're wrong, when it comes to a wiki where people can edit as as many usernames as they want.  Also, polling is less useful that intelligent commentary and arguments.  05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this also applies to larger issues, I replied here. Lumenos (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [It was moved from that location to right below. Lumenos (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)]


 * Socks can be used for writing just as for "voting". You have that problem either way. A new person might not know how active all these usernames are, so socks may be deceptive, but should be less deceptive to experienced users. Polling is better to measure consensus. How do you measure consensus with arguments? Do you pick the arguments you like and say consensus has been reached? Is the last comment assumed to reflect everyone's will unless someone disagrees? I'm not saying take a vote, count the pseudonyms, and write whatever the "majority" vote for, as policy. I'm saying if we have a list of nyms that anyone can add/subtract theirs to at any time, we would have a much better idea of the community's will. As new information comes out, old polls may become obsolete. But if we don't vote on the version that goes to the policy page how will we know there is consensus? And what about everyone who wasn't around at that time? The primary problem with your approach is that it favors people like you and I, who feel more "entitled" to "attention". Pi is giving me the feeling I shouldn't post. I think the more polite/timid among us would be more inclined to cast a vote rather than bring the issue out to the talk page or even comment here. A editor may see no reason to bring it up unless they can look at the poll and see that there is significant support for their position. Lumenos (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When consensus is not apparent, we make no decision. Often, as it forms, people "outside" the developing consensus rethink their view and approve the decision.  You might want to explore the archives of this talk page, which is where we did this quite successfully.  01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a myth and does not exist. Usually it merely represents the wishes of the more forceful members of the community. 86.40.195.134 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you support polls, to correct or expose this? Lumenos (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't we normally poll issues, like delete/keep, merge/split and voting for crats? Although I have noticed in the later case people ignoring the vote and doing what they feel. Lumenous, it is not that I mind you posting, it is that you post some much and say so very little. I imagine that if we continue to follow your ideas we will get dragged down into a bureaucratic nightmare of endless polling over the smallest things. 02:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We've been down this road before (e.g. RationalWiki:Voting Procedure proposals). Excessive polling isn't helpful.  We only need to vote in cases where it's otherwise hard to gauge consensus.   17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What teh mustelid said. 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

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

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

Lumenos (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We are going to vote on the new standards before they are going to be adopted if that was the point of your latest wall of text. We will however venture to modify them to the point were nearly everyone is voting yes, or as few people as possible are voting no, so we will not be satisfied a simple majority. 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a start but it doesn't have most of the advantages I listed below. Lumenos (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What advantage? It seems to me that all that is discussed these days is endless policy bickering and you want to make it a perpetual state. I just want to get some policies down and get back to the site's mission instead of constantly debating the site itself. Take that shit to RationalWikiWiki if you are that interested. 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well one curiously ironic advantage (which is listed below) is that you could put any issues that you are interested in on your watchlist and exclude this one. Lumenos (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Using subpages to show supporters/detractors of "Community Standards"
Forget about using voting to determine what to put on the community standards page. I propose anyone has the option of making a link from any of the "[Community Standards]", to a subpage containing evidence of supporters or detractors. This page may (or may not) contain:
 * Polls that are always open, and have various versions of the community standard for people to sign to indicate they support or detract.
 * Other evidence of community opinion such as diffs that show editors statements on the subject.
 * (Original) comments.

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

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

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

Yes

 * Okay Pi. I agree with all Lumenos' good ideas, screw eir bad ones. Lumenos (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No

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


 * Not me. It's not even clearly an "idea". 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is it?
Presently, I'm wondering if I might be permitted to put footnotes in the Community Standards to the relavent discussions (scattered) throughout the archives. Lumenos (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why bother?
Polling the idea just validates the idea. Plus it's a waste of everyone's time. If anyone does support Lumenos's idea, they have every opportunity to say so, just by saying so. There's nothing you can say with a voting * that you can't also say in words. Since nobody other than Lumenos has expressed support for this idea, and until such time as anybody else does, can't we just draw a line under this & get back to actually discussing & updating the Community Standards? 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather just run a poll and that way he can't complain about his idea not being discussed (even though it is now the most discussed idea at the expense of the actual standards). This will probably go the way of CUR's idea that got his 2 for a about 10 or more against before it was voted that it was archived. 23:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's still humiliating for editors to have to express their objection to unnecessary polling by engaging in an unnecessary poll.  23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying to drive home the point. 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It fails because you are not doing it my way. It is a parody. Lumenos (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would like to post some evidence that I have ever "complained" about anything, this would be appreciated. Lumenos (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Weaseloid. I have a new proposal. That there be a footnote from the term "Community Standards" to say that these do not necessarily reflect the community at large (unless someone has some empirical verification of this). Lumenos (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They do reflect the community at large. That is why I opened this discussion, to ensure that on key points they still do and change them if necessary. 23:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying this is empirically verified by the archives? Lumenos (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read through them if you want. They had the support of most of the people that commented. There were a few noisy belligerent dissenters like yourself, but they were consensus at the time of passing. 23:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not want. Disorder it is. Lumenos (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you don't want to read through the archives, then I don't care about your claim of in not being empirically verified. 00:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would venture to guess that a small percentage of usernames participated. Lumenos (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I didn't claim that it wasn't empirically verified I proposed that we note that it wasn't necessarily empirically verified; meaning that we don't know. If you believe you do know you could indicate this in the poll I've created (currently) at the bottom of this section. Lumenos (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why "guess", idiot? Some of us were there and it was heavily participated in.  02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was only here for the part where a poll demonstrated that something somehow got onto that page when "four" bureaucrats later voted against it, and no one exactly voted "for" it (except you). Thus I created the following poll to ask the experienced community here what their perception is. Lumenos (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Poll created by Lumenos: Have you seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate that all the Community Standards are supported by the large majority of editors at this site?

Yea:
 * See the links AT THE TOP OF THIS FUCKING TALK PAGE YOU MORON! 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I suspect you might be one of the few who might have been able to observe the majority of the community participating in forming every last "community standard", but I imagine that you were the most influential and therefore there is a great risk of bias. Lumenos (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nay:
 * I have been here more than five minutes and did not come with my own preconceived notions of how this wiki should be run, so I was able to see them being formed and debated. I also bothered to read the archives fully. 12:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lumenos (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving this section elsewhere
It does no service to the CS discussion. I suggest moving to a subpage of talk user:lunemos. 02:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose archiving it.  07:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose archiving it when everything else is archived. Lumenos (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Archiving a community standards discussion whilst others are on going is not unprecedented, we did it to one of CUR's suggestions when it was interfering with the previous revamp. 12:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I have copied this section to two subpages, one that I edit as I see fit and another where I employ the typical talk page conventions (of Wikipedia). Lumenos (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

More lumenocrap
Per Human's suggestion, I copied this section to this subpage and Weaseloid deleted the section from here. I prefer to have the discussion in the subpage also. Lumenos (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [Some have expressed concern that I have altered the page a little. I often "correct" my comments if I find something that was wrong with them. I usually note this unless no one has "replied directly to it" by indenting under the comment. The timestamp on my comments may be important. (Lumenos) ~ That blind moron (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)]
 * Apparently someone put a version in the archive as well, unbeknownst to me. I didn't create this section, it was left out of the archive, I suppose by Weaseliod (but I don't know). I may have deleted comments from this section because it seemed like that is what Weaseloid did. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The document is now on this subpage and that other page may become like this eventually, if that is okay. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If a sort of "snarkiness" (lumeno-criticism) is allowed, it may become like this. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lumeno-criticism"??? what the hell is your problem? P-Foster (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Lumenos's countless moves and modifications, this section is completely useless now. Noone new to the discussion will be able to figure out what the fuck is going on here. This section should be archived. 89.132.239.149 (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone will want to delete it instead. I'm not exactly a team player. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Vote on votes
The vote to vote is voted upon by voting. The voting is then refactored to vote more vote-liciously. This involves, of course, a vote. In this vote, we demonstrate that voting for votes votes votes in. Example votes are voted on and, in Soviet Russia, vote on you. - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True! 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

Proposal: Proposal for proposal
An abandoned talk page suffers a breach of subreality. William S. Burroughs is seen walking along the quayside, and the original linear footage has been rearranged into a mathematically precise cutting ratio at 12 frames (or two cuts per second). Following this brief exposition, the writing is reinterpreted as a pure cinematic technique. Participants in the process of meaning-mincing use a suffocating blanket of words to stupefy all rational thought. - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Veracity indeed. 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Corrected. Still veracious - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Stop me before I kill again
Lean customer engagement value justification social media benchmarking personalized interconnected sincere voice user-directed market identity. Strategic promotainment visibility 'wow'-factor network actionable content optimisation wiki analytics B2E brandstorming corporate DNA semantic mapping please dear Lord stop me before I kill again Obama effect synergy ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn research embedding. I sing the song that ends the Earth. - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So accurate. 23:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

I don 't know who keeps bringing this drivel back to this page. It's funny, yes, but completely useless. 05:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny how you never apply that approach ("it may be funny, but it's useless") to our articles.  05:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shut the fuck up, asshole, and pay attention to the context. 05:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FrankThePseudoscientist (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry frank, I had to reply to the little prick above your template. 05:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Human vs. RA: ROund 16. FIGHT!!!!! FrankThePseudoscientist (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: How to form proposals
A state of insufficient rules shall be corrected by instigating top-heavy generalisations from single cases. Animosity should be invoked in their writing as far as possible. Particular chicken beheadings should be sought out and, if RationalWiki's law of doublings is to be realised, induced to compensate for the participation level compared to Wikipedia. Such a thicket of rules is the best way to protect free speech and encourage participation - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lame and useless. You pride yourself of being intelligent and calling Lumenos' ideas "bilge"?  You embarrass yourself with your pointless ravings here.  08:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a description of how you're composing things now. I suggest it's not a good way to go - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And now the process includes Lumenos literally trying to run polls on polls. Good thing Human thinks this is valuable and interesting, rather than already a complete derailment as it appears to be, otherwise I might be inclined to just take the piss - David Gerard (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does it appear to be a derailment? because I mix a little weird humour here and there? Polls in polls are not impossible to follow. I provide antivote invention, free of charge (charges may apply for commercial use)  . We have infinite space to expand on. I don't mind a little re-factoring (as I have done) to make the page clearer, if you think this would help. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this page needs some major re-factoring alright, starting with re-factoring David's oh so witty proposals and Lumenos's bullshit off of this page. -- Nx  / talk 12:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Deletion log); 18:25 . . Nx (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/talk" (WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING????) I was going to move my and Gerard's stuff there, in light of your suggestion. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you should leave that to someone who understands archiving. -- Nx  / talk 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Like who? I think you are trying to do too much on one page. Human attempted archiving Gerard's reaction to me. Archiving may be used to inconvenience/censor ideas that may not be popular presently (among the cabalish). This may lead to edit wars or discontent. In the meantime, the page grows. How long is too long? ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of my opinion and your subsequent opinion are, well, full of shit. Completely full of shit, if you read my comments.  Now go fuck yourself, asshole. Lumenos is as equally valuable to this site - if not more so - than you.  Get over your fucking Bronze Silver Gold Boring ego already.  08:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * DRAMA!!!!!!! --Idiot number 57 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed #57! Some serious divatry is this hizzag. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)